Holy mackeral Jon, READ THE DAMN POSTS ENTIRELY

What the hell is it gonna take to get you to read them and understand them????

NOW PAY ATTENTION!!!!

JN: [ Humans can hear 20 Hz to 20 Khz..period, end of story..That rule, applied by itself, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that wires and cables CANNOT make a difference. ]
JR: ""A perfect example. This kind of statement ignores everything but FR, or more technically, the amplitude response vs frequency. By saying this, you are in essence, making a claim that the only cable metric that matters (discounting Nordmark), is the cable amplitude response.
There IS more to it than that. If you are trying to say that there is not, then it would behoove you to provide the citations, the references, the evidence that this is indeed the case. You have now made a claim, juist as many other cable-impaired individuals have made, and I have NEVER seen any of this evidence laid out, from anyone, to any significant degree. Only bald statements of fact, without substantiation.

What a bunch of self serving drivel you have provided us..if you had actually read the post you are responding to, you would have noticed (as everyone else did)..

SO, here AGAIN, is the actual posting, cut and pasted..

Humans can hear 20 Hz to 20 Khz..period, end of story..That rule, applied by itself, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that wires and cables CANNOT make a difference. So all the "others" are applying the rules we all live with and understand to the problem. You are also guilty of doing that.

But when the Nordmark analysis and result is included, the old rules fall apart. They have to, 20Hkz bandwidth and 1.5 uSec lateralization are inconcruent.

Wow!!! what a difference of flavor it makes when you include my subsequent statement!! Geeze, it's so easy for an insecure person to pull what they want out of context, for their own self serving purposes!!!!

JR: ""The rest of your post is devoted to pointing out how scientifically you are proceeding, and everyone else is not, including me.""

And how, by your misunderstanding of my diagram, and your pulling what you wish to out of context, are you providing any evidence to the contrary?? This is another example of you not understanding a subject, but still, undaunted, bashing anyone for your own purposes of ego...

[ Wrong again, dude..I couldn't believe you accepted the higher inductance tradeoff you did..and I showed everyone how to calculate the actual inductance of the compromised cable you made..
and
My cable has a lower LC product of anything on the market I have found..so with respect to L * C, it is demonstratedly and repeatedly better and superior.. ]

JR: ""And despite the explanations I offered as to WHY I chosse the compromises I did, you act as though somehow, those choices were WRONG according to some arbitrary criteria only you know is the most relevant.

Your only explanation was to make it easier for people to make..as such, that is a good thing..but it still accepts the compromise in that you have designed into the cable the higher inductance, as well as a greater susceptibility to external fields.

JR: ""Several comments were made about thicker ga center wires balancing the current flow with the braid, but you ignore the skin effect issues that a larger center wire introduces.""

Go back, re-read all the posts in their entirety, Jon..and stop pulling out what you want, to try and make yourself look as if you understood it..If you have any questions about the stuff you don't understand, or are unclear...just ask..no problem. It is clear, from your misunderstanding of my picture and explanation, that my attempt at dumbing down the e/m theory was insufficient for you..you seem predisposed to fire off garbage retorts before absorbing the entire post..Leaving me the choice of either dumbing it down even more, or asking you to please read and re-read until you understand what it is I'm trying to convey..if it's still unclear...just ask..

By you attempting to introduce all the issues such as plating, or dielectric type, or braid percentage cover, or skin effect, you just toss lots of floobydust into the mix..rather than feebly trying to discredit ideas here, as you are historically prone to do, you should just relax a bit, and think things through scientifically..

The actual scientific method requires that, in the course of an experiment, ALL confounding factors have to be considered..All that can be removed, have to be..All that can be controlled, or set to the same value...must be.

You have not demonstrated any ability or desire to approach any of this in a rigorous scientific fashion...Your half "a" approach to the scientific method would be laughable, if not for the fact that others accept what you are doing as "scientific".

In some cases, you do so rather well..but certainly not in all.

JR: ""You ignored the comments about plating vs. bare copper, etc. and so, by focussing ONLY on the parameter du jour, you justify and validate your criticisms as if they were the gospel from the higher realms of physics.""

Who said ignore?? You are grasping at straws Jon..sit back, relax...Contribute if you can...and stop with your crusade to discredit everyone. Face it, Jon..your applications of physics are, shall we say, weak?

JR: ""The bottom line is, despite having "just haphazardly changed things by guessing" (which was actually a series of controlled experiments and listening tests, rather than the stumbling about you portray), the DIY cable designs I offer are known to sound very good, and provide excellent performance. The proof is in the pudding, and there have been many, many servings of DIY twisted pair and CC89259, while we have yet to see any servings of your design.

Ummmm...let's see...I guess everyone is supposed to toss alternate designs out because you think your cable sounds best??? You still don't get it, do you.

JR: ""You can denigrate me and my methods all you want, but that does not make it true or even relevant to most of the discussions at hand.

It would be possible for one to denigrate your methods only after you have provided a method. So far, you have not provided any reasonable "method" which can be questioned. You have, provided lots and lots of verbage about how you are "experinced" in such matters of high end audio, but as far as I can see, your methods are simply, "I tried it, it works, trust me, I'm Jon..." Without any rigorous methodology..

Why would I denigrate you? I don't know you...and, anyone who likes moosetracks can't be all bad...

JR: ""Re-invent the wheel, re-discover the physics of audio cables, with the jneutron slant included. There are enough folks out there who know better, and can only smile. You are advancing only your particular and very limited cause, not cable science.""

I am not re-inventing the wheel...I am not re-discovering new physics..in fact, the only "jneutron" slant is the application of scientific method and actual physics, to the problem at hand..Your application of any effect or physics concept to cable "sonics" is laughable by anyone with experience in EE, physics, and science. I have tried to introduce you to your mis-application of concepts, as well as your scientific method errors..It's not an individual's slant, Jon...it's the rest of the world..

Your view of cable science has nothing to do with science...Jon...It is just your own made up physics sounding stuff. It is no surprise that scientific people laugh at your explanations..My co-workers have tired of the lunchtime laughter reading some of your "scientific methods" you have provided..Now they are starting to laugh at me for even bothering to try to correct you...

Keep your website content as it is..there are plenty of non scientific people around you can keep in the dark..

You should just lurk my posts...Maybe you'll learn something..other than the fact that I won't accept your arrogant attitude.

Cheers, John

PS.don't you get it yet Jon?? Your inaccuracies are easily dealt with...it's your arrogance that get's you lambasted..Play nice for a change..

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - PC/IC/amp/source interactions - jneutron 09:22:51 04/28/04 (23)

Are we missing the interesting point about this post? - Commuteman 09:19:08 05/03/04 (3)

makes sense - Mau'dib 19:08:20 05/05/04 (0)

Re: Are we missing the interesting point about this post? - Jon Risch 10:39:29 05/03/04 (1)

Re: Are we missing the interesting point about this post? - jneutron 08:09:04 05/04/04 (0)

Re: PC/IC/amp/source interactions - Jon Risch 17:54:35 05/02/04 (14)

You gotta read the posts accurately, and review my diagram. - jneutron 07:24:17 05/03/04 (12)

Re: You gotta read the posts accurately, and review my diagram. - Jon Risch 10:35:14 05/03/04 (11)

Re: You gotta read the posts accurately, and review my diagram. - john curl 20:47:50 05/04/04 (7)

Re: You gotta read the posts accurately, and review my diagram. - Steve Eddy 21:40:52 05/04/04 (6)

Re: You gotta read the posts accurately, and review my diagram. - john curl 21:48:35 05/04/04 (0)

Re: You gotta read the posts accurately, and review my diagram. - john curl 21:47:33 05/04/04 (4)

In addition to the "allegations" from cables... - jneutron 06:14:38 05/05/04 (0)

Re: You gotta read the posts accurately, and review my diagram. - Steve Eddy 22:41:12 05/04/04 (2)

Re: You gotta read the posts accurately, and review my diagram. - john curl 23:50:16 05/04/04 (1)

Re: You gotta read the posts accurately, and review my diagram. - Steve Eddy 11:44:21 05/05/04 (0)

Holy mackeral Jon, READ THE DAMN POSTS ENTIRELY - jneutron 07:55:25 05/04/04 (2)

Re: Holy mackeral Jon, READ THE DAMN POSTS ENTIRELY - Phil Tower 08:30:18 05/04/04 (1)

Thanks Phil. - jneutron 08:52:16 05/04/04 (0)

Re: PC/IC/amp/source interactions - Dan Banquer 06:28:50 05/03/04 (0)

So..... - Commuteman 10:35:39 04/30/04 (3)

Re: So..... - jneutron 11:48:19 04/30/04 (2)

It's like this.... - Commuteman 09:06:19 05/03/04 (1)

Re: It's like this.... - jneutron 08:20:16 05/04/04 (0)

Follow Ups

Holy mackeral Jon, READ THE DAMN POSTS ENTIRELY - jneutron 07:55:25 05/04/04 (2)

Re: Holy mackeral Jon, READ THE DAMN POSTS ENTIRELY - Phil Tower 08:30:18 05/04/04 (1)

Thanks Phil. - jneutron 08:52:16 05/04/04 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.