Improve sound quality with this liquid (Sound Clear Nano)

[.spider.]

I'd expect it to reduce some noise.

I'd expect no measurable difference.

[Deli]

I bet it'll improve sex as well.

[patrickjp93]

I'm having a hard time trying not to laugh at your claims.

No offense though but I'm sure in an ABX test you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the metal the connector has.

There are people in this world with perfect pitch who can tell you within hundredths of a Hz difference. There are people who can tell you in the first 5 notes of a tune whether or not a certain artist is playing it. You honestly think it's impossible someone can figure out 1 of 3 common metals used on a connector by listening when keeping other variables the same? Again, I'm been singing in choirs and as a soloist for years and have a very well-trained ear for harmony and distortion. The differences in background static and the roundedness of bass tones will tell me all I need to know.

[.spider.]

You honestly think it's impossible someone can figure out 1 of 3 common metals used on a connector by listening when keeping other variables the same?

Yes I am 100% sure

[zacRupnow]

I know what your referring to.... (that infamous day).

When people of a country being occupied at war with the US retaliated and were called terrorists.

[Nup]

Fun times eh. It could make for a good video though

[GoldSrc]

ABX tests are useless. Our senses are much more refined than our memory. A+B tests at the same time is the way to go. One for each ear.

Human hearing gets worse with age, a kid's senses are more sensitive than an adult's.

 

 

There are people in this world with perfect pitch who can tell you within hundredths of a Hz difference. There are people who can tell you in the first 5 notes of a tune whether or not a certain artist is playing it. You honestly think it's impossible someone can figure out 1 of 3 common metals used on a connector by listening when keeping other variables the same? Again, I'm been singing in choirs and as a soloist for years and have a very well-trained ear for harmony and distortion. The differences in background static and the roundedness of bass tones will tell me all I need to know.

Not if you're a human, whose hearing can't even hear a 19KHz signal.

Tests have been done, where "high end" audio cables have been replaced with a coat hanger, and none of them could tell the difference.

So yeah, I'm 100% sure you can't tell the difference, maybe by chance alone.

You could probably tell the difference between 56 and 156Hz, but not from 19,569 and 19,669Hz, that's for sure, a young kid probably, but not a grown adult.

 

Now, noise floor is something different, with 44.1 16bit PCM unless you increase the volume, you couldn't tell the difference between CD and SACD, let alone tell the difference between different metals.

[Dzzope]

There are people in this world with perfect pitch who can tell you within hundredths of a Hz difference. There are people who can tell you in the first 5 notes of a tune whether or not a certain artist is playing it. You honestly think it's impossible someone can figure out 1 of 3 common metals used on a connector by listening when keeping other variables the same? Again, I'm been singing in choirs and as a soloist for years and have a very well-trained ear for harmony and distortion. The differences in background static and the roundedness of bass tones will tell me all I need to know.

Your full of it mate.. the difference of conductivity between the materials is irrelevant.. because it's just a coating.. the core has more resistance than either gold or Nickel.

 

What your saying amounts to claiming to hear the difference that nano meters or even microns of 2 similarly conductive materials make to an electrical signal.

 

A machine couldn't detect it. Your full of shit or your delusional. I don't care which, nobody believe this.

[Notional]

Human hearing gets worse with age, a kid's senses are more sensitive than an adult's.

 

As I stated in another above post. It's called presbycusis. Why I stated that a 65 yo not hearing the difference between a coat hanger and a cable, was no real surprise. However, senses are different, not only in detail, but also in training. I for instance, can hear very high pitches, which is not normal for my age. So I'm more susceptible to coil whine and electrical noise. Also why I hate hard dome tweeters. They not only annoy my ears, they outright hurt some times. Soft dome tweeters for me please.

[ManWithBeard1990]

Sure.

[patrickjp93]

Human hearing gets worse with age, a kid's senses are more sensitive than an adult's.

 

 

Not if you're a human, whose hearing can't even hear a 19KHz signal.

Tests have been done, where "high end" audio cables have been replaced with a coat hanger, and none of them could tell the difference.

So yeah, I'm 100% sure you can't tell the difference, maybe by chance alone.

You could probably tell the difference between 56 and 156Hz, but not from 19,569 and 19,669Hz, that's for sure, a young kid probably, but not a grown adult.

 

Now, noise floor is something different, with 44.1 16bit PCM unless you increase the volume, you couldn't tell the difference between CD and SACD, let alone tell the difference between different metals.

My hearing tops out at 21KHz, just beyond the average.

 

Tests done on whom? I know a multiple Grammy and Gramophone winning producer and engineer who could clean the clock of anyone supposedly tested.

 

when it's 10 tests back to back blind and I get all 10 right, that chance is 1/(3^10) or 1 in 59,000 shot by random chance. Sorry, no.

 

And actually yes, any trained musician who knows a base pitch and knows the ratios can tell you the difference by ear. Auralia Ear Training Software will basically teach you how to do that.

 

Your hearing doesn't start to degrade until about 25 years of age, and I still retain my full 19Hz to 21KHz range I've had since I was 10 while not yet being 22.

[patrickjp93]

Your full of it mate.. the difference of conductivity between the materials is irrelevant.. because it's just a coating.. the core has more resistance than either gold or Nickel.

 

What your saying amounts to claiming to hear the difference that nano meters or even microns of 2 similarly conductive materials make to an electrical signal.

 

A machine couldn't detect it. Your full of shit or your delusional. I don't care which, nobody believe this.

It's not the conductivity, resistance, or impedance which matter so much as it is contact. Gold is much more machinable to leave a more flawless surface which aids in overall contact. The closer and smaller the gaps, the less static and distortion, and the more full the sound in the lower registers. Just put me on the listening side of the following:

 

Middle-Low bass test, consonant mid-high harmony test

 Contrabass, overtone, undertone, polyphony

(skip to 1:00)  Highest complexity harmony, full range, contrabass, undertone, overtone

 

Those three pieces all on the same audio chipset, settings, volume, and headset and I can easily pick out which connector surface metal you're using based solely on the distortions to the recordings.

 

A machine can very easily detect it. An oscilloscope would make short work of pointing out the distortions. The more the software has to clean up the signal the more the overtones, undertones, and resonant qualities are lost, hence autotuning making even a great singer sound terrible to a good ear

 

And no, the difference is in the uniformity of the waves and the way resonance is translated into the signals. It's very common for cheaper metals to produce audible popping noises on complex harmony (10+ parts not to mention the overtones and undertones).

 

The cores generally are the same quality. It's whether or not the signal reaches it cleanly which is the issue.

[othertomperson]

Yep.. he's full of it..

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/are-gold-plated-connectors-worth-it-morrisons-mailbag/

 

You'd be better off with copper than gold.. if you could actually hear the difference.. Total BS, only reason for gold is corrosion.

 

Digital, no, but it's a whole different issue to analogue, where any slight data degradation is literally audio information being lost.

[.spider.]

A machine can very easily detect it. An oscilloscope would make short work of pointing out the distortions.

Not even if you use a paperclip as a wire.

[GoldSrc]

My hearing tops out at 21KHz, just beyond the average.

 

Tests done on whom? I know a multiple Grammy and Gramophone winning producer and engineer who could clean the clock of anyone supposedly tested.

 

when it's 10 tests back to back blind and I get all 10 right, that chance is 1/(3^10) or 1 in 59,000 shot by random chance. Sorry, no.

 

And actually yes, any trained musician who knows a base pitch and knows the ratios can tell you the difference by ear. Auralia Ear Training Software will basically teach you how to do that.

 

Your hearing doesn't start to degrade until about 25 years of age, and I still retain my full 19Hz to 21KHz range I've had since I was 10.

Your hearing tops at 21KHz?, you're not human then.

 

And those tests I'm talking about were conducted for a year, here, you can read this

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

 

This is from the Wikipedia, which has its references and sources in case you want them.

 

In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and a compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) conversion of the same source material under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.

When the level of the signal was elevated by 14 dB or more, the test subjects were able to detect the higher noise floor of the CD quality loop easily. The authors commented:

 

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.

 

Following criticism that the original published results of the study were not sufficiently detailed, the AES published a list of the audio equipment and recordings used during the tests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Comparison_with_CD

 

 

And just by doing a simple Google search for "audio coat hanger cable", brings pretty good stuff about a coat hanger sounding the same as expensive cables.

Here, you can read this post if you want

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/speakers-when-is-good-enough-enough.2512/page-2#post-15412

 

In which the guy says.

 

We gathered up a 5 of our audio buddies. We took my "old" Martin Logan SL-3 (not a bad speaker for accurate noise making) and hooked them up with Monster 1000 speaker cables (decent cables according to the audio press).

We also rigged up 14 gauge, oxygen free Belden stranded copper wire with a simple PVC jacket. Both were 2 meters long. They were connected to an ABX switch box allowing blind fold testing.

Volume levels were set at 75 Db at 1000K Hz. A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass). None of us had heard this group or CD before, therefore eliminating biases.

 

The music was played. Of the 5 blind folded, only 2 guessed correctly which was the monster cable. (I was not one of them). This was done 7 times in a row! Keeping us blind folded, my brother switched out the Belden wire (are you ready for this) with simple coat hanger wire! Unknown to me and our 12 audiophile buddies, prior to the ABX blind test, he took apart four coat hangers, reconnectd them and twisted them into a pair of speaker cables. Connections were soldered. He stashed them in a closet within the testing room so we were not privy to what he was up to. This made for a pair of 2 meter cables, the exact length of the other wires. The test was conducted. After 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire. Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent, however, when A-B tests occured, it was impossible to determine which sounded best the majority of the time and which wire was in use. Needless to say, after the blind folds came off and we saw what my brother did, we learned he was right...

 

And I still doubt you can hear up to 20KHz, unless of course, you increase the volume, at normal listening levels it would be impossible for a human to hear 20KHz. 

20Hz to 20KHz is a very optimistic number, and unless you're a cat or a dog, you can't hear beyond 20KHz.

[patrickjp93]

Digital, no, but it's a whole different issue to analogue, where any slight data degradation is literally audio information being lost.

Information corruption as well, leading to malformed waves which remove the overtones, undertones, and depth of harmony and resonance. It's obvious as Hell when you've been around vocal music for so long.

 

If Steve Barnett and Preston Smith can tell you you're off by 0.5 Hz on a Tenor high C just by ear, this is no challenge.

[Guest Kloaked]

Guys, I heard if you pee on your CPU socket a little before you put it in, you can get to 5.0 Ghz with a stock cooler.

[Nowak]

The sad thing about this is that idiots with more money than brains are gonna buy this and convince themselves that it actually does make a difference when this is literally just the audiophile version of snake oil.

[patrickjp93]

Not even if you use a paperclip as a wire.

Oh quite easily. Get multiple wave forms moving through it and watch it

1) heat up and expand, causing the frequencies to drop in uneven percentages

2) begin to show "fuzz" or visible distortions along the wave with increasing variability and magnitude as the paperclip rises in temperature.

 

 

Your hearing tops at 21KHz?, you're not human then.

 

And those tests I'm talking about were conducted for a year, here, you can read this

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

 

This is from the Wikipedia, which has its references and sources in case you want them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Comparison_with_CD

 

 

And just by doing a simple Google search for "audio coat hanger cable", brings pretty good stuff about a coat hanger sounding the same as expensive cables.

Here, you can read this post if you want

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/speakers-when-is-good-enough-enough.2512/page-2#post-15412

 

In which the guy says.

 

And I still doubt you can hear up to 20KHz, unless of course, you increase the volume, at normal listening levels it would be impossible for a human to hear 20KHz. 

20Hz to 20KHz is a very optimistic number, and unless you're a cat or a dog, you can't hear beyond 20KHz.

I'm sorry but there are living examples of humans who can hear below 20 and hear above 20,000 Hz. 20 to 20K is an average, not an absolute limit. You're conflating with no proof, much like the rest of your post.

 

You do realize that test shows nothing, right? What of all those who answered correctly? Why are there not repeat trials of those same people showing they have a 50% or lower success rate? It's incomplete information you can't cite to prove your claim on its own. It would pass no academic smell test, much less me. Those same people, if they can show consistency, merely prove higher levels of skill or more sensitive ears or both. You can't just jump to the conclusion most convenient for you without solid proof. This is about as solid as wet cardboard.

 

This audio test by one small group with no claim to fame in the audio production or engineering world is hardly worth my time or yours. Without any third party verification and validation of the experiment, it's worthless. Go find a larger experiment with verifiable results and we'll talk.

[patrickjp93]

The sad thing about this is that idiots with more money than brains are gonna buy this and convince themselves that it actually does make a difference when this is literally just the audiophile version of snake oil.

Very true. The material in the connectors and ports can make a difference, but introducing a conductive liquid will certainly do no good. The fields are completely uncontrollable.

[.spider.]

Information corruption as well, leading to malformed waves which remove the overtones, undertones, and depth of harmony and resonance.

On God if the signal is badly corrupted you'll hear clicking and cracking if not the signal is bit identical.

[patrickjp93]

On God if the signal is badly corrupted you'll hear clicking and cracking if not the signal is bit identical.

Not at all. You'd have to lose very specific parts of the signal to induce popping and cracking. Losing tiny pieces here and there can remove tone and depth. At a 144KHz sampling rate a good chipset (Realtek ALC 1150) loses or flips (errors) about 10,000 bits per second. Most of it gets washed away by the rest of the sound the simpler it is. A single tone would make it impossible to notice. Pure tone harmony you still probably wouldn't notice a difference, but with real instruments, especially one as dynamic and complex as the voice and it becomes very obvious if you've heard the gold standard of your recording.

[.spider.]

Oh quite easily. Get multiple wave forms moving through it and watch it

1) heat up and expand, causing the frequencies to drop in uneven percentages

2) begin to show "fuzz" or visible distortions along the wave with increasing variability and magnitude as the paperclip rises in temperature.

 

Please proof that, please.

BTW: Would you use a blowtorch for that test? I mean if the paperclip melts there could be a difference.

[patrickjp93]

Please proof that, please.

BTW: Would you use a blowtorch for that test? I mean if the paperclip melts there could be a difference.

Ever taken an introductory electrophysics class and played with an oscilloscope? Freshman year, second lab for me. All you have to know are the resonance notes of the metal in question. Get it vibrating on the atomic/molecular level and watch it melt itself when under even a mild current. If you had a superconductor this wouldn't be an issue, but anything with resistance and resonance is susceptible to this effect.

 

Or, you know, facts about any wiring (this article is specifically aluminum, but the same principle applies to all metal wiring. Electricity goes in, heat is produced, the metal expands. If you add oscillations to that you risk running into impedance which can temporarily increase resistance which will increase heat which will increase resistance. Add multiple wave forms and you risk that they or their harmonic overlaps will find the resonance frequency. At that point you're just screwed. Consult whichever stress/strain and electrophysics books you wish.

 

http://www.housemaster.com/resources/hm_resources/series/aluminum_wiring

[.spider.]

Ever taken an introductory electrophysics class and played with an oscilloscope? Freshman year, second lab for me. All you have to know are the resonance notes of the metal in question. Get it vibrating on the atomic/molecular level and watch it melt itself when under even a mild current. If you had a superconductor this wouldn't be an issue, but anything with resistance and resonance is susceptible to this effect.

I have no words.