Clipped and Shorn Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 From year to year my taste in music changes, evolves, and cycles back. From month to month I am excited about different music depending on what I have been thinking about. From week to week my tastes change dependending on getting the latest recording that was the buzz. From day to day I play different music, contrasting a Jazz binge with some Latin music or something else, and maybe a trip down memory lane listening to some LPs from the 50s. From hour to hour I might contrast one musical tantalization with another, breaking up a slow tune with an up tempo number. Sometimes classical music is it. From minute to minute I might get so excited about some musicological or historical point I am explaining to you while we listen, I might stop an LP or CD and then play another track from another recording. From second to second, as the blood pumps and the perceptions bounce from note to note, the music never stays the same, it is ever refreshed and reinvented, it is the very nature of the jazz improvisation and why jazz itself is such a perfect paradigm for the ever shifting meaning and emotion that is at the heart of any art which uses TIME as one of its fundamental dimensions. We are in time, the music is in time, our emotions and perceptions depend on time....without contrast and change perception itself would fade away....this has been scientifically proven.......we are constantly in "scan" mode..... And you are telling me that you can compare what you just think you heard with cable A seven minutes ago with what you think your are hearing NOW with cable B.....hmmmmm I wonder if I would really TRUST my own perceptions about this. Every time I hear the same track over it sounds different, my reaction and feelings about it are different, moment to moment.etc. Years ago when I recorded an album of original music, I would drive around in the car with a tape recording from the previous days work, to compare different takes from the recording session in order to make a decision about which take to use in the final mix , this process took weeks, sometimes months, it was so subjective and illusive......I had to listen over and over and over from day to day to day........to arrive at what I felt would be "definitive" or some such.... or to just decide what I actually liked best. Do not underestimate the ever-variable nature of one's perceptions which are constantly changing in relationship to what was just heard. Moment "A " is different from itself moment to moment in contrast to what preceded it in different contexts etc. This phenomenon even gets down to the level of note to note in music, the same note repeated is now a different thing altogether. These mysteries concerning perception are at the root of this whole controversy about what can be measured and what is only known subjectively. It is all very slippery and subject to argument and it is no wonder why it is difficult to decipher the snake-oil salesman from the real doctor. In science they always have to compare the "Pacebo" effect with the measured results. Sometimes we are just comparing different Placebo effects........and yet, sometimes we are sure we know what we are hearing.....we think....... there is no answer.......just as there is no final point where a work of true art is finished or the perception of it ends..... play it again Sam........ C&S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtaylor Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Sometimes we are just comparing different Placebo effects........and yet, sometimes we are sure we know what we are hearing.....we think....... there is no answer.......just as there is no final point where a work of true art is finished or the perception of it ends..... play it again Sam........ C&S Well put C&S, some days the music really gets into you and others not so much. Mood and atmosphere are some of the unknowns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDBRbuilder Posted May 27, 2004 Author Share Posted May 27, 2004 MAXG, Normally, when discussing differences in the weights of "heavy metals", one bases the weight used on the atomic weight of the most abundant or best-known isotope version....this gives lead the edge over gold in its given atomic weight ...atomic weight of gold is 197.0, atomic weight of lead is 207.20. Be sure to understand that gold is SELDOM used in its PUREEST form (24k), except for plating purposes...whereas lead IS most often used in its purest available form for MOST purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 The analogy is what color of glasses are we wearing? I would like to say that there is a definitive test as applied to sight such as the number of lines per inch seen at a prescribed distance. There is no actual test for hearing beyond volume and frequency testing. There is no test for "how much depth or detail I can hear", etc... Electrically-based testing fails to provide any definitive method for testing audio, except for square wave reproduction (unnatural) and peak response times. So whatdowegot? Opinions. THIS HOBBY IS ENTIRELY OPINION-BASED. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Speaker Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 ---------------- On 5/27/2004 7:20:47 PM HDBRbuilder wrote: MAXG, Normally, when discussing differences in the weights of "heavy metals", one bases the weight used on the atomic weight of the most abundant or best-known isotope version....this gives lead the edge over gold in its given atomic weight ...atomic weight of gold is 197.0, atomic weight of lead is 207.20. Be sure to understand that gold is SELDOM used in its PUREEST form (24k), except for plating purposes...whereas lead IS most often used in its purest available form for MOST purposes. ---------------- Which weighs more? A pound of lead or a pound of gold? Careful! A pound of lead weighs more. 16 ounces per pound avoirdupois @ 28.350 grams per ounce = 0.454 kilograms. 12 ounces per pound troy @ 31.103 grams per ounce = 0.373 kilograms. Gold is measured in troy weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 HDB, Yes - Lead has a higher atomic weight than Gold, but Gold is actually denser (almost twice as dense as it happens). Why? found this on the net: "Gold atoms form tighter bonds to their neighbors than do lead atoms, so the melting point is higher (1000 deg C vs. 300) and the distance between neighboring atoms is less (4.08 angstroms vs. 4.95). So the gold atoms are more closely packed, hence the gold is denser." So a pound of Gold (as in 16 ozs) takes up less space than a pound of Lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDBRbuilder Posted May 28, 2004 Author Share Posted May 28, 2004 Well...all of this hoopla over my joke got me to thinking about some things. So...I guess this is just another way of keeping this thread rockin' and rollin' with heated opinions ...so here goes... GOLD PLATED CONNECTORS...food for thought: OK...we all know that gold is a better conductor of electricity than steel...right? We also know that electricity tends to take the path of "least resistance"...right? Here is something to think about when using gold plated connectors: The gold is normally plated over steel connectors in around 24 Karat purity. BUT the underlying connector is STILL steel to begin with. Steel has a greater electrical resistance than the normally-used copper wire the connector is put onto. Gold has a lesser resistance than that same copper wire. The question arises that (since electricity TENDS to take the path of least resistance) when using gold-plated connectors, does ALL of the electricity travel SOLELY through the gold plating??...OR does SOME of it make it through the plating to the underlying MORE RESISTANT steel connector body...then have to make its way BACK through the gold plating on the other side of the steel connector body in order to complete the circuit??? If the second case is true, then can it be guaranteed that with enough mils of gold plating on the surface of the connector, the electricity does NOT find any path through the more resistent steel body at all??? And if this can be guaranteed, then just how many mils of gold-plating are required for this to ALWAYS occur for audio-equipment usage??? If there is NO guarantee, then is use of gold-plated connectors primarily for the advantage of eliminating corrosion/oxidation resistance possibilities on the steel connector, with no other guaranteed advantage? Just wondered! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngryOrb Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 ---------------- On 5/28/2004 9:24:27 AM HDBRbuilder wrote: If there is NO guaraantee, then is use of gold-plated connectors primarily for the advantage of eliminating corrosion/oxidation resistance possibilities on the steel connector, with no other guaranteed advantage? Just wondered! ---------------- Interesting! to say the least... which I did. Angryrb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 ---------------- On 5/28/2004 9:24:27 AM HDBRbuilder wrote: If there is NO guaraantee, then is use of gold-plated connectors primarily for the advantage of eliminating corrosion/oxidation resistance possibilities on the steel connector, with no other guaranteed advantage? Just wondered! ---------------- To the best of my understanding, the gold is to reduce oxidation at the connection, plus if you put shiney gold on the connector, you can double the price of the cable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Speaker Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Max: You and HDB are talking about two different things. HDB is talking about atomic weight which if you remember your chemistry is the weight of a mole (OK bring on the humor everybody, this one is wide open, LOL!) of a given element. A mole (Latin for mass) is Avogadros (Amedeo Avogadro, Italian like fini) number of atoms or 6.02 x 10 to the 23rd. Its like the chemistry dozen. Comparing lead to gold, lead would be like a dozen basketballs and gold would be a dozen small eggs. A mole of lead weighs 207.2 grams and a mole of gold is 196.9665 grams. You are talking about specific gravity, which is the weight of a cubic centimeter of an element. This is based around water in that one cc of water weighs 1 gram and has a specific gravity of 1. Relative to water lead is 11.3 times heavier or 11.3 grams per cc. Gold is heavier than lead, it has a specific gravity of 19.3 and weighs 19.3 grams per cc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.