Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:59:48 -0800, dpierce.cartchunk.org@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote
(in article <fp7tdk02527@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> On Feb 16, 10:51 am, Greg Wormald <greg.worm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article <fp5kuk01...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> 
>> Sonnova <sonn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Well, The thing is that conductors follow some very fundamental rules
of
>>> signal carrying and they all relate to bandwidth and the source and
>>> destination impedances of the equipment at each end of the signal
carrying
>>> cable.
>> 
>> You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is
>> impossible for me to accept. If you accept the above statement then we
>> cannot discuss further.
>> 
>> You seem to be making the assumption that all rules regarding the
>> reproduction of music via conductors has been discovered and fully
>> explained.
>> 
>> I DO NOT BELIEVE that. My reading in the progress of physics tells me
>> that your statement is unlikely to be true except in the most general
>> way.
> 
> Then you have pretty much declared yourself out of step
> and, indeed, out of touch with an entire range of physics
> and engineering in fields that have spent FAR more effort
> and time on the topic than ANYONE in the audio industry.
> 
> There are fields in which signals a orders of magnitude
> more fragility than ANYTHING in audio are routine, where
> none of the outright floobydust and flimflammeryof high-end
> audio holds.
> 
> Go take a look at the requirements for detecting and
> preserving the signals in fields such as SQUIDS, radio
> astronomy, encephalography, particle physics and
> more. These fields left high-end audio in the dust
> decades ago on pretty much every topic the high-end
> claims to have made fantastic "innovations" and
> "discoveries" in (including cables, jitter and more).
> 
> Also look at the amount of the stuff you see in high-end
> audio that has made itself into other fields (hint: pretty much
> nothing). Many of the so-called "innovators " in this industry
> know little or nothing about the topics they choose to hold
> forth on, and would be the laughing stock in any serious
> scientific or engineering forum.
> 
> Yes, the laughed at Newton (well, no they didn't) and they
> laughed at Einstein (again, no they didn't). But, as Carl
> Sagan observed, they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

These are exactly the points I was making. conductors are among the most
well 
understood of electronics technologies. Why would one think, for instance 
that when high-frequency radar came about in WWII, that engineers already 
knew that waveguides were needed to carry the UHF radar signal to and from

the antennas and that coax wouldn't work? Because the physics of signals
at 
those frequencies were already well known, even then. This is not a
subject 
that lends itself to debate because there is, unlike, perhaps, other areas
of 
audio, little "wiggle room" for the technology of wire to have any voodoo 
associated with it. It's too mature of a discipline and too basic a 
technology for that to happen.