Quote:
That's strange, why would someone who knows how electricity works be afraid of a little argument?

If you have a position to present, please do so.

So far all you have produced is an attempt to deride an accurate description of how current flows in a wire. When called on it, you finally looked it up. This is great, but does not constitute discourse.

So what's your theory, argument or idea that you want to discuss?

Quote:

9. "Quantum pushes" that Elk refers to

Just to be clear, this isn't my concept.

Free electrons are contained in the wire. These free electrons move from one atom to another producing an electron flow. Each electron in essence pushes the one ahead of it to occupy the latter's space in the atomic field.

It's just basic physics.

Quote:
Free electrons are contained in the wire. These free electrons move from one atom to another producing an electron flow. Each electron in essence pushes the one ahead of it to occupy the latter's space in the atomic field.

It's just basic physics.

Err, um, whoa there. What you're saying isn't exactly wrong, but could lead someone in the wrong direction.

It's the travelling wave around the wire that pushes the electrons, which keep the wave travelling along the wire.

Consider, 63.5 grams of copper is one mole of copper, containing 6.02*10^23 atoms, and since it's one conduction electron per atom, about the same number of conduction electrons.

Say we have a 3.16 mm square conductor (just using comfortable units here), and 9 gram/cc mass. This makes the 1 mole wire about 63/9 = 7 cc's. 1 mm^3 is 1/1000th of a cc, and the area of the wire is 10 mm^2, for about 100mm of length per cc. That means the 1 mole wire will be around 700 mm long, or .7 meters, give or take.

Now, let us put 1 amp through it. That is, approximately, 6 * 10^18 electrons per second leaving the end of the wire (we'll do DC here).

There are 6*10^23 conduction electrons in the wire. That means that each electron moves .7 (length of wire in meters)*6*10^18/(6*10^23), or about .7 * 10^-5 meters per second. Or 7*10^-7 (no, -6!), or about 7 micrometers/second.

(Edited to add: Yikes, no, 7 * 10^-6 !!!!)

Now, I know this isn't exactly what you said, and you don't have it exactly wrong, but this is the average drift velocity of an electron in the wire example given above.

Quote:

Quote:

9. "Quantum pushes" that Elk refers to

Just to be clear, this isn't my concept.

Free electrons are contained in the wire. These free electrons move from one atom to another producing an electron flow. Each electron in essence pushes the one ahead of it to occupy the latter's space in the atomic field.

It's just basic physics.

That's all fine and dandy, and you're probably right, it's just basic physics. But i'm still puzzled. Return with us now to the original question, which has to do with the outside of the cable jacket, you know, where the anti-static treatment is applied. How does the anti-static treatment, cloth or ionizer, on the outside surface of the cable impact the basic physics, as you say, of the flow of electrons in the conductor?

Quote:
Or 7*10^-7, or about 7 micrometers/second.

Now, I know this isn't exactly what you said, and you don't have it exactly wrong, but this is the average drift velocity of an electron in the wire example given above.

Cool info, j_j!

It is a traveling wave and electrons do indeed move.

I've seen a number of macro-world analogies, such as water through a house or a line of marbles but in some ways these make understanding what is going on even more difficult.

Electricity is incredibly fascinating.

Quote:
How does the anti-static treatment, cloth or ionizer, on the outside surface of the cable impact the basic physics, as you say, of the flow of electrons in the conductor?

If you look back, I responded to your position that "the signal doesn't run on the outer portion of the jacket."

I explained to you that the current occupies a field outside, but very close to the wire.

I don't have a position on whether anti-static treatment influences the field and, if it does, how and to what extent.

Quote:

Quote:
How does the anti-static treatment, cloth or ionizer, on the outside surface of the cable impact the basic physics, as you say, of the flow of electrons in the conductor?

If you look back, I responded to your position that "the signal doesn't run on the outer portion of the jacket."

I explained to you that the current occupies a field outside, but very close to the wire.

I don't have a position on whether anti-static treatment influences the field and, if it does, how and to what extent.

Let's recap:

(1) It doesn't make sense that the music signal runs on the outer portion of the cable jacket. I was not referring to the current or voltage.

(2) It doesn't make sense that current or voltage runs on the outer portion of the cable jacket.

(3) The only thing that makes sense is that magnetic fields (perpendicular to the current flow) extend to the outer surface of cable (and beyond).

However, it doesn't make sense that anti-static treatments would affect the magnetic field. So, it's quite puzzling, don't you think, that anti-static treatments of various types applied to the outer surface of the cable jacket are reported to improve the sound.

Are we all caught up now?

Quote:

Quote:
Or 7*10^-7, or about 7 micrometers/second.

Now, I know this isn't exactly what you said, and you don't have it exactly wrong, but this is the average drift velocity of an electron in the wire example given above.

Cool info, j_j!

It is a traveling wave and electrons do indeed move.

I've seen a number of macro-world analogies, such as water through a house or a line of marbles but in some ways these make understanding what is going on even more difficult.

Electricity is incredibly fascinating.

Well, the -7 should be -6, but that makes the 7 micrometers/second right. Silly typokinesis.

The marble or water analogy isn't completely awful, PRESSURE travels much faster along either than the actual water or marbles, both of which are quite incompressible.

Quote:

Let's recap:

(1) It doesn't make sense that the music signal runs on the outer portion of the cable jacket. I was not referring to the current or voltage.

The music signal is carried by the voltage and current. The field causing the transmission of voltage and current extends beyond the conductor, in a non-coax cable beyond the cable itself.

Quote:

(2) It doesn't make sense that current or voltage runs on the outer portion of the cable jacket.

The EM wave that transmits the audio signal, which consists of e field and m field, which cause the voltage and current at the far end, certainly extend beyond the conductor, and as such, the information, etc, certainly extends beyond the cable in a non-coax arrangement.

This is what happens. Your "makes sense" is a classical appeal to the fallacy of incredulity. The fact it doesn't make sense to you has no effect (or affect for that matter) on the actual E and H fields.

Quote:

(3) The only thing that makes sense is that magnetic fields (perpendicular to the current flow) extend to the outer surface of cable (and beyond).

As do e-fields orthogonal to the magnetic field, as long as we're talkign about non-coax cables.

Quote:

However, it doesn't make sense that anti-static treatments would affect the magnetic field.

But since it's conductive, it will increase the capacitance of the cable, and thereby affect the e-field which also extends. Geeze, man. Not by much is my suspicion, though.

Quote:

So, it's quite puzzling, don't you think, that anti-static treatments of various types applied to the outer surface of the cable jacket are reported to improve the sound.

Are we all caught up now?

Well, it's not at all puzzling that anything is THOUGHT to change the sound.

It is not at all puzzling that a highly conductive coating (if that is what the antistatic turns out to be) would change the results in a non-coax cable, at least under very specific and sensitive conditions.

As to coax, IF the shield is absolutely uniform, these effects (neither magnetic nor electric) apply. As we all know, perfect shields are not possible in the real world.

Quote:

Well, it's not at all puzzling that anything is THOUGHT to change the sound.

I move we establish a panel of inquiry for Ken H. since he was the one who reported that an anti-static cloth on his cable's surface improved the sound.

Quote:
It is not at all puzzling that a highly conductive coating (if that is what the antistatic turns out to be) would change the results in a non-coax cable, at least under very specific and sensitive conditions.

The Mapleshade, Furutech or Acoustic Revive ion generators most likely cannot be described as producing a "highly conductive coating." Or the Music Gun from Xtreme AV (toumaline ion generator). Perhaps the Nordost anti-static spray is highly conductive, but not sure. Is laundry anti-static spray conductive?

Quote:
As to coax, IF the shield is absolutely uniform, these effects (neither magnetic nor electric) apply. As we all know, perfect shields are not possible in the real world.

The ion generators and anti-static cloths and sprays are claimed to work on both shielded and unshielded cables, including digital cables.

....(deleted!)....

>>> "The ion generators and anti-static cloths and sprays are claimed to work on both shielded and unshielded cables, including digital cables." <<<

AND on AC power cords !!!!!!!!!!!! Also improving the sound !!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:

Quote:
....(deleted!)....

I just had a nightmare about you, Ken....

Why, I do believe that the man has a set of nippons, which then takes that weirdness and twists those nipples up to a new level. Whatever it is he's doing, he seems to be getting something out of it and I really don't want to know any more.

And some days I feel like I should be moving just a ~hair~ faster.

Quote:

And some days I feel like I should be moving just a ~hair~ faster.

Yeah, i hope that store is paying royalties to Keith Haring's estate.

KBK, could I ask you the question again "Why do YOU suppose applying an anti-static wipe on the cables (eliminating static) has any effect on the 'sound'?"

That was quite a profound statement you made KBK - that you had improved the sound of one of your own cables by wiping it with an antistatic wipe !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
The ion generators and anti-static cloths and sprays are claimed to work on both shielded and unshielded cables, including digital cables.

As are little wooden discs alleged to address bass response issues, little dots to rewrite data on a CD in an indetectable way, and so on.

If something actually gets rid of static, it is at least temporarily changing the resistivity of something. That's a simple fact.

Wiping a cable with something that puts something ON the cable, leaving a residue, is doing something, perhaps irrelevant, to the cable.

Given that one doesn't have to do anything but tell a subject "this one is better" in order to get test results, well, I'm not impressed.

You have a nice day, now, y'all.

Quote:

Quote:
The ion generators and anti-static cloths and sprays are claimed to work on both shielded and unshielded cables, including digital cables.

As are little wooden discs alleged to address bass response issues, little dots to rewrite data on a CD in an indetectable way, and so on.

If something actually gets rid of static, it is at least temporarily changing the resistivity of something. That's a simple fact.

Wiping a cable with something that puts something ON the cable, leaving a residue, is doing something, perhaps irrelevant, to the cable.

Given that one doesn't have to do anything but tell a subject "this one is better" in order to get test results, well, I'm not impressed.

You have a nice day, now, y'all.

If something actually gets rid of static, it is at least temporarily changing the resistivity of something. That's a simple fact.

I see. So the resistivity of the cable jacket changes, eh? Fascinating! Have you been drinking?

Little wooden discs alleged to address bass response issues? Where do y'all come up with these gems? I'm thinking secret late night AES meetings. Am I close?

Little dots to rewrite data on a CD? What an odd thing to say. An excellent example of a strawman argument, in any case. Hint: Uh, I don't think they've come up with a way to change the physical data on the CD yet, y'all.

"They also serve who only sit and wait." - old audiophile saying

Quote:
Little wooden discs alleged to address bass response issues? Where do y'all come up with these gems?

Look to yourself and the products you mention, troll.

Quote:

Hint: Uh, I don't think they've come up with a way to change the physical data on the CD yet, y'all.

I see, so what does a quantum dot change, then?

Or does it change nothing. Well, then, why does it only work for 15 CD's?

Got beef?

Quote:
KBK, could I ask you the question again "Why do YOU suppose applying an anti-static wipe on the cables (eliminating static) has any effect on the 'sound'?"

That was quite a profound statement you made KBK - that you had improved the sound of one of your own cables by wiping it with an antistatic wipe !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Y'all are completely ignoring the impact of wipe directionality.

Do you wipe with the current, or against it?

Back and forth?

Multiple strokes, or just one? If multiple, how many?

Differences?

Have you compared to wiping with using only your hand, or a non-non-static wipe?

Right hand wipe, or left?

Do you re-use wipes? How many wipes is a wipe good for? Have you ever used two layers or more of wipe? How do you dispose of a wipe that has been contaminated by the static electricity from the cable? Can you hear the difference when a used wipe is taken from the house? Should the wipes have been frozen first, and then slowly thawed? What is the optimal wipe temperature?

Some people stop experimenting too soon! Why stop at a generic "wipe" statement?

You probably think I'm kidding but I think these things need to be thoroughly investigated.

For instances, 26 is the optimal number for the red pen number tweak. What other numbers were tried? What was the number range? Were decimals or fractions auditioned? Differential equations or intergals? Sums? Matrices of numbers? Was the principle of explosion utilized? Optimal ink temperature when the tweak is applied? Best time of day? best day of week? Best phase of moon?

Do people just say, "There, 26, that's good," and be done with it?

Where's the curiosity?

Keld, you are a delightfully creative individual!

While the additional materials may create a bit of a barrier to the cable influencing others around it, I would be uncomfortable placing an uneven shield around a signal carrying cable.

I would add a drain to the source component connected to the foil.

Try it! You are not going to hurt anything. I expect that you probably won't notice any difference on a shielded cable, but you may on an unshielded cable (like Kimber PBJ) depending on how its routed.

I readily admit I am guessing however.

Quote:
KBK, could I ask you the question again "Why do YOU suppose applying an anti-static wipe on the cables (eliminating static) has any effect on the 'sound'?"

That was quite a profound statement you made KBK - that you had improved the sound of one of your own cables by wiping it with an antistatic wipe !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

I wrote the answer as a two part sentence and then deleted it 5 minutes later, in my prior post in the thread. It was too close to some stuff I'd like to keep other folks thoughts away from - for just a bit longer.

But I WILL tell people how to make ridiculously cheap high grade speaker cables.

One roll of 2.5" to 3" wide masking tape from the local hardware shop. It must be masking tape, not duct tape.

Then, lay a long strip on the floor, so that the adhesive side is up and the ends are folded over to adhere them to the floor, at the end points. This holds the tape stretched out, with adhesive up. Put a small strip across the ends anchoring it solidly to the floor. Chase the curious dogs, kids and cats away so they don't walk on it.

Then go and get the roll of 3/8ths-1/4 inch wide copper foil that you bought at the local stained glass supply shop....and peel back the adhesive, if any....

Lays strips of it down on the masking tape, evenly spaced, about 1/4 to 1/3rd of an inch apart. You should be able to get at least 4 or 5 runs on the open masking tape. of course, the runs of foil-on-tape are the same length of the speaker cable you need.

then you put a layer of masking tape on top..to seal it off.

the masking tape is a good electrical insulator and dielectric, top notch in fact, it is paper!

then make three more like that..and terminate!

Presto-changeo! One set of foil super low z super high current capacity speaker cables for about $40-50, that will slay just about anything up into the high hundreds of $.

Just a note, due to the way that copper is made these days, it is impossible for that copper to be less than ~99.99% copper. It may not be low crystal junction count, but it is a decent grade of copper in foil form.

I used to use the thinner foil to make interconnects the same way, that will practically pass video signals. As I said, well damped, and with excellent dielectric considerations. All foil. can't beat it with a stick, no matter how hard you try.

The thickness is up to you. Basically you calculate how long you need,and how many strips of foil you want on each 'leg' of speaker cable (3-4-5 strips, you decide) and then look at the length of the rolls on the wall at the stained glass supply shop. the price has gone up drastically for this foil copper. 15 years ago a roll was $5-7. Now it's $25-40.

Back when it was cheaper to buy copper foil, you used to be able to get silver foil in the same stores. Very expensive, this silver, even then, but there it was - hanging on the wall, in rolls.

Your biggest issue will be aging. It does not age well. You'll get 5 years or so out of it, but that's well beyond the point that most of us get curious about something else, and move on. Since it was only $50, you likely won't care too much.

I have a CD I made of a Count Basie recording, with Joe Williams. A very early stereo LP that is amazing. I use it at audio shows. People are blown away by what they hear on that recording and the cable from the preamp to the sound card (this was 10 years ago) was a 16 foot (4 meter) cable made from masking tape and stained glass copper foil, with Vampire Wire brand male RCA jacks.

it was a 'Shinon Red Boron improved' cartridge, on a tweaked valhalla'd Linn LP12, with a Kuzma Stogi arm, into a MA Cotter Low output MC transformer, into a highly modified MFA Magus preamp, and the preamp out going to the sound card recording at 48khz, 16 bit. The input to the sound card was modified with pure copper RCA's, maximum quality op-amps and op-amp power supply mods...and the analog power supply for the A/D chip was modified, as was the power supply for the PC as was the power supply for the bus at the sound card slot. Yes, big poly foil caps and the like, on a motherboard, at least 10 years ago, all in a critically damped PC chassis.

The level of the soundcard input was run as close to wide open as possible, and the level of the preamp was adjusted to hit 0db maybe once on the entire record side for maximum S/N, and the soundcard had my own custom clock design. Everything, including the cartridge, was allowed to warm up, and the entire area was cleared of any vibration or noise, mechanical or electrical.

I did test tuns to check/listen for the 'hot zone' (for the level settings of each item) of the equipment to maximize the sonic fidelity it could capture - a critical part of mastering.

Then I used what was new at the time, algorithms designed around low loss and best sound quality, to convert to 44/16 from the 48/16. This took about half a day at the time, on a 486 PC.

But the transfer cable was the cheap ass masking tape (paper) and foil. And it did the job very well.

Quote:

Quote:
Little wooden discs alleged to address bass response issues? Where do y'all come up with these gems?

Look to yourself and the products you mention, troll.

Quote:

Hint: Uh, I don't think they've come up with a way to change the physical data on the CD yet, y'all.

I see, so what does a quantum dot change, then?

Or does it change nothing. Well, then, why does it only work for 15 CD's?

Got beef?

How can the dot work when placed on top of the CD player, with the CD inside the player?

Why does it only take a fraction of a second for the dot to finish its work?

If the CD is accidentally allowed to play for 10 seconds, why won't the dot expend all its energy?

How does the dot "know" that a CD has already been treated and "know" not to spend energy unnecessarily?

Why does the dot eventually run out of steam?

Why does the CD have to be played for a moment or two for the dot to work?

If it's not changing the physical data what else could it possibly be?

The secret hides within The Order.

~ Cheers

Quote:

How can the dot work when placed on top of the CD player, with the CD inside the player?

Why does it only take a fraction of a second for the dot to finish its work?

If the CD is accidentally allowed to play for 10 seconds, why won't the dot expend all its energy?

How does the dot "know" that a CD has already been treated and "know" not to spend energy unnecessarily?

Why does the dot eventually run out of steam?

Why does the CD have to be played for a moment or two for the dot to work?

If it's not changing the physical data what else could it possibly be?

The secret hides within The Order.

~ Cheers

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

I would wonder what contact with the fabric softener might do to the conductor over time.

Quote:
I would wonder what contact with the fabric softener might do to the conductor over time.

Besides, the static charge is located on the outside of the cable assembly jacket. Hellooo!

Quote:
How so?

You might not have noticed his post, but the Liquid Cable dude applied the anti-static cloth to the outer surface of his cable jacket, which is where ALL of the various anti-static products are applied: Nordost anti-static spray, Mapleshade Ionoclast anti-static gun, Acoustic Revive ion generator, Xtreme AV Music Gun (toumaline hairdryer) and any number of commercial off-the-shelf anti-static sprays, negative ion generators and tourmaline hairdryers, including some really really cheap ones for the severely cash strapped (like ncdrawl) or incorrigible DIYers. In any case, they are all applied to the outer surface of the cable or power cord or interconnect jacket.

You might have been nodding off a little bit, not that there's anything wrong with that, during the discussions over the past few days regarding why the static charge on the outside of the cable jacket should even be an issue, you know, being rather far removed from the electrons flowing in the conductor and all.

>>> "I wrote the answer as a two part sentence and then deleted it 5 minutes later, in my prior post in the thread. It was too close to some stuff I'd like to keep other folks thoughts away from - for just a bit longer." <<<

Such a pity, KBK. It would have been extremely interesting to discuss such things with some people (even just a small number of people) who HAVE been prepared to experiment with such techniques!!

It would have been refreshingly different to the usual 'mocking responses' !!.
Mockery is so often used as a 'shield' - a deflection technique to avoid having to experiment for themselves or to avoid even having to 'ponder' when faced with the results of other people's experiences !!

Quotes from Buddha (after KBK's use of the antistatic wipe)

>>> "He got the cause/effect backward.

It was his handling the wipes that made the difference.

Perhaps he tweaked himself, not the cable!"

Y'all are completely ignoring the impact of wipe directionality.

Do you wipe with the current, or against it?

Back and forth?

Multiple strokes, or just one? If multiple, how many?

Differences?

Have you compared to wiping with using only your hand, or a non-non-static wipe?

Right hand wipe, or left?

Do you re-use wipes? How many wipes is a wipe good for? Have you ever used two layers or more of wipe? How do you dispose of a wipe that has been contaminated by the static electricity from the cable? Can you hear the difference when a used wipe is taken from the house? Should the wipes have been frozen first, and then slowly thawed? What is the optimal wipe temperature?

Some people stop experimenting too soon! Why stop at a generic "wipe" statement?" <<<

*********
Quote from j j.

>>> "Given that one doesn't have to do anything but tell a subject "this one is better" in order to get test results, well, I'm not impressed." <<<

**************

So, with such ease are other people's experiments dismissed !!

Yours, KBK, and other people's experiences, just frivolously dismissed when the significance is really quite important.

The technique of 'treating' the outer insulation of cables HAS been around for many years. I remember, quite a number of years ago, when there was a British magazine for the Hi Fi industry called "Inside Hi Fi", where the Editor reported being 'amazed' after being given a demonstration of the Nordost chemical when applied to the label side of a CD !!

Again, in 2006, on the outer cover of one months issue of Hi Fi Choice, there was attached a tissue which had been impregnated with the Nordost chemical. This was given away free, on the cover of that month's issue, for people to try for themselves.
The President of Nordost (Joe Reynolds) said (in an interview) "You will easily hear the improvements in your system. You can try this on your power cables and the label side of CDs and also treat video cables, and even the centre label of vinyl LPs" !!!!!!!!!!

I do not challenge any of those people's observations when they say that their sound improved. What I challenge is the explanation given by such as Nordost - i.e that the chemical (even though claimed to be an antistatic chemical) is improving the sound by 'dealing with' static !! Especially when ALL cables in the listening room - even AC power cables not in any way associated with the audio system - such as the AC power cord to an electric clock on a shelf, to the power cord of a table lamp, to the power cord of an electric fire etc - can be similarly 'treated' and give a similar improvement in the sound !!!!!

There is 'something else going on' which is not a static issue !!!

If it is 'static' on all those cables, cables in no way associated with the audio signal, which is being 'dealt with' by the antistatic chemical, then how would YOU, ALL, explain how that treatment can have the effect of 'improving' the sound ?

These are the anomalies I keep talking about. The explanation of 'dealing with static to improve the sound' holds up - only - UNTIL you do the same thing to something else in exactly the same way but in an area which could not be described as having any influence on either the audio signal or on the acoustic air pressure waves !!

So many people's reactions when things like that, associated with audio, are reported, are very much like deflection tactics in tennis. Different deflection tactics to stop the competitor 'landing' a correct shot in the court. Deflecting using a 'backhand'., a 'forehand'., a 'slice'., a 'smash'.
Not all of the reactions, admittedly, are as extreme as Ethan calling "bullshit" at every opportunity or implying "Fraud" whenever the opportunity presented itself to him. No wonder he 'triggered' a reaction in people - enough of a reaction to get one of them banned.!!

KBK, you said :-
>>> "I know how Franck Tchang's bells work and how Ted Denney's bowls work." <<<

Still on the subject of dismissive reactions. Just recently, on the Hi Fi Critic Forum, mention was made about the Synergistic devices and an immediate response was from someone saying the usual 'knee jerk reaction' "Oh, it's the Placebo effect" - without trying them - just an immediate 'knee jerk' reaction. To which Martin Colloms replied "We are expecting to have the Synergistic devices soon for evaluation and will assess them, hopefully, with 'an open mind'"

Not enough people with an 'open mind' !!

That is why I originally asked YOU for your explanation KBK. You appear to have one of those 'open minds' !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics

>>> "It is not at all puzzling that a highly conductive coating (if that is what the antistatic turns out to be) would change the results in a non-coax cable, at least under very specific and sensitive conditions.
If something actually gets rid of static, it is at least temporarily changing the resistivity of something. That's a simple fact.

Wiping a cable with something that puts something ON the cable, leaving a residue, is doing something, perhaps irrelevant, to the cable." <<<

"Would change the results" on what, j j ??? "Would do something, perhaps irrelevant" on what j j ???

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
>>> "I wrote the answer as a two part sentence and then deleted it 5 minutes later, in my prior post in the thread. It was too close to some stuff I'd like to keep other folks thoughts away from - for just a bit longer." <<<

Such a pity, KBK. It would have been extremely interesting to discuss such things with some people (even just a small number of people) who HAVE been prepared to experiment with such techniques!!

It would have been refreshingly different to the usual 'mocking responses' !!.
Mockery is so often used as a 'shield' - a deflection technique to avoid having to experiment for themselves or to avoid even having to 'ponder' when faced with the results of other people's experiences !!

Quotes from Buddha (after KBK's use of the antistatic wipe)

>>> "He got the cause/effect backward.

It was his handling the wipes that made the difference.

Perhaps he tweaked himself, not the cable!"

Y'all are completely ignoring the impact of wipe directionality.

Do you wipe with the current, or against it?

Back and forth?

Multiple strokes, or just one? If multiple, how many?

Differences?

Have you compared to wiping with using only your hand, or a non-non-static wipe?

Right hand wipe, or left?

Do you re-use wipes? How many wipes is a wipe good for? Have you ever used two layers or more of wipe? How do you dispose of a wipe that has been contaminated by the static electricity from the cable? Can you hear the difference when a used wipe is taken from the house? Should the wipes have been frozen first, and then slowly thawed? What is the optimal wipe temperature?

Some people stop experimenting too soon! Why stop at a generic "wipe" statement?" <<<

*********
Quote from j j.

>>> "Given that one doesn't have to do anything but tell a subject "this one is better" in order to get test results, well, I'm not impressed." <<<

**************

So, with such ease are other people's experiments dismissed !!

Yours, KBK, and other people's experiences, just frivolously dismissed when the significance is really quite important.

The technique of 'treating' the outer insulation of cables HAS been around for many years. I remember, quite a number of years ago, when there was a British magazine for the Hi Fi industry called "Inside Hi Fi", where the Editor reported being 'amazed' after being given a demonstration of the Nordost chemical when applied to the label side of a CD !!

Again, in 2006, on the outer cover of one months issue of Hi Fi Choice, there was attached a tissue which had been impregnated with the Nordost chemical. This was given away free, on the cover of that month's issue, for people to try for themselves.
The President of Nordost (Joe Reynolds) said (in an interview) "You will easily hear the improvements in your system. You can try this on your power cables and the label side of CDs and also treat video cables, and even the centre label of vinyl LPs" !!!!!!!!!!

I do not challenge any of those people's observations when they say that their sound improved. What I challenge is the explanation given by such as Nordost - i.e that the chemical (even though claimed to be an antistatic chemical) is improving the sound by 'dealing with' static !! Especially when ALL cables in the listening room - even AC power cables not in any way associated with the audio system - such as the AC power cord to an electric clock on a shelf, to the power cord of a table lamp, to the power cord of an electric fire etc - can be similarly 'treated' and give a similar improvement in the sound !!!!!

There is 'something else going on' which is not a static issue !!!

If it is 'static' on all those cables, cables in no way associated with the audio signal, which is being 'dealt with' by the antistatic chemical, then how would YOU, ALL, explain how that treatment can have the effect of 'improving' the sound ?

These are the anomalies I keep talking about. The explanation of 'dealing with static to improve the sound' holds up - only - UNTIL you do the same thing to something else in exactly the same way but in an area which could not be described as having any influence on either the audio signal or on the acoustic air pressure waves !!

So many people's reactions when things like that, associated with audio, are reported, are very much like deflection tactics in tennis. Different deflection tactics to stop the competitor 'landing' a correct shot in the court. Deflecting using a 'backhand'., a 'forehand'., a 'slice'., a 'smash'.
Not all of the reactions, admittedly, are as extreme as Ethan calling "bullshit" at every opportunity or implying "Fraud" whenever the opportunity presented itself to him. No wonder he 'triggered' a reaction in people - enough of a reaction to get one of them banned.!!

KBK, you said :-
>>> "I know how Franck Tchang's bells work and how Ted Denney's bowls work." <<<

Still on the subject of dismissive reactions. Just recently, on the Hi Fi Critic Forum, mention was made about the Synergistic devices and an immediate response was from someone saying the usual 'knee jerk reaction' "Oh, it's the Placebo effect" - without trying them - just an immediate 'knee jerk' reaction. To which Martin Colloms replied "We are expecting to have the Synergistic devices soon for evaluation and will assess them, hopefully, with 'an open mind'"

Not enough people with an 'open mind' !!

That is why I originally asked YOU for your explanation KBK. You appear to have one of those 'open minds' !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics

Mocking?

Nope, just asking to what level people have bothered to investigate.

You don't wonder those things?

It's interesting if you watch many tweakers - no further investigation takes place after the 'concept of the tweak' is incorporated.

They just seem to say, "Wiping interconnects? OK!" and move on.

No one seems to ask for the real nitty gritty - in which direction, etc?

People are happy to spout off about directionality in fuses, but better not ask about how they wipe their interconnects, or it's mocking.

I think what is happening is you feel defensive about just how little further thought you've given how this tweak is applied. It's OK, you can say, "I don't know, I never tried different ways of handling the tweak."

As for me, if wires and fuses have directionality, the wipe directionality is certainly a valid topic to raise.

May, why stop at such a superficial wipe level?

Quote:
Mocking?

Nope, just asking to what level people have bothered to investigate.
You don't wonder those things?

It's interesting if you watch many tweakers - no further investigation takes place after the 'concept of the tweak' is incorporated.

They just seem to say, "Wiping interconnects? OK!" and move on.
No one seems to ask for the real nitty gritty - in which direction, etc?
People are happy to spout off about directionality in fuses, but better not ask about how they wipe their interconnects, or it's mocking.

I think what is happening is you feel defensive about just how little further thought you've given how this tweak is applied. It's OK, you can say, "I don't know, I never tried different ways of handling the tweak."

As for me, if wires and fuses have directionality, the wipe directionality is certainly a valid topic to raise.

May, why stop at such a superficial wipe level?

Hitting too close to home for Geoff.

Quote:
Not all of the reactions, admittedly, are as extreme as Ethan calling "bullshit" at every opportunity or implying "Fraud" whenever the opportunity presented itself to him. No wonder he 'triggered' a reaction in people - enough of a reaction to get one of them banned.!!

Let me assure you there are still a few of us here willing to pick up where Ethan left off, such as now. Your quote above is bullshit and you owe Ethan and this forum an apology.

Quote:

Quote:
Not all of the reactions, admittedly, are as extreme as Ethan calling "bullshit" at every opportunity or implying "Fraud" whenever the opportunity presented itself to him. No wonder he 'triggered' a reaction in people - enough of a reaction to get one of them banned.!!

Let me assure you there are still a few of us here willing to pick up where Ethan left off, such as now. Your quote above is bullshit and you owe Ethan and this forum an apology.

Ethan's crime was attracting the COD. It's a small sacrifice for the COD to give up one of their own to eliminate Ethan.

The COD harpies flocked to Ethan. To the point that when he pointed out the inaccuracy of supposed measurements, the COD went batshit and even managed to hypnotize a prominent Hi Fi journal editor into joining their mantra. That's still pretty amazing, when you think about it - Ethan pointed out the impossibility of a bogus measurment set, and then was chastized for not immediately describing how the BS was perpetrated.

Post gibberish data - poor baby, hugs.

Call out bad data - bad Ethan.

What a set up!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Not all of the reactions, admittedly, are as extreme as Ethan calling "bullshit" at every opportunity or implying "Fraud" whenever the opportunity presented itself to him. No wonder he 'triggered' a reaction in people - enough of a reaction to get one of them banned.!!

Let me assure you there are still a few of us here willing to pick up where Ethan left off, such as now. Your quote above is bullshit and you owe Ethan and this forum an apology.

Ethan's crime was attracting the COD. It's a small sacrifice for the COD to give up one of their own to eliminate Ethan.

The COD harpies flocked to Ethan. To the point that when he pointed out the inaccuracy of supposed measurements, the COD went batshit and even managed to hypnotize a prominent Hi Fi journal editor into joining their mantra. That's still pretty amazing, when you think about it - Ethan pointed out the impossibility of a bogus measurment set, and then was chastized for not immediately describing how the BS was perpetrated.

Post gibberish data - poor baby, hugs.

Call out bad data - bad Ethan.

What a set up!

Can we have a moment of silence for a fallen warrior?

Be careful with that pic or you could make your system not sound as good...if, that is, you have one.

Wait.... 26

There, that was close.

Quote:
Be careful with that pic or you could make your system not sound as good...if, that is, you have one.

Wait.... 26

There, that was close.

From the ashes of the fallen hero a new leader will arise. Full speed ahead for the hard-on express. Toot Toot

Now, cut that out! You'll scare the newbies away.