Roger wrote,
(Geoff) "Things are just not that simple. There are distortions associated with speakers, with room acoustics anomalies such as slap echo, standing waves, reflected waves, with the effects of seismic vibration, the effects of mechanical vibration of motors, transforrmers, etc., the effects of static electric fields on the CD or LP and cables, the effects of induced magnetic fields in the wires and cables, the very large induced magnetic fields in large honking transformers, distortions resulting from wire and cable and fuses being installed in the wrong direction, distortions due to local environmental influences (Morphic fields), improper speaker set up, not to mention weather effects, sun spots effects, time of day effects. In other words in order to achieve "live" the audiophile who is attempting to get into audio nirvana must pay attention to everything, not just the speed of acoustic waves in air."
(Roger) "All of this is true except if the last reference - "not just the speed of waves in air" is not dealt with your system will never produce live no matter how much control you have over the vibrations. The velocity has to be right or you are wasting your time."
Of course you would say that. That’s your bread and butter. That’s what they all say, the aftermarket fuse guys, the speaker manufacturers, the cable manufacturers. Audio nirvana can be yours if you just buy this product!
By the way, Nice of you to say everything on my list of distortion producers is all true. Actually I am a little surprised you agreed so quickly. You agreed to sun spots and Morphic fields? Lol
But I say, if you don’t take care of the rest of the producers of distortion, the ones I listed, it’s actually YOU who is wasting his time. You might be the missing link. But get in line. There are a lot of missing links in this hobby.
No man is an island. He's a peninsula.
Cheerios
geoff kait
machina dynamica
advanced audio conceits
|
The Fasten Seat Belts sign just can on.
;-) |
Atmosphere wrote,
"Well it was easy to hear on our system how the LP was better; and since LPs have greater bandwidth than CDs, pretty easy to discount his comment when he said ’you can’t hear it on analog recordings’."
But that’s not what he said based on your original description of the event. What he said - or at least implied in your comment - was he didn’t listen to analog, only CDs so he wasn’t sure he could hear R compared to N for vinyl. He didn’t say NOBODY could hear polarity on analog recordings. That would be pretty silly, no?
Getting back to his database of N and R recordings for a second, I will ask again, do you see any mistakes in the polarity of the recordings George listed? Whether he could or couldn’t hear the difference at your room I consider somewhat irrelevant for reasons I already explained.
geoff kait |
Back to the question I am now asking for the third (count ’em) time. The real question is is (two is’s in a row) George’s database correct or not? In other words do you have any evidence or even proof that he’s wrong? Forget about analog.
By the way, if you read George’s page more carefully you’ll find some (I think) logic reasoning there that might substantiate the idea that analog (vinyl) and perhaps cassettes as well don’t suffer the inverting polarity nearly to the extent that digital does. In any ace he is arguing that the vinyl counterpart can often be non-inverting whereas the CD version is R. And, he goes on, this difference in polarity between digital and vinyl generally speaking, is a big reason my words why audiophiles frequently prefer analog. Makes sense, no? So here is the relevant paragraph from George’s page:
"It almost goes without saying that the inverted playback of CDs greatly disadvantages them musically when compared to the non-inverted playback of their vinyl record counterparts. It should be noted that the polarity integrity of each element in the chain of a vinyl record’s recording through its playback can be determined without ever listening to it in a manner similar to that described below for digital media, but is much easier to accomplish for vinyl records than for CDs, because a record’s musical content is laid down continuously in its groove, which is fundamentally different from the discontinuous way the digital representation of a CD’s musical content is laid down in its track. Could this be a major reason why many listeners prefer analog to digital?** Sometimes there are additional reasons, that although substantially less significant, might influence some listener’s preference of vinyl records over digital media that you may read about below.*
So, even if you don’t buy into the problem of polarity being as big as George claims, say you think it’s 50% or whatever and perhaps you also don’t particularly care to check the polarity of every single CD and mark it Out Of Polarity like some people I know. Nevertheless, and as unfortunate as this may be, since absolute polarity is also an issue with (some) digital playback electronics, and I know that’s true because I had a CD player that was polarity inverting, unless the True Audiophile has some means to determine if in fact his system is in the correct absolute polarity, then at least 50% of the time he will be hearing the music in Reverse Polarity, no? Furthermore, even if one were to be really stubborn or in denial or whatever and say, Geez, I don’t think any CDs are Reverse Polarity, guess what? In that case ALL CDs will be heard as R since the system with an inverting component in it reverses polarity, so you wind up with the music out of polarity.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.
cheerios,
geoff kait
|
Atmasphere wrote,
"Such a Red Herring! We don’t even know that such is even true... sheesh."
what you mean "we", Kemo Sabe?
Atmasphere also wrote,
"Anyway, we let George hear the CD (so this was not an analog/digital thing at all) but he couldn’t make the call on that one, despite telling us initially that the room sounded fine other than being the wrong polarity. Can you see the problem?"
I already explained all that.
No answer to my question yet, I duly note.
geoff kait
machina dramatica
|
Atmasphere wrote,
"Because of these factors inverting the phase is often not audible. You need a purist recording; everything has to be right in order to hear it. We included the phase inversion switch on our preamps on account of the fact that its a real pain in the rear to reverse the phase at the speaker terminals for each recording!"
I participated in John Curl and Bob Crump’s room a couple times at CES way back at the turn of the century and (of course) the Curl/Crump/Thompson Blowtorch preamp used in the room had a polarity switch. A very expensive one I might add. And Bob brought a lot of his own CDs with him to the show to demonstrate that polarity is audible. Very audible. Also in the room was another audio insider, Clark Johnsen, who, as you probably recall, wrote the book on absolute polarity. The CDs that Bob used for the demo were actually not purist recordings. They were good recordings but not purist recordings. Maybe you need a better polarity switch. ;-)
Clark Johnsen in Positive Feedback:
"For that sorry state of affairs, you can blame the commercial audio press. For whatever reason, hardly a whiff of this vital phenomenon ever appears in those precincts. Ultimate Audio, with two feature articles, became by default an exemplar of polarity awareness—quite so, as ultimate audio cannot be achieved without it! A personal disclaimer: I have often called polarity the sine qua non of correct audio practice. As author of the only book on the topic (The Wood Effect: Unaccounted Contributor to Error and Confusion in Acoustics and Audio, ISBN 0-929383-00-1), which explains everything, I naturally applaud the renewed attention. And I remember how Michael Gindi, an Ultimate Audio contributor, once toured the Stereophile Show chanting, "If you can’t hear the Wood Effect, you can’t hear!" I expect he still stands by that, though nary a peep recently."
geoff kait
machina dynamica |
Map man wrote,
"atmasphere says phase switch may not always be audible. Geoff say it was in certain cases cited."
Funny, nobody has actually been able to point to ANY errors in the Polarity Database. That being the case I suspect we’ll just have to live with 90% of audiophile CD recordings being polarity inverted and press onward. Hell, the phase anomalies in the listening room alone are sufficiently great to swamp a perfect recording, a perfect amp, perfect speakers. Many contented audiophiles are sitting right directly in the middle of a standing wave, anyway. Who’s zooming who?
But getting back to the point of my bringing up polarity in the first place, can Roger’s amp really provide the "live" experience with issues of polarity and compression and room anomalies?
g. kait
machina dynamica |
Roger wrote,
"geoffkait: And bad news for Rogers claim that his amp, the way it preserves the speed of sound, is the key to getting "live" sound, since statistically on 20% or so of recordings are in correct polarity."
-- First, please note my statement you quoted doesn’t imply or claim that your amp doesn’t address the speed of sound issue or perhaps even solve the speed of sound problem. What I am saying is rather different.
Roger wrote,
"Are you saying that your own system is not right 80% of the time but you still enjoy it - yes?"
-- No, I’m not saying that at all. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Strawman arguments are something I’m not find of. Lol What I’m actually saying is that no matter how well your amp addresses the speed of sound issue - assuming that a more "live" sound can be achieved, as you claim, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt - if the recording is statistically 80-90% R (as George claims) I.e., the sound waves are going in when they should be going out, then Mach 1 consistency in the amp can’t save you! Hel-loo!
There are a lot of things I don’t like about recordings, especially CDs. Frankly I think CDs straight out of the jewel box generally sound thin, compressed, two dimensional, metallic, rolled off, bass shy, like paper mâché, congealed, blaring, irritating, generic and bland. How much of that is caused by the R nature of the CD, who knows? And I’m even willing to admit that some of all that might possibly be caused by Mach numbers being out of whack.
Roger wrote,
"Food for thought...
If you can’t tell the difference when you switch the phase then it [the system] is not clean enough to expose it."
That’s what I just got through telling Atmasphere is the likely explanation why George Louis was unable to hear the difference between R and N in the Atmasphere room at the show. The show is perhaps the worst possible venue to try to demonstrate anything, including the very speakers and amps and cables that make up the exhibit; exhibitors shoot themselves in the foot by not bringing along electonics or speakers that are ALREADY broken in.
geoff kait
machina dynamica |
Al wrote, "Hopefully Roger will provide further clarification, as a claim that "the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier" (that being Geoff’s restatement of Roger’s position), or to use some of Roger’s words earlier in the thread, "emulating the properties of air" and "addressing the delivery speed" are statements that have no meaning as far as I am concerned." Al, go to this page on the N. American Products thread for Roger’s discourse on the subject of the speed of sound in air issue, https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/has-anyone-heard-the-new-north-american-products-preamp-and-a...cheers |
Houston we have a problem. Most recordings, including many of the ones audiophiles cherish, actually invert polarity. Who cares if the velocity of air in the recording venture is maintained by the time the recording is played in the listening room. Who cares if the velocity of air is maintained if the trumpet sounds like the musician is sucking instead of blowing? Hel-ooooo! Even many or most of the recordings audiophiles REALLY cherish are out of polarity. You know the ones I’m talking about, Mercury Living Presence, Deutsche Gramophone, Proprius, Columbia Kind of Blue, Opus 3 Depth of Image, in that vein.
|
|
Not being one to beat a dead horse, of course, but according to the database of recordings vs polarity which one assumes is not obviously the complete listing of everything ever recorded, let’s not be ridiculous, but what is interesting is that actually just scanning the list of recordings, marked N for normal (correct polarity) and R for REVERSED/INVERTED polarity, the number of recordings that INVERT polarity far outnumber the ones that don’t. By the way, the entire label Deutsches Gramophon are apparently R not just 50%. It appears the percentage of R recordings on the list which includes a lot of audiophile labels is probably higher than 80%. Also note that Mapleshade recordings are marked N. Which actually makes sense, you know, that correlates to how they sound. Now, you see why I started my last post with, Houston we have a problem.
|
Al, Here’s the link to the polarity database that George Louis compiled. Draw your own conclusions. The reason I brought this up on this particular thread is because you had just asked what the speed of sound had to do with the price of spinach. Which was actually the question I asked last week on another thread and which Roger answered. The connection of course is that Roger claims that the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier. With inverted polarity, with the trumpet being sucked instead of blown it’s almost like the Acoustic Waves of the musician’s breath and coming from the trumpet are traveling backwards. So forget about keeping the velocity of sound in air consistent (Roger’s term is Mach 1) between the recording venue and the listening room. Obviously there are other potential issues but if 80 or 90 percent of audiophile type recordings are in fact R then that would be big news. And bad news for Rogers claim that his amp, the way it preserves the speed of sound, is the key to getting "live" sound, since statistically on 20% or so of recordings are in correct polarity. The situation is further complicated because some recordings that are inverted R will play as N on some systems, since in those systems there is one component that inverts polarity. http://ultrabitplatinum.com/the-polarity-list/geoff kait machina dynamica no goats no glory |
Atmosphere, in George’s defense many systems at shows are not broken in at all or/and are not set up properly, thus it can be rather difficult to tell the difference in sound. In other words, just because he was unable to tell the difference on that occasion doesn’t necessarily mean he can’t usually hear the difference between R and N. Can you hear the difference between R and N? I trust you’re not saying that the whole polarity issue is bunk. It wouldn't take that much trouble to double check some of the labels or titles that George Louis includes in the database. As I said of the few he lists as N Mapleshade recordings IMHO do sound like they are almost certainly N.
|
I should also point out that George’s criterion for determining which is better N or R for a given recording is that it’s one that sounds more like "live" music must be N. Roger’s criterion is the same, I.e., "live" music, for what his amp sounds like compared to amplifier X. In fact audiophiles generally speaking are fond of using the SAME CRITERION for what the home playback system should sound like or at least strive for - "live" music. Same question for Al: do you think the polarity issue is bunk or only George's list. Can you point to any recordings on George's list that are R that you think should be N Or vice versa? |
Roger wrote,
"How does the inverted polarity dismiss my claim about a stable velocity?"
Actually, it doesn't dismiss your claim about a stable velocity. Score one for Roger.
Cheers
|
There is no dividing line between classical physics and quantum physics. It kind of is what it is. As I already commented on subject of nanoscale things just because something is very very small doesn’t necessarily mean that quantum physics is involved. That’s why we refer to physics of atom, which I am pretty sure just about everybody considers really really small, as atomic physics, not atomic quantum physics. Now if you were to mention something about the de Broglie limit or perhaps quantum entanglement or even quantum confinement then maybe we would have something quantum to discuss. Are you using artificial atoms? Until then, color me skeptical. Oh, you could also quote some Roger Penrose, you know, the math genius who had some kind of hallucination or epiphany or something and wrote a book, The Emperor's New Mind, in which he addresses Quantum Physics of the Mind. Is that what you’re driving at? Well, that’s different! Lol
geoff kait
MachinaDynamica.com
we do artificial atoms right!
|
But that's avoiding the whole question. You're the one who brought it up. Hel-loo! So tell us, what is the quantum mechanics involved. I'm very interested. Seriously. Don't play hard to get. Share, share! If you don't wish to divulge top secret information just talk in code, I'll get it. ;-)
geoff at Machina Dramatica
|
Somebody forgot a little smiley face at the end of that post? Or did my favorite bleating goat get an atomic wedgie? Have you given any consideration to going back to school, maybe take some, you know, remedial physics?
have a nice day,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica |
Roger wrote,
"But wait - how could I do this without a degree?
The government came to me based on my reputation and "waived" the legal requirement that you must have a degree for that position. They did not care - they knew I was capable of fixing problems that the "college boys" couldn’t figure out."
The Government always waives degrees in lieu of experience. Geez. You’re not the only one who ever worked in Government, in sensitive areas, or on weapon systems, although to be fair it appears you worked on logistics (deployment) or some such thing. You were a scheduler, I take it. Geez, get a swelled head much? Maybe those guards outside your door weren’t there for the reason you believe. Yes, I'm only joking.
geoff kait
machina dramatica |
Roger wrote,
"I never applied for jobs at any of those agencies - The DEA, the FBI and the DOD all used "head hunters" to find me and asked for my help based in my spotless reputation for troubleshooting and finding answers where their own people failed."
Well, good for you. By the way that’s how the system works, agencies use head hunters to find people. They are always looking for people to fill slots. They can always use good schedulers or loggies or whatever. That’s the way it’s always been. Geez. Let me remind you that you still owe me some sort of explanation of the quantum physics you constantly refer to, but it looks like you’re going to high tail it out of here before you have a chance. Lol So far you have a spotless reputation for dropping cool sounding physics names like quantum mechanics and cool sounding employers if they’re the sort of thing that turns you on but avoiding any further discussion of what in Tarnation you’re talking about.
Roger wrote,
"I'm done."
Done what? You haven't done anything yet.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica
Men Who Stare at Goats
no goats no glory
|
|
Roger wrote,
"geoffkait,
With all due respect - I don’t owe anyone an explanation for anything I do.
You can’t get passed the basics of my concept of constant velocity amplification even after trying 6 different ways to explain it. It obviously will never compute. 700 db doesn’t have to be scary."
I actually understood your argument concerning speed of sound in air. I never said it was impossible or any such thing. Although I can certainly understand your defensive posture, I actually might be the only one who did understand your explanation from what I can tell. Also, just for the record I’m not the one who challenged you on the 700 dB thing. That happens to have been someone else. What I did challenge on was your name dropping of the fancy expression quantum mechanics, which although you continue to use it you have failed rather conspicuously to explain what you mean.
"Here is another fact - you can’t win this argument."
I wouldn’t bet on it. Besides, I’m not really sure you know exactly what argument you have with me. ;-)
"You have a very rigid mindset.
Maybe the tin foil hat is blocking it."
i think you are probably reacting a little defensively. I have been designing quantum mechanical products for years. Besides I’m allergic to tin.
"I sincerely wish you luck."
Back at ya!
geoff kait
machina dynamica
we do artificial atoms right
|
Roger wrote,
"geoffkait,
You are really an ok guy and I would love to tell you what i’m doing that involves (you know what) but nah....
If I did tell you - you would actually agree with me and we would be on the same page.
I think I have said too much already.
I have too much legal stuff going on right now.
I hope you understand."
Oh, I understand, all right. :-)
Looking on the positive side of all of this at least you didn’t say if you told me you’d have to kill me. Good luck with all the legal stuff. Wink wink
Your quantum bro',
Geoff Kait
machina dynamica
advanced audio conceits
|
Wolfman, that’s rather interesting. And right on cue. That’s actually the field I worked in for quite some time. That was 36 years ago. Would you believe Hedy Lamarr (yes, the glamorous actress) was the inventor of spread spectrum communications? You know, WWII. |
Roger wrote,
"Everything is relative."
+1
Discretely,
geoff kait
machina dynamica
masters of time and space
|
Have words lost their meaning? Words and terms like smooth, refined, detailed, wide soundstage, organized soundstage, bass shy, microdynamics, de-interleaved, irritating, tortuous, threadbare, innocuous, harsh, whimpy, congealed, boomy, honky, musical, open, metallic, electronic, wet, liquid, anemic, bland and so forth attempt to describe the sound. But the usual audiophile words have become meaningless or trite. Maybe we need a new lexicon.
|
geoffkait: "Maybe we need a new lexicon."
To which Roger responded,
"How about real or not real?
Believable or not believable?"
Not bad, but I prefer Hyper Real, Surreal and More Real than Real. Oh, and Unbelievable! or perhaps Un-freaking-believable!
|
No one ever said they were neutral. |
"One thing you can’t hide is when you’re broken inside."
"...bull frog’s croakin’...everything is broken."
As fate would have it the system shoots itself in the foot, what with the induced magnetic field produced by current flowing through all cables and wiring including those big honking transformers AND the RFI/EMI generate by the house AC as well as all those cute little microprocessing chips. Chips Ahoy! If you haven’t addressed those issues it’s not neutral, trust me. I don’t blame anyone for putting the issues on ignore.
|
I just knew Mopman would ignore that post. Mopman is mopping the floor with me again. He’s fast on the trigger and the mop. Mopman is the Catcher in the Rye for young naive gullible folks just starting out.
Lacking in sincerity? I'm as serious as a colonoscopy without anesthesia.
You can’t persuade someone who’s made up his mind a long time ago. ~ Old audiophile axiom |
You might have no control over the issues I brought up but I do, Mopman. Why on Earth would I bring up issues I have no control over? I wouldn't. Probably just wishful thinking on your part. |
|
Wolfman, solid core interconnects are not spiraled. And shielding assuming they have such doesn’t protect against induced magnetic fields, only external RFI/EMI. Hum bucking is not generally employed for transformers although as you suggest it should be. Not to mention that all exposed internal wiring, even the wiring that’s spiraled, capacitors, chips, etc. are subject to the rather large magnetic fields produced by large transformers. |
Balanced can reduce what? And how? I'm very curious to know.
|
Cleeds, that’s actually what I thought, what with the third wire. But read what I said, I’m not talking about RFI/EMI. I’m taking about magnetic fields. |
Hi, atmosphere, sorry but no it’s not. EMI is radio frequency interference just like RFI. It’s an electromagnetic wave. Unlike its ugly cousin magnetic field which is a stationary field. Both EMI and RFI are light speed. The other difference obviously is what I'm referring to is the induced mag field whereas EMI is an external radio frequency interference. I trust my post doesn’t sound too much like I’m all jacked up on cafe lattes.
|
Mopman, RFI and EMI are the same thing, I.e., radio frequency interference. Reading comprehension required on this thread. Fasten your seatbelt, ladies, laddies, lattes, whatever. |
Of course the real point is that EMI is not magnetic field. Which is what my original post was addressing. I.e., that shielding is effective for RFI/EMI but not for either external magnetic fields such as those produced by transformers or induced magnetic fields such as produced by current running through cables and wires. I used to work on the ELF program which transmits at 75 Hz so yes, I’m quite familiar with low frequency radio frequencies. Just because some people might not consider it a radio frequency it actually IS a radio frequency.
|
Actually radio frequencies are electromagnetic waves. I realize it sounds repetitive but RF is not magnetic fields, which are stationary fields. It should be obvious that magnetic fields are not the same thing at all as electromagnetic waves. If they were the same then magnetic fields would be flying all around the room at light speed, which of course they are not. They’re stationary. Recall the experiment with iron filings and a magnet? The magnetic lines of flux are stationary. Everyone and his brother knows that the intensity of the magnetic field is inversely proportional to the distance from the conductor in the case of induced magnetism. This is not true for radio waves. And the fact radio waves don’t attenuate like magnetic fields allows extremely low frequency radio waves like ELF at 75Hz to be used for long distance communications. The last time I looked nobody is using magnetic fields for communications. Even the units are different, V/meter and Gauss. Thus, when setting out to eliminate or reduce magnetic field intensity one requires high permeability materials, not shielding.
|
Radio waves do not follow the inverse square law like magnetic fields. If they did we would be unable to talk to astronauts on the moon or to send transmissions out into the galaxy you know SETI and all that. Radio waves don’t attenuate in vacuum of space and the only reason they attenuate in free space of Earth’s atmosphere is because of losses due to absorption and scattering. The reason ELF works is actually because the transmit power is 1M watts and because the preamps on the receive side are extremely sensitive. But getting back to my real point for just a sec, shielding protects the conductor from external EMI/RFI but not from it’s own induced magnetic field. That’s why I said cables and power cords shoot themselves in the foot. End of argument.
|
If what you are attempting to claim was actually true they would need repeaters every twenty feet as opposed to every 25 miles or whatever. When transmitting to a satellite at 23K miles there are no repeaters! Hel-loo! |
What does all that have to do with the price of spinach? The shielding in cables protects the cables from external radio frequencies but does nothing to protect the audio signal from the induced magnetic field. And the reason is because the induced magnetic field is a different issue and requires a different solution. It's name is high permeability. But I repeat myself. You guys can’t seem to see the forest for the trees. And for transformers the (induced) magnetic field is an even bigger issue. And manufacturers apparently do precious little about it from what I can see. It's almost like they're oblivious. The electron tubes are usually sitting right out in front on those big old transformers. Like sitting ducks.
|
|
Thanx for the comic relief, Mopman but would you try to refrain from using my lines? |
Mopman, no need to make this personal. Let's keep this civil. If you have something bothering you it's probably best to save the drama for Dr. Phil.
|
Al wrote,
"I did not and do not express any opinion about the effectiveness of shielding with respect to magnetic fields. I don’t feel I can comment on that question in a knowledgeable manner without devoting more time to studying it than I care to devote."
No problem, Al. But that’s what the discussion happens to be about. I hate to judge too quickly but it appears I'm the only one here with actual experience in controlling magnetic fields, the induced magnetic fields in cables, power cords and transformers. |
Mop man, if in fact you're using mu metal then you should understand what I'm talking about. Very strange. Oh, well....
|
Rodman, you don’t say. I was designing satellite systems when you were wearing bell bottoms. |
Thanks for the psychoanalysis, Mopman. I suggest you high tail it over to your nearest library and hawk up on magnetic fields and electromagnetic waves before posting on this thread again.
Have a nice day
|
Rodman, good comeback. Cough, cough. |
Mopman wrote,
""Thanks for the psychoanalysis, Mopman. "
Mocking my moniker makes me doubt your sincerity but you are welcome anyhow. I sincerely hope it helps but I will manage my expectations there."
You catch on quick, grasshopper. ;-)
|
"geoffkait may be one of those people who believe math and science are intuitive. Perhaps - for real math wizards - it is intuitive. But for most of us, it isn't. Even Einstein said he struggled with math.
It's probably futile to try and explain this to geoffkait, although atmasphere deserves kudos for trying."
i do not believe math and science are intuitive. I am actually a big believer in experimentation. An experiment is worth a thousand words. Am I an experimental physicist? Probably, although my education was theoretical physics. I'm with Einstein, I'll let others do the math. But I know what numbers mean.
|
Atmosphere, there you go again, putting words in my mouth. I never said they did travel at the speed of light in cables. Actually I went out of my way to explain the difference between the speed of an EM wave in a vacuum and one in cables. You might not remember that Einstein found the speed of light was constant - in a vacuum. I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I’m beginning to suspect your reading comprehension skill is quite possibly as rusty as your physics.
|
