[dougms3]

Why would I think that when I specifically mentioned the diameter/radius of wire twice?

So what diameter /radius of wire are you specifically referencing with those exact measurements in mm? You know, since you didn't mention that.

Extremely little (insignificantly) with the quality of copper and silver plate. We’re only talking about relatively small amounts of current in an audio signal and Litz cable for example, can make a big difference but for radio freq signals, up to about 1mHz, not for signals in the audible range.

Of course I am, because they’re irrelevant within the range of audible frequencies, audio signal currents and gauge of consumer audio cables.

True, it just means the effect is so small within the audible band of freqs that it’s inaudible and irrelevant.

G

All the numbers change withthe number of the current so how can you be sure to say its insignificant and irrelevant but dont know the specific effects, havent tested it or know the numbers?

Variables throw a wrench in theories.

Like Mike Tyson says "everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face."

 

[bfreedma]

So what diameter /radius of wire are you specifically referencing with those exact measurements in mm? You know, since you didn't mention that.

All the numbers change withthe number of the current so how can you be sure to say its insignificant and irrelevant but dont know the specific effects, havent tested it or know the numbers?

Variables throw a wrench in theories.

Like Mike Tyson says "everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face."

All true. And all utterly irrelevant within the range of audibility for cables used in any normal home audio scenario.

If you have a specific example of a cable where you feel what you posted is actually impacting audibility, now would be a great time to share the specifics.

 

[gregorio]

So what diameter /radius of wire are you specifically referencing with those exact measurements in mm? You know, since you didn't mention that.

I didn’t mention it because it doesn’t matter, as I’ve already stated. Depth of skin effect depends on the frequency of the signal.

All the numbers change withthe number of the current so how can you be sure to say its insignificant and irrelevant but dont know the specific effects, havent tested it or know the numbers?

Except I have tested it, countless times.

Variables throw a wrench in theories.

What variables?

Like Mike Tyson says "everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face."

What punch in the face?

G

 

[dougms3]

I didn’t mention it because it doesn’t matter, as I’ve already stated. Depth of skin effect depends on the frequency of the signal.

Except I have tested it, countless times.

What variables?

What punch in the face?

G

If you state exact numbers, the number of the diamter/radius matters alot.

Are these countless tests super secret to gregario only? Does it apply to everyone as a fact or only in your experience?

All of the greek letters in the formula are called variables.

The skin depth and the resistance per square (of any size), in meter-kilogram-second (rationalized) units, are

δ=(λ/πσμc)1/2Rsq=1/δσ
where,
δ = skin depth in meters,
Rsq= resistance per square in ohms,
c = velocity of light in vacuo
= 2.998 × 108meter/second,
μ = 4π x10−7×rhenry/meter,
1/σ = 1.724 × 10−8ρ/ρcohm-meter.
For numerical computations
δ = (3.82 × 10−4λ1/2)k1
= (6.61/f1/2)k1centimeter
δ = (1.50 × 10−4λ1/2)k1,
= (2.60/f1/2)k1inch
δm = (2.60/fmc1/2)k1, mil
Rsq= (4.52 × 10−3/λl/2)k2
= (2.61 × 10−7f1/2)k2ohm
k1= [(1/μr)ρ/ρc]1/2
k2 = (μrρ/ρc)
k1,k2= unity for copper
Example: What is the resistance/foot of a cylindrical copper conductor of diameter D inches?
R=(12/πD)Rsq=(12/πD)×2.61×10−7(f1/2)=0.996×10−6(f1/2)/Dohm/foot
If D = 1.00 inch and f = 100 × 106hertz, then R = 0.996 × 10−6x 104≈ 1 × 10−2ohm/foot.

And that formula is does not account for magnetic permeability and is calculated with NO dielectric.

That's called an analogy the punch is the variable.

 

[gregorio]

Are these countless tests super secret to gregario only? Does it apply to everyone as a fact or only in your experience?

Anyone can do a null test between the signal entering a cable and the signal exiting, and countless tens of thousands have done.

All of the greek letters in the formula are called variables.

So you think Pi is a variable?

If D = 1.00 inch and f = 100 × 106hertz, then R = 0.996 × 10−6x 104≈ 1 × 10−2ohm/foot.
And that formula is does not account for magnetic permeability and is calculated with NO dielectric.
That's called an analogy the punch is the variable.

No, that analogy is called “NONSENSE” because there are no consumer audio wires that are 1 inch in diameter! The actual range of variables we have to deal with is between about 0.01ins (30AWG) and 0.08ins (12AWG). So no punches in the face!

G

 

[dougms3]

Anyone can do a null test between the signal entering a cable and the signal exiting, and countless tens of thousands have done.

So you think Pi is a variable?

No, that analogy is called “NONSENSE” because there are no consumer audio wires that are 1 inch in diameter! The actual range of variables we have to deal with is between about 0.01ins (30AWG) and 0.08ins (12AWG). So no punches in the face!

G

So you've done this null test with every "variable" correct? Like the aforementioned ofc, occ copper, spc, litz, gauges, pvc/ptfe/pet dielectrics, etc.

Excuse me, except pi. Technically, it depends on how you represent it, ie 3.14, 3.141, 3.1459, well you get my drift but i digress, I'll give you that one.

What you call an analogy is an example hence it states IF d= 1".

What if i told you I've seen consumer power cables with larger than 12awg conductors, ruh roh didn't see that punch coming.

 

[bfreedma]

So you've done this null test with every "variable" correct? Like the aforementioned ofc, occ copper, spc, litz, gauges, pvc/ptfe/pet dielectrics, etc.

Excuse me, except pi. Technically, it depends on how you represent it, ie 3.14, 3.141, 3.1459, well you get my drift but i digress, I'll give you that one.

What you call an analogy is an example hence it states IF d= 1".

What if i told you I've seen consumer power cables with larger than 12awg conductors, ruh roh didn't see that punch coming.

While I'm still unsure whether power cables much larger than 12awg would see audible impact, no one here said a cable could not be built incorrectly or misused for the wrong scenario.

Sure, someone can build a 1 meter diameter cable for home audio use. But why would anyone use, let alone need that cable.

Of course, I'm sure whoever built that 1m diameter cable would offer another expensive add on product to eliminate problems caused by that cable...

So again, can you produce an actual example of a product that would suffer the issues you describe?

 

[bigshot]

^ what Bfreedma says.

When it comes to fidelity, wires can't "sound better" than audibly transparent. They can only sound different. There's a threshold of perception that they have to exceed for differences to be audible. There are reasons why a wire might not be audibly transparent for a particular purpose. You wouldn't use a hammer for the same thing you use a jewelers screwdriver. But when you buy an Amazons Basics or Monoprice interconnect, it is designed to be audibly transparent for a particular purpose... transmitting line level signal three meters transparently. If you use it for that purpose it should be transparent. If it's not, that will show up in a null test or a carefully controlled listening test. We don't have to test every wire in the world to say that consumer audio cables are all audibly transparent they are used for the purpose they were designed for. That would involve millions of tests. It's up to the people who claim that one cable sounds better than another to prove their claim.

When you say a very expensive interconnect made of the rarest of hand rolled unobtanium sounds better than a regular Amazon cable, I see no reason why that might be the case, so I immediately suspect expectation bias... which is fair because expectation bias is at the root of most errors in audiophila. Cables can't sound better, only degraded. Why would every cable in the world be degraded audibly identically except this one fancy schmancy cable? It makes no sense. It's clearly expectation bias.

If you have a wire that you think sounds better, pass it along for testing. Prove it. It's probably going to be a waste of time, but I'm sure someone will go to the effort if you allow them to make you eat crow when they prove you wrong. Making a claim of an unexpected result without proving it is a waste of everyone's time. You can throw around all sorts of scientific "what ifs" to try to muddy the waters, but it isn't going to impress me. I've seen all that too many times in the past. I know how these things play out. There will be a whole lot of theoretical back and forth and nothing will be offered in the way of specific evidence. All that needs to be said is, "show me a wire that sounds different when used for the purposes it was designed for".

 

[castleofargh]

All this is because @71 dB made a joke? you're a hard public.

 

[bfreedma]

All this is because @71 dB made a joke? you're a hard public.

Nothing to do with 71db. Just tired of the seagulls who visit.

For those not familiar with the term: Seagulls "fly in, make a lot of noise, dump on everything, then fly out without contributing anything of value."

 

[Light - Man]

Sorry guys but you cannot stereotype all Seagulls as bandits!

 

[bigshot]

We have a new Sound Science mascot... Jonathan Livingston Threadcrapper! He can join our batshark character!

 

[dougms3]

While I'm still unsure whether power cables much larger than 12awg would see audible impact, no one here said a cable could not be built incorrectly or misused for the wrong scenario.

Sure, someone can build a 1 meter diameter cable for home audio use. But why would anyone use, let alone need that cable.

Of course, I'm sure whoever built that 1m diameter cable would offer another expensive add on product to eliminate problems caused by that cable...

So again, can you produce an actual example of a product that would suffer the issues you describe?

My point is that you are theorizing.

Your presented your personal experience and opinion as fact and i presented to you variables that you didn't account for.

Whether a cable makes a difference or not is not the discussion here because i can see now that this thread is for cable haters, the discussion is that you claimed the skin effect is absolute with specific numbers and i disagreed, you know with the variables.

There is no plausible way for either of us to prove anything without massive amounts of money, so we discuss, isn't that the purpose of this thread?

Otherwise why not just rename the thread to "cable haters" thread.

 

[bigshot]

Can't you cite a single commercially available cable that isn't audibly transparent when used for its intended purpose? It sounds like you're expecting us to prove a negative.

 

[bfreedma]

My point is that you are theorizing.

Your presented your personal experience and opinion as fact and i presented to you variables that you didn't account for.

Whether a cable makes a difference or not is not the discussion here because i can see now that this thread is for cable haters, the discussion is that you claimed the skin effect is absolute with specific numbers and i disagreed, you know with the variables.

There is no plausible way for either of us to prove anything without massive amounts of money, so we discuss, isn't that the purpose of this thread?

Otherwise why not just rename the thread to "cable haters" thread.

It’s difficult to have this discussion when you can’t even keep the people you’re responding to straight. i made no claims about skin effect, though I do agree with @gregorio.

It’s also interesting that you presented math without being able to relate it to an actual product, then accuse those asking for relevant examples as “cable haters”. I don’t hate cables as clearly, cables are necessary, though I do dislike claims about cables that are irrelevant in any reasonable use case.

Since you can’t/won’t identify any products audibly impacted, how about doing the math and showing hard data for a cable length of 10 feet being audibly impacted by whatever you’re claiming. If you’re simply saying that we now have the capability to measure things in excess of 1000x beyond human hearing, sure, but why should anyone care when discussing audio claims and myths?