I have also suggested energising it using a periodic pulse signal to look for short duration transitory time related effects. This can sometimes reveal effects that can get lost in a square wave.
If you send me a description of the waves you would like to use, I will include those in the procedure.
Thank you,
Rafael
Hi my casual thoughts are :
a) square wave or impulse signals because of even and odd harmonics - and impulse would contain smaller harmonic intervals
b) pink noise because of the reducing power for each octave - kind of similar to audio
But other than that - I would leave to Xanthe
I agree, pink noise to look for FR changes.
Square to look for harmonic issues (may not be so clear from the pink noise), and some timing issues.
Periodic pulse to look for time delay anomalies (for instance energy storage with delayed release).
You are clearly invested in the outcome to the point where independant verification or replication would be necessary for a neutral to have confidence in any result.
This is a reasonable request @Svetty.
While I am not ready to spend money in a notary or third party inspector at the moment, I will be very careful to ensure that others can repeat the experiment in the simplest possible way.
I cannot be happy if burn in only happens in my kitchen.
I’ll be able to try my own little test soon!
I purchased a pair of tellurium Q black II a few weeks back but they just don’t seem to have the same capability as my old cables. I just need longer lengths so I’ll be purchasing same cable that I’ve been running for the last 10 years but with an extra meter. I’d say 10 years would be sufficient burn in. Will be interesting. It might change my mind. I really hope they don’t need to burn in.
Anyone have any idea if 2 meters vs 3 meters will have any impact of sound?
I’ve really tried to read this whole thread, honest. I have concluded that I should sell my whole system and just get a Bose Wave radio. I’ll put it in a special box made of Nano-Graphene Particles and run a Fat power cable out of it. It Will sound amazing because I think so. Anyone who disagrees will be considered a fool.
2m vs 3m: 2m gives insufficient inductance 3m is better be still below minimum, so yes that will have an effect.
……with the optimum reckoned to be 5 to 10 metres, and that’s for NACA5, and every chance that other cables may need to be longer to reach the same spec.
Look…to do this properly we need a properly designed experiment, with a clearly articulated methodology that accounts for potential sources of bias, equipment sensitive enough to measure what it is we want to measure, an understanding of what it is we are measuring and the extraneous variables that could confound the results…and how to control them.
We also need a hypothesis, clearly articulated and with a corresponding null. You do not need a full theory (explanatory framework) as that can come later should a positive result be found.
When designing your experiment, you need to demonstrate a thoroughly conducted and properly referenced literature review has been undertaken. You need to assess previous work into this issue and if these studies did not support the hypothesis you are testing, then you need to work out how your experiment addresses potential reasons for this.
To do this in a way that people will accept - whatever the result - requires a huge amount of work and the evidence to show that work has been undertaken, not just the results.
If so, then ideally the design of the experiment would be peer-reviewed before any experiment is undertaken, so that we understand what is being done and can be sure that no tweaks to the experiment were added if the results were not as desired…
Granted. Thank you, my peer.
Ha, I most certainly am not going to be able to sign off on any experiment. But I also won’t accept the validity of a badly designed one…
It seems to me that that is happening live tgrough the discussions on the forum as @Rafael is developing his approach. Maybe the first time a protocol has developed in such a manner.
I guess you’re like me, a bit sceptical about the Higgs boson fiasco.
Spent billions on detection equipment. Yet bizarrely had no idea, in what way this equipment would indicate the presence of the elusive boson. It took months of committee meetings to decide the event detected was probably the Higgs Boson.
I think at this stage Rafael is simply determining if the equipment is is capable of detecting any differences.
If it does, then is the time to fine tune the procedure.
What a strange and misinformed comparison to make…