[Split]Technical split from: Pear Cable CEO Calls James Randi's $1 Million Offer a Ho

[Paulhoff]

Don't know what the asking price has to do with anything in particular. What difference would it make if they were $700? Or $70?

$700 is a rip-off, $70 could be a rip-off too.

Paul



dither is so many times louder then the BS they are selling, damn

 

[Paulhoff]

The only reason there is a + and - on the amp and speakers, is to make sure the speakers are in phase. If both speakers are connected the same there is no problem.

Paul



geeeeeeeeeeee, so much damn skin-oil BS

 

[Steve Eddy]

It is not audible, geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Ok.

Now prove it.

se

 

[Paulhoff]

Ok.

Now prove it.

se

I do not have too, they are making up the BS, they have too.

Paul



And they have to prove that they are fixing the said BS.

 

[Steve Eddy]

This is incorrect. Two wires with opposing currents, connected to a constant current source such as an amplifier, attract, not repel.

Right. They would attract, not repel. I should have read it more closely. Though it doesn't really change the underlying gist of the claim.

And as long as we're picking nits, amplifiers, with the exception of Neslon Pass' First Watt F1 are voltage sources, not current sources. And they're variable, not constant.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

$700 is a rip-off, $70 could be a rip-off too.

Again, what has the asking price to do with anything?

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

I do not have too, they are making up the BS, they have too.

I'm sorry, but you made a declarative objective claim. There's no less onus upon you to prove your objective claims than there is on cable manufacturers from proving their objective claims.

se

 

[Paulhoff]

I'm sorry, but you made a declarative objective claim. There's no less onus upon you to prove your objective claims than there is on cable manufacturers from proving their objective claims.

se

No, they made the claims first, it is on them and/or you the prove the claims are not BS, simple has that.

Paul

 

[sol invictus]

And as long as we're picking nits, amplifiers, with the exception of Neslon Pass' First Watt F1 are voltage sources, not current sources. And they're variable, not constant.

What matters here (for the DC force at least) is that the current in the wires is held constant. That can be because the wires plus load have a fixed impedance and are attached to a voltage source or because they are attached to a current source.

It's worth noting that if the current were not held fixed, for example if the wires were superconducting and the current was circulating by itself, the wires would repel (and the current would decrease due to back EMF). It's amazing how often this elementary point is gotten wrong.

So in the quoted text there's both a specific technical mistake and a much more serious general technical mistake: discussing these effects at all, when there are many others that are overwhelmingly more important for the sound that's produced by the speakers.

As for proving that these effects are inaudible, very strong evidence has been provided by the many blind listening tests that have failed to differentiate between cables.

 

[Steve Eddy]

No, they made the claims first, it is on them and/or you the prove the claims are not BS, simple has that.

I'm sorry, but you still made a declarative, objective claim and their having made their claims first does not in any way remove any onus upon you to substantiate the claim you made.

Now, you could have simply said that they have not proven their claims. But you didn't. Instead you went and made a claim of your own and along with that claim comes the burden of proving it. Otherwise, you're no better than those you are critical of.

se

 

[Paulhoff]

I'm sorry, but you still made a declarative, objective claim and their having made their claims first does not in any way remove any onus upon you to substantiate the claim you made.

Now, you could have simply said that they have not proven their claims. But you didn't. Instead you went and made a claim of your own and along with that claim comes the burden of proving it. Otherwise, you're no better than those you are critical of.

se

No again, and read this real good, they are the ones that are selling the BS for over $7,000 dollars, not me.

Paul

 

[Steve Eddy]

What matters here (for the DC force at least) is that the current in the wires is held constant. That can be because the wires plus load have a fixed impedance and are attached to a voltage source or because they are attached to a current source.

I think we need to come to terms with what you mean when you speak of the current being held constant. In electronic engineering, a constant current source is just that, a current source (characterized by an infinitely high output impedance) whose current is held constant.

As for proving that these effects are inaudible, very strong evidence has been provided by the many blind listening tests that have failed to differentiate between cables.

But as they say, absence of proof is not proof of absence. So why can't one simply be content to say that it hasn't been proved instead of making yet another objective claim and feeling they've no need to prove it?

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

No again, and read this real good, they are the ones that are selling the BS for over $7,000 dollars, not me.

But again, that doesn't absolve you of any burden of proof for your own claim.

se

 

[Paulhoff]

• Triboelectric effect
• Movement relative to an electric field
• Movement relative to a magnetic field

It is important to realize that there are two separate energy sources for this vibration.


The first energy source comes from the loudspeakers themselves. As music is played, the vibrations in the air (sound) vibrate “hairs” in your ears (so you hear the sound), as well as everything else in the room. This vibration includes your audio cables. This mechanical vibration, induced by the sound itself, is a major enemy of cable producers. Unfortunately, this problem is rarely talked about, and frequently overlooked.


The second energy source comes from the current running through the audio cables. As mentioned previously, the current will produce a magnetic field. Since all of the wires in our audio systems have current running in opposing directions (+ and – lead, this applies to AC as well) opposing magnetic fields are set up in the conductors. These opposing magnetic fields mechanically push the conductors apart, thus causing mechanical vibration. This is a major design consideration for loudspeaker cables. However, in audio interconnects, the current is so small, that this effect can truly be neglected, so we will not elaborate on this second mechanism for now.

This is out and out BS. Anyone who has had real electronics knows this.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

But again, that doesn't absolve you of any burden of proof for your own claim.

se

NO IT IS NOT. My claim is back by science, they just make BS up, or is it that you need something called LEARNING.

Paul

 

[Steve Eddy]

NO IT IS NOT. My claim is back by science, they just make BS up, or is it that you need something called LEARNING.

I think you're the one who could use a little "LEARNING."

What you have is not proof, but rather an absence of proof. And an absence of proof does not prove your claim.

Lemme 'splain.

It's 1937.

At the time, the scientific community had no proof that coelacanths had lived on this planet any more recently than 65 million years ago. Then one day you read in the local newspaper that someone claims to have seen a living coelacanth, but they offer no conclusive proof of this.

You write a letter to the editor saying that this person's claim is BS. "There are no living coelacanths. geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee."

Someone else responds asking you to prove your claim. You say your claim doesn't have to be proved, saying something to the effect of the other person made their claim first. When pressed, you say that your claim is backed by science. That this other person is just making up BS.

So now, where does this line of "reasoning" leave you come 1938?

se

 

[Paulhoff]

Quote:

• Triboelectric effect
• Movement relative to an electric field
• Movement relative to a magnetic field

It is important to realize that there are two separate energy sources for this vibration.


The first energy source comes from the loudspeakers themselves. As music is played, the vibrations in the air (sound) vibrate “hairs” in your ears (so you hear the sound), as well as everything else in the room. This vibration includes your audio cables. This mechanical vibration, induced by the sound itself, is a major enemy of cable producers. Unfortunately, this problem is rarely talked about, and frequently overlooked.


The second energy source comes from the current running through the audio cables. As mentioned previously, the current will produce a magnetic field. Since all of the wires in our audio systems have current running in opposing directions (+ and – lead, this applies to AC as well) opposing magnetic fields are set up in the conductors. These opposing magnetic fields mechanically push the conductors apart, thus causing mechanical vibration. This is a major design consideration for loudspeaker cables. However, in audio interconnects, the current is so small, that this effect can truly be neglected, so we will not elaborate on this second mechanism for now.

Prove this.

Paul

 

[sol invictus]

I think we need to come to terms with what you mean when you speak of the current being held constant. In electronic engineering, a constant current source is just that, a current source (characterized by an infinitely high output impedance) whose current is held constant.

Yes, I'm aware of the definition, and that's how I was using it. Again, for this question what is important is that the current remain the same as the distance between the wires changes. One way it will remain the same is if the wires are connected to a current source; another way is if they are connected to a voltage source and only allowed to move slowly. Either way the force is attractive.

But as they say, absence of proof is not proof of absence. So why can't one simply be content to say that it hasn't been proved instead of making yet another objective claim and feeling they've no need to prove it?

There is no such thing as proof in science, only evidence. In this case, the relevant evidence is for the thresholds of human hearing, which were long ago established. These effects contribute at a level far below those thresholds, and furthermore there are many other effects which were not mentioned and are much larger. The quoted statement is therefore both false and (probably intentionally) misleading.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Prove this.

It's not my claim to prove. It's Pear Cable's claim to prove, just as your claim is yours to prove.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Yes, I'm aware of the definition, and that's how I was using it. Again, for this question what is important is that the current remain the same as the distance between the wires changes. One way it will remain the same is if the wires are connected to a current source; another way is if they are connected to a voltage source and only allowed to move slowly. Either way the force is attractive.

Ok, I'm with you now. You're taking it out of the context of a typical amplifier/speaker interface. Gotcha.

As for the force being attractive, I've already agreed with you on that so I guess we can put this one to bed.

There is no such thing as proof in science, only evidence.

I guess I would quibble with that a bit. I mean, would a living coelacanth only be "evidence" of coelacanths living today?

In this case, the relevant evidence is for the thresholds of human hearing, which were long ago established.

You mean there's no more research being done with regard to human aural perception? Didn't know the book had been closed on that.

These effects contribute at a level far below those thresholds, and furthermore there are many other effects which were not mentioned and are much larger.

I certainly agree that there are many other effects which are much larger, though I don't think that fact has any particular relevance.

The quoted statement is therefore both false and (probably intentionally) misleading.

I've been as critical of the claims made by cable manufacturers (to the point it's got me banned from certain forums), but despite that, I don't believe most are insincere in their beliefs.

se