Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Discussions › SQ difference from wire gauge???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SQ difference from wire gauge??? - Page 3

post #31 of 52
*****Warning Rant below with some flowery stuff*****

Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post
Sorry, but once you got to "science is a linear process" you began to remind me of the timecube guy. Please try to understand that the whole point of science is to attempt to eliminate any intrusion of human biases and points of view. The scientific method is a sort of guide to the abstraction of meaning from reality, though at this point we are stumbling into epistemology. Despite the popular concept of "scientism", scientific study is not a personal cognitive bias.
So long as as scientific conclusions are not self evident in the objectively gathered data, I'm afraid science is riddled with subjectivity. Take my example of Copernicus. What exactly was different between the data presented to copernicus and the scientists before him? Were they not all Kepler's objective data of the trajectories of planets? Ultimately it is the interjection of Copernicus's ideas and beliefs into the objective data that created the scientific views we have today.. MIND you he interjected what makes science beautiful and powerful -HIS SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION.

Now take Einstein or Maxwell. Werent there countless scientists working with the SAME exact data? Yet no one could provide answers until they came along with THEIR SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION? You forget that the objective aspect of science ends with gathering data. The subjective part comes from theory.

Now from nattonrice we have:
" 'science is really just the process of gathering data, hypothesizing, experimentation, theorizing'

...more or less how science progresses.
The physical universe (or universe of study) is observed.
Someone theorizes a mathematical model that fits said observation.

Now for part (a). If by genius you mean someone like Einstein or Maxwell (your suggestions) coming up with a model or idea explaining what was, at that time, unexplainable in a satisfactory way then no, you are incorrect. This is just a combo of steps 2 and 4 you listed.

As for part (b). This is more or less what happens in a very general sense. Eventual one of these "bodies" has a conceptual break through."


I'm not sure what you're arguing in your statement regarding part a.
Are you stating that they are geniuses or not? And are you stating that science is linear or not? and are you agreeing that the scientific method is linear or if it works.

As for the cable making/believer thing. I do believe that cables make a difference and I do have scientific evidence supporting that they in fact should make a difference. Including what type of solder you should use (eutectic) to reduce shot noise. Science even tells us that the dialectric material matters, the thickness, how its shielded etc... so yeah science tells you that cables matter. Additionally I've seen my university buy 2k cables (1 foot long for 2k) for sensitive equipment.

Now if you work as a researcher let me ask you. Do your conclusions come from the evidence itself? And are your theories the same as everyone else based on the initial data gathering process (before experimentation)? And if your theories are different, do you end up with the same conclusions (based on the same evidence)?

Signs point to no. If scientists began with the same theories, then we would never get anywhere. We all have different theories brought about by our subjective minds, which we interject into the scientific process. I'm afraid the objectivity part of science is the boring aspect where they make undergrad students their slaves, collecting and painstakingly organizing data. The real aspect of what makes science worthwhile is in the hypothesis, the theory, and the conclusion. ALL of which are subjective due to a person's interpretation. As I mentioned earlier, there were countless scientists before Newton who had the same objective data, yet he emerged a head of the group due to his theories.

The reason I say science is not linear is because of the hypothesis/theory part. While organizing data is linear (and common sense) the creation of an hypothesis or theory is not only subjective but non-linear. Unless you can tell me that the data gathered incites a particular theory, then the scientific method cannot be linear. And if the data gathered does in fact incite a particular theory -then why do different scientists have different theories?

The scientific method, as stated before, is at best a starting point. To believe that the scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century were all credited to a linear progression of data gathering and theorizing is ludicrous, you just need to look at einstein or even Faraday. These geniuses saw something beyond what others could only touch and feel. Their ideas did not arise from what they saw in the objective data, it arose from their experiences, their own imaginative minds, and their struggle with Truth. To think and believe science is perfect and objective is to raise it to the height of religion, because then it cannot be wrong, it cannot be replaced, and we cannot question it. As mentioned earlier it is the subjectivity of science that gives it culture, history, and meaning. Science is only so bold as the men and women who uphold it, shape it, and mold it by their will. As future scientists we all stand on their shoulders because we realize that we are not taking part in a discipline that occurred despite of them, but rather because of them.

So yeah I guess my views are (should they not be clear -because they are rarely ever clear, even to myself)
1. There are geniuses
2. Science is not objective
3. Science is not linear
4. Science is not the be all and end all of knowledge
5. Professors need to treat their undergrads better... we can analyze info too so stop making us do stupid computer simulations or mindless automaton work...
post #32 of 52
Wow you write big posts! ^^

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
I'm not sure what you're arguing in your statement regarding part a.
Are you stating that they are geniuses or not? And are you stating that science is linear or not? and are you agreeing that the scientific method is linear or if it works.
Neither am I, can't remember.
The scientific method is the scientific method. I don't see how one can ask the question does it work... it is what is done (modulo natural variations according to field of study).
Unfortunately in some areas of science it cannot completely run its course due to technical limitations of the time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
As for the cable making/believer thing. I do believe that cables make a difference and I do have scientific evidence supporting that they in fact should make a difference. Including what type of solder you should use (eutectic) to reduce shot noise. Science even tells us that the dialectric material matters, the thickness, how its shielded etc... so yeah science tells you that cables matter. Additionally I've seen my university buy 2k cables (1 foot long for 2k) for sensitive equipment.
Cool. I was never arguing about cables I simply wanted to know why it was "clear".


Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
Now if you work as a researcher let me ask you. Do your conclusions come from the evidence itself? And are your theories the same as everyone else based on the initial data gathering process (before experimentation)? And if your theories are different, do you end up with the same conclusions (based on the same evidence)?
Mathematical sciences are slightly different in how "conclusions" are drawn from "evidence" but, just like most sciences, very rarely does there exist only one resolution.
It is very common for multiple people to have different solutions to a problem and the best ones sometimes provide a deeper understanding than what came before.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
The real aspect of what makes science worthwhile is in the hypothesis, the theory, and the conclusion. ALL of which are subjective due to a person's interpretation.
I'm not sure what you mean by conclusion.
Interpretation of observation is subjective by virtue of the meaning of the word interpretation. There is nothing to argue there.
Proof of a theory is not subjective. It is either correct or not.
Sometimes even the best proofs are flawed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
The reason I say science is not linear is because of the hypothesis/theory part. While organizing data is linear (and common sense) the creation of an hypothesis or theory is not only subjective but non-linear. Unless you can tell me that the data gathered incites a particular theory, then the scientific method cannot be linear. And if the data gathered does in fact incite a particular theory -then why do different scientists have different theories?
I dislike your use of the word linear here but I never argued against what you are trying to say.
As I said, if you throw enough bodies at a problem then eventually one (or more) will have an insight that leads to at least one solution.
Thus on a small enough timescale science is, your wording, not linear.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
4. Science is not the be all and end all of knowledge
What other human endeavor leads to the acquisition of knowledge about the physical universe?
Serious question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
5. Professors need to treat their undergrads better... we can analyze info too so stop making us do stupid computer simulations or mindless automaton work...
Haha why do I get the feeling that you are a repressed undergrad under some guys thumb?
I don't know of any professors that make the average undergrad do any mission critical work. Side projects of interest yes. Things they plan to take on the nose (data wise) to peer review, no.
The latter would be quite reckless.

This thread is now seriously OT for the diy section lol.
If we want to continue perhaps we should go to pm?
Fun chat though~
post #33 of 52
well .. ok yeah OT. .But before I head off to the dialectic/dielectric, science can't prove anything -math can though. And I think to find knowledge, it will have to be a combination of science, math, philosophy, and faith. Godel's proof showed that no singular branch of knowledge can answer all of the questions within it, science can't answer its questions without math, this much is clear and math is rather meaningless without the science or philosophy behind it. And faith, while seemingly the lonely child left behind, may be the one with enough courage and strength to propel mankind to the truth. But yeah sorry for the OT, OP, FWIW, YMMV with science/philosophy and cables.
post #34 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post
...certainly not enough to make a hearable (>1db) difference in sq.
I work in audio and can hear (notice) a +/- 0.5dB difference when processing program material (equalization, compression). I love music, I hate math & science.

If it is indeed true that there is a difference in sound quality with the kind of wires used in audio that are noticeable under 1db, it's a big deal when working with audio; a lot of pros are sensitive to a fraction of a decibel, especially when focusing on the average levels (RMS) of program material.
post #35 of 52
NICE KNOBS!!!!!.



Oh wait, I'm trolling in the wrong overly pretentious, self absorbed, blindly fundamentalist thread in a geeky forum on the Interweb!

I'm SOOO sorry. Please continue.
post #36 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
But before I head off to the dialectic/dielectric, science can't prove anything -math can though. And I think to find knowledge, it will have to be a combination of science, math, philosophy, and faith.
That is only admitting failure, in that you are incapable of actually proving anything that stands up to any real scrutiny from people who know better.

As a biomedical research scientist myself, the rest of your posts aren't much more than pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific dribble - and generally quite ignorant and offensive to the whole scientific process.
post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefy View Post
That is only admitting failure, in that you are incapable of actually proving anything that stands up to any real scrutiny from people who know better.

As a biomedical research scientist myself, the rest of your posts aren't much more than pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific dribble - and generally quite ignorant and offensive to the whole scientific process.
When's the last time there was a scientific law without some math to prove it.

If I am being ignorant of the scientific process... then enlighten me

If I have offended the scientific process... then read my earlier post. If anything I hold science at a very high regard, much more than most in fact. I'm simply rooting out those who use science to push their point across without much thought into the practice or science itself (eg. lawyers).

My only contempt with science is your so called scientific method. Take a step back from what you're doing and ask yourself if its real, ask your co workers, your boss and ask yourself if you follow it when you work on your research.
post #38 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi1972 View Post
I work in audio and can hear (notice) a +/- 0.5dB difference.
That's pretty impressive. To clarify, the choice of 1db as the threshold was arbitrary, most measured deviations in cable studies I've skimmed show differences several magnitudes smaller than that. For professional purposes, including long runs of cable, I'm sure the engineers work hard to ensure that there is no worrying signal degradation.

pdupiano: I'm not sure whether you're arguing or simply expounding your personal philosophy. You're all over the map. If it's the latter, then by all means carry on, just don't expect others to agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guild View Post
Oh wait, I'm trolling in the wrong overly pretentious, self absorbed, blindly fundamentalist thread in a geeky forum on the Interweb!
Interweb? Lol, i gets it, u's funneh!!1!
post #39 of 52
just answering the questions and countering what you and others have posted. My own philosophy in life is much more convoluted and involved than anything I've written here.
post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
If I am being ignorant of the scientific process... then enlighten me
Any loser can have an interesting hypothesis. There is a lot of stuff we don't know.

Any dimwit can form a conclusion, and yes, even amongst the best minds they can be subjective. But......

...... the skill in science comes from performing the correct tests and controls (or calculations) to be able to actually form a decent conclusion. In any given scientific situation, there are a figurative million different options to test a hypothesis. Many options are poor, leave questions hanging and the conclusions that can be drawn are very arguable amongst the relevant scientific community. Quite a few options are OK and provide a convincing argument. Fewer options still are absolutely conclusive. Picking the good options to convincingly prove a hypothesis is what separates the men from the boys.

So where do we sit on the 'science' of audible differences between cables? Not. Even. Close. To. Acceptable. The default position of science is (or should be) skepticism, and the burden of proof lies on the group making a claim to prove their positive position; proving a negative is a logical folly. If there isn't a general consensus, and people are still arguing about cables as much as they are, then the testing methods of the believers suck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
My own philosophy in life is much more convoluted and involved than anything I've written here.
Lay off the crack pipe. Or get on it. Something should probably change in any case.
post #41 of 52
Its not testing method, I'm going by actual theory when I interject science into the cable issue.

1. Shot noise - occurs when there is a transition of material in the signal path.
- Solution use eutectic solder to negate formation of solid particles of lead and tin
- Solution use partial silver alloy with silver wires
2. Noise and cross talk in a headphone cable
- Solution, Quad litz braid to cancel the influence of one wire to another, its an adaptation of the twisted wire method
- Shield the cable
3. Parasitic capacitance
- Minimized by the use of proper dielectric with proper thickness used

These are the things that science can attest to. As you see, based on how a cable is constructed, it WILL transmit the signal differently. It can either take in more or less noise, if balanced it would reject noise completely. Interconnects between source to amp are even more susceptible because of the amplification process. YOUR SCIENCE TELLS US THAT.

But understand that at best science can only tell you about these things, it won't describe the change in sound, thats ultimately up to the listener. But you scientific guys keep on saying, "oh test this test that.. you have no scientific basis.". well WTH, the crap I listed above are all scientific based. Mind you the real important one is the construction of the dielectric material and formation of the wire which are beyond DIY or most companies for that fact, BUT science tells you THERE is a difference.

Science ALSO tells you that there are differences in high end digital cables due to reflections in the signal path.. YET I PERSONALLY HEAR NO DIFFERENCE (for USB). SO WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR SCIENCE? Your science tells me that OMG .. OMG .. OMG theres a big diff omg omg its UNFREAKINBELIEVABLE. Yet I HEAR NOTHING.

So now I have to ask, is your science still right? or is it at the end of the day your observation?
If your science is still right - HOW? -How is my science wrong and your science right? When it states that there are differences in how the cable carries and transmits signal

If its up to your observations and not science - How can you tell me that your science says that I should hear otherwise? (In other words, how is your science still right, after you admit its up to observations?)

-That skill in science of correct and proper testing, choosing controls and knowing which hypothesis to test... it comes from mixing your experience with the information you gather. This skill, which you refer to as what separates the men from the boys isn't always just a skill its also a sign of genius. Its HEAVILY subjective, its based on YOUR experience, YOUR abilities, and YOUR understanding of the material.... wait a sec actually that supports what I've been saying about genius and the non-linearity and non-objectivity of science. so thank you?
post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
But understand that at best science can only tell you about these things, it won't describe the change in sound, thats ultimately up to the listener. But you scientific guys keep on saying, "oh test this test that.. you have no scientific basis.". well WTH, the crap I listed above are all scientific based.
Like I said, "In any given scientific situation, there are a figurative million different options to test a hypothesis." All you have done is list a few physical properties, say QED, and then just wave your hand when you get to the most important and difficult bit.

Quote:
so thank you?
Ah, no, not quite. You've clearly got a long way to go.
post #43 of 52
...... forget it. you've dismissed my entire set of arguments. If anything, you need the help. and where the hell is the sarcasm button..

But FWIW my previous post does have something to do with cables and SQ. Ben, just ef it build whatever you want. If you don't need the bendability go with 1ga wire. If you dont' care about the cost, go with pure gold. Because science tells you that would be best.
post #44 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdupiano View Post
...... forget it. you've dismissed my entire set of arguments. If anything, you need the help. and where the hell is the sarcasm button..

But FWIW my previous post does have something to do with cables and SQ. Ben, just ef it build whatever you want. If you don't need the bendability go with 1ga wire. If you dont' care about the cost, go with pure gold. Because science tells you that would be best.
^ LOL. I didn't expect this thread to turn out this way....
post #45 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by bik2101 View Post
^ LOL. I didn't expect this thread to turn out this way....
Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Discussions › SQ difference from wire gauge???