Slashdot Mirror


How Do 'Singing Magnets' Work?

dpbsmith asks: "Singing magnets are available at all of the usual geek-toy emporia, and, for all I know, ordinary toy emporia as well. They consist of a pair of magnets made of a polished substance with the general appearance of hematite. What is surprising, pleasing, and unexpected is that when the magnets strike each other under their own power, they produce a sharp, loud buzz that rises in pitch. The sound lasts a good fraction of a second and climbs somewhere into what sounds like the 200-500 Hz range. The exact sound and its duration are somewhat unpredictable and depend on how the magnets happen to strike each other. It is a little like the sound that you get when you mash a pingpong ball against a pingpong table with a paddle. What physics are involved in the production of these sounds?" "Google searches turn up some forum postings that indicate that it is a synthetic magnetic substance similar to hematite that's available cheaply in China as an industrial byproduct. The singing magnets are a little larger than size of olives; the shape is similar to a (U. S.) football but slightly more elongated. Their major axis is about 5 cm long, their minor about 1 cm. They are fairly powerful and will jump together when placed on a desk about three inches apart. They can distort the colors on a CRT display from a distance of over 20 cm.

Contrary to expectation, the poles of the magnets are oriented along one of the minor axes of the ellipsoid, not the major axis.

Neodymium magnets in 'ordinary' shapes produce boring 'plinks' when they snap together. Something about the shape of these magnets makes the sound much longer-lasting and entertaining. It is not simply the bounding rebound of two objects made of stiff-but-elastic material. Transfers of linear to angular momentum are clearly involved.

If course, I'd love to know whether these things were 'invented' or 'discovered', and by whom, trying to do what.

89 comments

  1. Bounce. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They bounce apart, attract togethor, bounce apart again, etc losing energy each cycle until they can bounce no more.

    Okay, that was a wild ass guess.

    1. Re:Bounce. by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's also true. I had these when I was a kid, and by pushing them towards eachother, I could make the sound louder, and by muffling them with my hands, I could damp them out. That has to be vibratory acoustics. Plus the sound TOTALLY trips out my son, makes him giggle like you wouldn't believe.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  2. Not physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is clearly the work of witchcraft! BURN HIM!!!

    1. Re:Not physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He turned me into a newt!

    2. Re:Not physics by Chop · · Score: 1

      well, I got better...

    3. Re:Not physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The proper reply is "A newt??", then he replies "I got bettuh"

    4. Re:Not physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the (looks down, shuffles feet nervously). The pause is vital.

  3. Um. by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Despite what you say, they are just bouncing off each other. The modulus of elasticity is high, and because of the shape of the objects they can only contact at one point. The magnet pulls them together and they bounce apart, the point of contact possibly traveling along the curve of the objects depending on how much energy remains. They might maintain a semi-constant tone because this contact point travels to where the mass of the objects is less, at the ends, allowing them the bounce apart at the same frequency despite energy being absorbed in the material.

    I don't have any so I can't verify this theory.

    1. Re:Um. by itwerx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Despite what you say, they are just bouncing off each other.

      Additionally, the central location of the poles helps to maintain equilibrium and reduce the range of possible contact points.
      (Unlike a round magnet which would have a wider range of effective contact points thus allowing more slop in the bounce cycles with a coincident reduction in tonal quality).

    2. Re:Um. by Belfy · · Score: 1

      Probably very similar to those springy doorstops when force is applied laterally.

      Example

      The cats LOVE those things.

    3. Re:Um. by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


      "The modulus of elasticity is high, and because of the shape of the objects they can only contact at one point."

      Also, their shape probably reduces the contact with the supporting surface, which prevents the ringing from being damped out.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  4. Singing Sword by knarfling · · Score: 1

    Obviously this is a redisovery of the process used to create Flamberge, the Swinging Sword.

    Very useful if Prince Valiant needs a replacement sword.

    --
    Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
    1. Re:Singing Sword by dougmc · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Flamberge, the Swinging Sword.
      Is that the Flamberge that puts the `Grrrr!' in `Swinger', baby, yeah?
    2. Re:Singing Sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      For those unaware of what a "singing sword" actually is (and they are real, though not magical) it refers to a sword forged in such a way that the crystalline structure of the metal is highly organized. This wasn't easy to accomplish with low-temperature forges and beaten steel, so such swords were highly prized.

      Today we call this metal "stainless steel", and blades made from it are found in just about every kitchen.

    3. Re:Singing Sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that sword swing both ways? If so, I've got a couple of rapiers that might want to hook up with it. Plz let me know - mail is FlamingSwordMan@hotmail.com k tnx.

    4. Re:Singing Sword by s0l0m0n · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are unaware of the basics of metallurgy in steel, as well as of 'singing' in swords.

      A properly made sword rings when tapped. This is because the fittings (hilt, pommel and handle) are tight, and do not dampen vibration. If the blade has any cracks, these will also dull the ring of a sword.

      Additionally, a good western sword flexs a fair amount during cutting or thrusting. This in itself is not a positive or negative feature. However, a blade that returns too much vibration to the hand may be uncomfortable to use (think about how a bat stings your hands when you hit something with it).

      The addition of chromium to a steel in quantities of over 13% makes 'stainless' steel. Not only does the addition of high levels of Cr make the steel resistant to stains, it makes in more 'deep hardening'. This is in refference to the cooling of steel from the the point at which all of the carbon in the steel is disolved in the solution(AC1, also called the Currie point, which is generally above 1350 degress F) down to below the point(MS, below 900 degrees F) at which martensite (hardened steel) is formed.

      In this process, a variety of different crystaline forms can be produced. If you cool slowly, you will probably end up with pearlite. This is soft, and relitively flexible, and not at all good for blades. If you cool faster, you will end up with grains (crystals) of martensite, which is harder, and more springy (once tempered) much better for knives and swords.

      Now, back to why stainless is bad for swords. Stainless is deep hardening because the chromium pins the edges of the grains (crystalline stuructures of carbon and iron), preventing them from growing when heat is applied. Smaller grain sizes lead to increased hardness. Unfortunately, the introduction of the chromium into the edges of the crystals causes them to be less strong. This leads to lower flexiblity. Lower flexility leads to swords that fail castastrophically durning use.

      I'm not a metallurgist by any means, but I have made a half dozen swords, a hundred plus knives, and been studying heat treating of swords for about a dozen years. Please, spend 300+$ on good old fashioned carbon steel if you must have a sword. Heck, even get a good stainless steel sword from Rob Criswell or one of the Dawsons, but quite buying that cheap stainless crap on ebay and in the Mall cutlery stores. Support a sword smith with real talent, here in the US. There are lots of us, It's a better deal in the long run.

      Josh Powell, owner and operator of Josh Powell Custom Knives.

    5. Re:Singing Sword by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

      Only a fool would go after the Singing Sword...

      --
      if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
  5. Magnets made me sing one time... by ZSpade · · Score: 4, Funny

    No make that scream...

    I took the magnets out of an old SCZI drive bigger than my head, and pried them apart with a screwdriver.

    Well I was holding a magnet in each hand, and while I was walking they got a little too close, and my was caught in-between. Oh I sang, like a little girl in church choir.

    Long story short, I didn't need stitches, but I did have one very bruised bone, not to mention my ego...

    --
    Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    1. Re:Magnets made me sing one time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I will give you $100 if you can spell out the acronym for the disk drive technology you mentioned in your post.

    2. Re:Magnets made me sing one time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small Computer Zystem Interface. I want my $100 now please.

    3. Re:Magnets made me sing one time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and my was caught in-between.

      One in a million chance doc, one in a million! < / Sienfeld Reference >

    4. Re:Magnets made me sing one time... by mph · · Score: 1
      Small Computer Zystem Interface. I want my $100 now please.
      Sorry... you misspelled "Zyztem."
    5. Re:Magnets made me sing one time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wrong. It is Small Computer Zig Interceptor. Make your time.

    6. Re:Magnets made me sing one time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quagmire [looks out window at Lois beating up a mob of New Yorkers]: I'm strangely aroused by this.
      [window slams shut]
      Quagmire: Uh oh... [picks up the phone and dials] Hello, 911, it's Quagmire here. Yeah, it's stuck in a window this time.

    7. Re:Magnets made me sing one time... by usernotfound · · Score: 1

      i had a few of those together once in my hand, and i got stuck to the doorhandle when i tried to walk out of the room to show a friend how powerfull they were.

      --
      You call it excessive, I call it ambitious.
    8. Re:Magnets made me sing one time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Streamlined Controller Zip Interface

    9. Re:Magnets made me sing one time... by ZSpade · · Score: 2, Funny

      lol, I also left out the word finger, and, and that made that whole post look horribly wrong. Sorry guys, insomnia, 2 days without sleep. I should probably avoid posting when this happens... I had a bruised finger bone... oh dear lord...

      --
      Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    10. Re:Magnets made me sing one time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, it made the whole post horribly, horribly wrong. Bruised bone indeed.

  6. Bouncing by avalys · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's definitely just them bouncing apart and colliding until they give off all their potential energy as sound.

    If you listen, you can hear the pitch of the sound getting higher and higher as they start to hit each more frequently, until they stop moving.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  7. wow by Optical+Voodoo+Man · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is blowing my mind. You would think it should be a constant frequency with decay, like the classical pendulum. The difference between the classical pendulum and this case is that for a pendulum, the force is constant; with the magnet, the force is inversely proportional to the distance between the magnets. As the energy in the velocity (E=1/2mv^2) is converted to heat, the magnets have a lower velocity so they travel a shorter distance away from the other magnet. The closer the magnets are, the greater the force, again reducing the period between "clacks". The frequency increases because the magnets have a non constant in the force between them (the force increases as the reciprocal of the square of the distance).

    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is more like a tennis ball bouncing on the ground. As its peak gets closer to the ground, the frequency at which it bounces goes up.

    2. Re:wow by JRIsidore · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess you mean the right thing, but your description is not quite right. With a regular pendulum the force is not constant but a linear function (in a first approximation) of the amplitude. The further you move the pendulum from the point of rest the stronger is the force which pulls it back. This linear dependence causes it to swing with a single constant frequency.
      Now for the singing magnets the force must show some non-linear dependance on the amplitude, which allows (or better: forces) it to oscillate at several frequencies. Might be interesting to actually calculate it...

      --
      :w!q
    3. Re:wow by Optical+Voodoo+Man · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, yes and no. If a tennis ball were perfectly elastic, it would loose no energy and would bounce to the same height each time. It's frequency would be constant. Because it loses energy on each bounce, it bounces to a lower height each time, so it has less distance to fall, so the frequency goes up.

      The magnets do the same, but the have the additional non-linearity in the force which adds even more to the frequency shift. I mentioned the "tennis ball" like loss when I was talking about the heat loss.

    4. Re:wow by HTMLSpinnr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If a tennis ball were perfectly elastic, it would loose no energy and would bounce to the same height each time.

      Only in a vacum my friend. Air resistance plays a part in the energy loss as well.

      --
      $ man woman *
      -bash: /usr/bin/man: Argument list too long
    5. Re:wow by zcat_NZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would it help if we shaved it?

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    6. Re:wow by Hasufin_Heltain · · Score: 1

      I believe you are right. However, the assumption you make that you use the velocity equation is only partially true. Magnets utilize the electrostatic force... and that force is (kq1q2)/r^2 ..... the inversely proportional to the square of the distance. we talked about this in physics yesterday - only reason I knew :P

    7. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "proportional to the reciprocal of the square of the distance" and "inversely proportional to the square of the distance" mean exactly the same thing. 'Reciprocal' means 'Inverse'.

    8. Re:wow by barawn · · Score: 1

      Magnets utilize the electrostatic force... and that force is (kq1q2)/r^2 ..... the inversely proportional to the square of the distance. we talked about this in physics yesterday - only reason I knew :P

      You apparently didn't listen close enough.

      Magnets utilize the magnetostatic force, not the electrostatic force, which is attraction between charges, not magnets.

      Magnetic attraction is far more complicated, because there aren't any "magnetic charges", just constrained loops of magnetism. It really depends on the shape of the magnets and their relative magnetization. It's quite nasty, and you can get results which are 1/r, 1/r^2, 1/r^3, depending on the specific orientations.

      The attraction between two current-carrying wires, for instance, is proportionall to 1/r.

      In the case of the attraction/repulsion between 2 magnetic poles, though, that's as close as you'll get to two "magnetic charges".

      In that case, the force of attraction is, in fact, inversely proportional to the square of the distance. But it's

      F = m1m2/(mu)r^2,

      where mu is the magnetic permeability of the intervening material, and m1 and m2 are the pole strengths.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet

    9. Re:wow by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Funny. My wife asked me that same question recently. I can now confidently answer: Yes! But waxing is even better.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    10. Re:wow by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      Your wife has the same fettish as mine. Definately wax it, it's more painful at the time but not half as uncomfortable when the hair starts to grow back.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  8. i think .. by torpor · · Score: 2, Funny

    .. it is the 'sound of the magnetism itself', which is to say, the 'out of balance' nature of the two magnetic forces reflective attraction for each other, pitched over time, much as a delay line, while things stabilize and the energy of the initial collision dissipates ..

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re: i think .. by notsoclever · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Alex Chiu? Is that you?

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
  9. Amazing explanation by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure that the guys who are selling audiophile lacquer for $200/oZ and wooden potentiometer knobs for $500 a piece will have a much more amazing explanation involving quantum audiodynamic subparticle field wavetransformation theory, that not only makes your audio equipment sound more open and free flowing with a nice improvement in resolution, better dynamics and improved overall naturalness, but also improves the taste of wine making it older in a matter of seconds (a widely known property of magnets), but I--a boring scientist--will only tell you this: they bounce.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
    1. Re:Amazing explanation by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Holy. Fucking. Shit. Audiophiles are the stupidest people on earth.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Amazing explanation by eluusive · · Score: 2, Informative
      From their website:
      With The Wine Clip, a wine's impurities and tannins are broken down during the pouring process. There is absolutely no chemical change and nothing is introduced or taken away from the wine.
      The taste of many small molecules is smoother than the taste of fewer large molecules.
      Hmm? No chemical change? But it still breaks up molecules? WHOA.
    3. Re:Amazing explanation by Bastian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm still more amazed by the high-end USB and FireWire cables that companies like Monster are selling.
      What part of DIGITAL don't people understand?

    4. Re:Amazing explanation by Bastian · · Score: 1

      I just want them to define impurity. The only definition I can think of for impurity is, "the stuff that makes wine different from sparkling grape juice."

    5. Re:Amazing explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "What part of DIGITAL don't people understand?"

      In my experience (and I bought one of the earliest iMacs with USB & FireWire, so I've had more than most) the gague of cable does have a significant effect on the operation of some bus-powered peripherals. If the cable run is too long (or the gague too small), series resistance can cause voltage drops that may prevent the device working properly. Bus powered hard drives exhibit the most obvious symptoms (refuse to spin up), but there have been occasions where I've found other devices (Tascam US-224 for example) show unreliable behaviour which has been cured by using more solid cable*.

      There's also the issue of grounding; even though the signal down the USB cable is digital, any voltage drop across the ground connection will appear as a signal at the analog input/output of the device connected with respect to mains ground (a condition better known as an "earth loop"). Bad news for unbalanced devices, which cannot operate with "braid breakers" or floating ground.

      That being said, power problems can be avoided by simply using decent cable (Belkin is pretty good IMO), and ground problems can be avoided much more cheaply by simply plugging appliances into mains outlets in decending order of power consumption (highest power device closest to mains outlet, a simple form of "star" earthing**). Just avoid using cables the diameter of dental floss, and you should be OK.

      I agree that Monster USB/FireWire cables are a pointless waste of money.

      Just like Monster speaker cable. If you consider cable impedance as a whole (induction and capacitance as well as resistance), Monster cables are considerably worse than 10 Amp mains flex. The sheer physical size of Monster cable means it has much greater capacitance (a capacitor is two large conductive surfaces seperated by an insulator, which is a pretty good description of Monster cable) than ordinary mains cable. Experiments performed by Ian Hickman published in Electronics and Wireless World (1997, IIRC) showed that Monster's capacitive effects start to be significant at frequencies an order of magnitude lower than frequencies that exhibit the "skin effect", which is the main justification for having such a large conductive area (if 10 A mains cable can deliver 2400 Watts and still need mains filters, it can handle 100 Watts from stereo easily, so clearly low resistance isn't the reason for a large conductor area). These capacitive effects manifest themselves as phase errors (group delay) in high frequencies; so Monster cables do sound "different", but that doesn't automatically equate to "better"***.

      *Headphone drivers can consume up to 1 Watt, or 200mA@5V. If a cable has a resistance of 5 ohms (not unreasonable) that translates to a voltage drop of 1V (V=I*R). That's an AC signal, which is then re-injected into the analog circuitry via the power supply. If the power supply rejection ratio (PSRR) of the analog circuitry isn't high enough, this signal will feed through to inputs and outputs, a property the US-224 has in spades.

      ** OK, this isn't exactly star earthing, but at least any ground voltages are superimposed equally on all devices. The point is to make sure that all devices see the same ground reference voltage.

      ***"But what about the damping factor", I hear the audiophiles cry? Well, damping factor is measured at the PCB, not at the speaker terminals. When you add the resistance of internal wiring, solder connections and wire oxidation inherent with clamp or screw terminals, your damping factor will be shot to hell long before the cable run to the speakers has any influence. A combination of voltage and current feedback will have a far greater effect on damping factor, and cost less in components than 2 metres of Monster cable.

    6. Re:Amazing explanation by imkonen · · Score: 1

      Hah. Great links. You hit the nail on the head with "(a widely known property of magnets)." That's got to be near the top of my bad science pet peeves list. I saw a safety razor shaving kit at Sharper Image once with a storage base that used a magnet to "keep the blade sharp." I can't find it on their website now, perhaps their guilty consience got the better of them...or more likely they just had to make room for a cd-playing, golf swing improving, massage chair...with magnetic therapy cushions. It was basically this idea but in a fancier, higher-tech looking package, and more expensive.

    7. Re:Amazing explanation by Daniel+Rutter · · Score: 1
      > Hmm? No chemical change? But it still breaks up molecules? WHOA.

      Indeed.

    8. Re:Amazing explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You know, back in my day, they didn't have magnets for keeping razors sharp - the fad back then was using a small pyramid (I kid thee not). This pyramid would not only sharpen razor blades, it also gave water stored in it miraculous healing properties...

      As PT Barnum may have said, "there's a sucker born every minute".

  10. Singing Midgets? by reymyster · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok, I'll probably lose mod points for this, but I can't be the only one to read that as "How Do Singing Midgets Work?" And here I was so excited to find out if singing midgets really do have to work harder to stay in show-business.

    1. Re:Singing Midgets? by Optical+Voodoo+Man · · Score: 1
      In England, they'd have no problem as long as they were a midgets, singing or not. With all of the Dr.Who/Willy Wanka movie things going on in England. See this article in scifi storm: http://scifistorm.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/13/2251 213

      Hey, some of my best friends are midgets!

    2. Re:Singing Midgets? by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny
      With all of the Dr.Who/Willy Wanka movie things

      Willy Wanka? That sounds nasty.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    3. Re:Singing Midgets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the must be English wanker midgets

    4. Re:Singing Midgets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do get a lot of work in short films...

  11. Amazing explanation and Mod him up. by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1

    Mod this guy up, stop the voting, give this guy the ten thousand dollars. That was sweet.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  12. Indeed by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 3, Funny

    Holy. Fucking. Shit. Audiophiles are the stupidest people on earth.

    $1,200.00 is not that much for a high quality digital cable, but notice the arrows on the pictures. They indicate the direction in which the sound should flow. Of course it works best with quantum sound purifiers which strips electronic noise from individual electrons. When you are at it, don't forget to buy your tuning dots: "Marigo's VTS Tuning Dots have been one of the most effective and dramatic steps I have taken to improve my system's performance. The improvements were not sublte. They brought great transparency without losing musicality. Clarity, dynamics, inner detail, midrange bloom, bass slam and articulation have such an improved sense of openness that they represent a major paradigm shift in resonance control." Yes, those are little round stickers in various sizes that cost between $5 and $20 a piece, that you should stick to every single piece of equipment and flat surface in your listening room. It is not surprising that when James Randi offers them a million dollars if they can demonstrate that it works in a simple double-blind test (search the commentary archive for audiophile) they don't want it--if I was selling stones and sticks for thousands, I wouldn't want that laughable million either.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
    1. Re:Indeed by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Amazing. (Randi is simply amazing, that man seems eternally (supernaturally?? :-)) tireless in his relentless attacks on charlatanism) I don't think I will ever cease to be amazed at the truthfulness of the maxim- fools and thier money are soon parted.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Indeed by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Hmm, someone should tell him to tackle the paranormal beliefs of the current US president ("we're winning the war in Iraq!", "no I didn't go AWOL during Vietnam!"), no one else seems to have been able to get the public to listen to their fact-proven arguments against bush.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    3. Re:Indeed by rco3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry; did you just say that "$1,200.00 is not that much for a high quality digital cable"?

      Did you mean that to imply that there is some set of conditions, liable to be encountered in a home audiophile environment, under which there is ANY justification at all for a $1200 digital interconnect? That there is any way in which that cable will actually outperform a $2.99 Radio Shack coax cable?

      Because, being the great exposer of snake oil that you are, I'm sure you're aware that the only way a DIGITAL interconnect will negatively affect the signal transmission is if it is seriously fucked-up BROKEN. No competently-designed piece of audio gear will have any trouble accurately and errorlessly decoding a digital signal passed over, say, a straightened-out wire coathanger, much less a decent piece of coax. The most you will need to spend on a piece of coaxial digital interconnect, for audio usage, is about $5. Anything more than that is marketing. Gold-plated connectors, oxygen-free copper, pure silver litz wire - none of that is necessary.

      You must have meant that that particular purveyor of patent nostrums isn't asking more than other such fleecers of the unwary ask for such things. You couldn't possibly have meant that $1200 for a digital interconnect was justified.

      Right?

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    4. Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, there is an element of truth in most audiophile snake charming. Usually just enough to seem plausible.


      If you've ever had to debug a bad Word Clock network you know that any cheap-ass coat-hanger cable won't do. Remember that a digital signal also exists in the time domain, and its not digital in the sense that a C array is digital. It's very analog and fuzzy in the time domain.


      For a receiver that doesn't buffer and re-clock the incoming digital signal you can get jitter. Jitter causes high frequency harmonic distortion. Lot's of jitter sounds like ass.


      There's also cable run lengths to consider. The longer the cable run the bigger a "filter" you're running that square wave signal through. Suddenly those nice sharp high-order harmonics start to roll off and you start losing signal. This is why all digital phy-layer protocols have a maximum cable length in their specs.
      General rule of thumb: at three feet just about any shielded cable will work for most sampling rates a consumer will use.


      What audiophile snake oil salesmen do is take these basic principles and scale their effects up to such huge proportions that only 21st century witchcraft can solve them.


      It's all a load of crap, but I'm sure they sound good at the cash register...

    5. Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone should get him to tackle paranormal beliefs of the left that Bush is the antichrist.

    6. Re:Indeed by rco3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know about jitter. I'm right in the middle of the design of a Gbps+ transmission system. Keep in mind, though, that we're not talking about Gbps here, we're talking about Mbps. It's digital audio. The data stream simply isn't that fast (6 MHz, or 163 ns clock rate), and any home audio D/A that doesn't reclock the input data to get rid of jitter can be considered poorly-designed.

      I like your rule of thumb. It can be supported well with some calculations, if needed. Works fine. I submit that my coathanger statement is an extension of that rule of thumb - the roundtrip time of a 1 meter interconnect is less than the risetime of a S/DIF signal, and less than the jitter allowed by the AES/EBU spec. At lengths like that, the terminations don't really matter. Sure, you can get analog distortion of the digital signal, but it won't be enough to prevent accurate decoding.

      The point of controlled-impedance coax is that it acts as a transmission line, and the signal won't be rolled off via capacitive filtering; it'll get smeared due to the varying propagation speeds at differing frequencies. (All Hail Fourier!) This takes considerably more than 1 meter, or even 10 meters for a reasonably well-matched system. There will be some loss of signal level - Belden 8212, e.g., will lose ~1.5 dB from a 10 MHz signal over 50 meters. No big deal.

      At any rate, you and I are agreed - nothing more than a $3 Radio Shack coax is needed for home digital transmission.

      If I were a real bastard, I'd start selling Teflon-coated coathangers with BNC's on 'em to audiophools, telling them that this eliminates capacitive rolloff and reduces inductance. Bet I could make a mint.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    7. Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh god people. Can we, uh, not turn a discussion of audio cable into a political conversation?

    8. Re:Indeed by bani · · Score: 1

      For a receiver that doesn't buffer and re-clock the incoming digital signal you can get jitter. Jitter causes high frequency harmonic distortion. Lot's of jitter sounds like ass.

      you might have been able to find such receivers 20 years ago, but nobody makes such retarded receivers anymore.

    9. Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh great, now you're tring to censor the discussion! Just like in the Nazi Germany.

  13. modern-day snake oil salesmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    Fascinating stuff. An utter load of crap sold at a substantial profit, all through the magic of ubfuscatory language.

  14. resonance frequency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it is also hitting its resonance frequency?

  15. I'm not a physics geek, so this is just a SWAG by Canthros · · Score: 1

    but I'd imagine that's the sound of the two magnets being propelled into each other at glancing angles by the force of their magnetic fields. Over time, the magnets get closer and closer together at the peak of each bounce as the magnetic fields dampen the oscillations (um ... the bouncing, I mean). Sort of like a spring system. As the magnets get closer together, they hit more frequently (since the force of magnetic attraction increases as they get closer -- if they were joined by a spring, it would get weaker, until the spring was being compressed instead of stretched), and some the frequency of the noise increases, raising the pitch, but reducing in volume, because they aren't hitting the same force as when they were initially farther apart.

    --
    Canthros
  16. Re:Yup. by Bastian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a pair, and this is the only explanation that makes sense to me. I imagine that the effect would also happen on a whole range of rounded magnets of this type, but with the length of the "buzz" varying - the stretched football shape is probably just one of the more effective ones.

    If you try to isolate the system by throwing them up in the air so they pull together and strike each other while airborne, they will generally buzz for quite a long time - generally, it stops because the motion was dampened by your hand (or whatever else they land on) rather than coming to a stop on its own.

    The whole effect is made even more fun because if you throw them in the air, they will spin around each other like a cat in zero gravity.

  17. I have an idea... by syukton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Go here: http://liquidmetal.com/news/dsp.multimedia.asp

    View their "Ball Bouncer Demonstration"

    I have a hunch that these "singing magnets" are coated with a Liquidmetal-like material which preserves some 99% of the impact force and returns it quite energetically, causing the magnets to come together, be pushed apart, come together, be pushed apart, fast enough to create a "tone" of sorts.

    When the ball gets to the end of the ball bouncer demonstration, it does largely what the original poster was asking about with regard to the sound it produces.

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    1. Re:I have an idea... by dourk · · Score: 1

      that was a pretty cool demo. i'm going to go get my truck bumpers liquidmetal plated.

      then, i'm going wardriving.

      --
      Wake up.
  18. The shape makes the sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have not seen/heard any singing magnets, but I have a theory of why they create the sound;

    I don't believe in the bouncing theory.

    I believe the shape is the key and the sideway direction of the poles. a. Having the poles on the side instead of the top and bottom, makes the magnets to attract each other and become parallell. b. The shape like american football makes it possible for the magnets to swing back and forth between the poles: /\ || \/ || /\

    If two of the ends are closer to getter, the magnetic field is stronger on the other end. The move and become parallell, but does not stop there because of the motion, instead it moves till the other end is together. Then the magnetic field is stronger at the other end.

    If the bouncing theory is correct then the frequency will increase over time. If my theory is correct the frequency will decrease.

    1. Re:The shape makes the sounds by duffahtolla · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It goes up.

      they produce a sharp, loud buzz that rises in pitch. The sound lasts a good fraction of a second and climbs somewhere into what sounds like the 200-500 Hz range.

      I also don't believe its a simple bounce. If that were so then it should work with any magnets with a a strong surface. I've never heard of this.

      Someone pointed out that liquidmetal demos the same rising pitch behaviour. They do this by having an inredibly efficient 99% bounce. But singing magnets have been around for a while before that.

      I think the shape allows the magnets to convert their kenetic energy into a rolling motion and back to kenetic without needing to to do a real bounce and avoid elasticity losses.

      Think of Tony Hawks doing a half pipe. Vertical to horizontal back to vertical. The magnets with their weird shape collide slightly off center, then pulled by the magnetic fields convert a portion of their energy to the rolling that occurs as they get into a more parallel position and then inertia carries them beyond equilibrium where the kenetic energy throws them apart again. Like a rocking chair but with enough energy to seperate the surfaces. As long as the rolling resistance is low it should be pretty efficient.

      Normally shapped magnets don't exibit the same behaviour since their surfaces collide and depend entirely on their modulus of elasticity to rebound them.

      I not sure but I also think that the rolling action reduces peek force at contact so what bounce there is can be more efficient.

      At least thats my guess..

  19. slight correction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "...simply plugging appliances into mains outlets in decending order of power consumption"

    Sorry, that should have been "plugging appliances into power boards". Using different mains outlets around a room can cause the same ground problems. And always calculate the total loading.

    Oh, and while I'm ranting: "Oxygen Free Cable"? If it's shiny, its oxygen free, you golden-eared idiots. Besides, most cable deteriorates because of chloride contamination from the PVC sheath, not because of oxygen (which is why we have "blackwire" syndrome; copper oxide is green, not black). And despite years of research, there is still not a shred of evidence that "microdiodes" really exist inside bulk copper.

    1. Re:slight correction: by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
      which is why we have "blackwire" syndrome


      Ooooh. Often wondered about that. It seems to be worse on wire that gets damp - repairing electrical connections in cars is often difficult. Funny it always seems to be the negative leads - and the negative lead of NiCads are by far the worst I've seen for it!

  20. Only if it weighs the same as a duck by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    What, do I really need to explain?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  21. Nomenclature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The lowbrow moniker is Zingers.

  22. A Startling Array of Features by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

    I just thought it was funny that the linked product page, under features, says "Toss them into the air and they'll 'sing!'"

    --
    Your ad here.
  23. I have info from several good authorities by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    my collection of singing potatoes, who help me maintain my grip on reality, tells me there's no such thing as singing magnets.

  24. Impressive by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 3, Funny

    It was basically this idea but in a fancier, higher-tech looking package, and more expensive.

    "Sharpen razors overnight with a patented proprietary magnetic field. After each shave simply place the blade edge on the Razor-Mate. Razor blades are reported to last up to ten times longer, and give a smoother, closer shave." Looks impressive, but I only use free magnetic fields and I am strongly against field patents.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  25. Drop a ball bearing. by DeanAsh · · Score: 1

    See how the bounce frequency goes up as the ball bearing loses energy?

    --
    What is the shortest sig that cannot be expressed in fewer than 20 words?
  26. Sounds like ass by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am sure that none of us would want to hear any jitter that sounds like ass--i.e. like this--but that doesn't mean that any of us would buy a $1900.00 USB cable. Also, the USB power is strong enough to power the iGrill (which is great, by the way, because now I don't have to carry around the bulky Zero-Point generator while I'm hunting when I have a laptop anyway), so we also don't have to worry about the power line impedance so much, unless we use kilometres long USB cables, which is not so popular as it used to be with null modems any more, since we have an easy access to the Interweb.

    Now seriously, I have noticed that people usually stop listening when I start talking about the "science stuff" so they don't really care if it is Fourier series or quantum cleaning of dirty electrons, since they don't listen anyway. As long as it sounds scientific, it is scientific, for all they care. And of course I must be lying to them because I am only their friend while the guy who just sold them a wooden potentiometer knob for $500 must be an expert, because otherwise he wouldn't have a job selling expensive equipment, right? Here the cognitive dissonance kicks in: "I am not a sucker, but I have just bought an ugly wooden knob for $500, therefore people who say that buying ugly wooden knobs for $500 is dumb must be mistaken."

    Now, when they say that it was an "expert" in the audiophile store who has told them--or the "expert" in the Stereophile Magazine who has written--what they are telling you about, what they need here is a good ipse dixit and argumentum ad populum, for they won't listen to any other argument at all.

    At that point, I usually shout at them: "Does Deutsche Grammophon use this junk to 'purify' their music while they record it? No? Then why on Earth do you think I need it to listen?! Now, will you excuse me, I need to drink my snake oil," and I leave in furious anger. Later when I talk to them, they sometimes ask me: "Are you serious that the record industry don't use such cables? Why?" To which I answer: "Because they are not bloody idiots, that's why! Do you need to spend millions on sound equipment? Then go to the recording studio, see what they use, and buy the same stuff. You will still be a sucker to buy something that you don't need, but at least you will have something that actually works."

    It is surprisingly difficult to explain the truth to anyone who have bought audiophile lacquer or the wine clip, but it is still nothing compared to e.g. homeopathy or any other quackery when we are talking about peoples' health and lives, not just some useless junk. People will just not accept that they are suckers. Remember this story?

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  27. Re:wow... magnetic field strength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the attraction of the two magnets is probably proportional ot the inverse CUBE of distance, rather than the inverse square relationship characteristic of gravitational interaction... http://www.nlreg.com/magnet.htm

  28. Bah by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    You know, back in my day, they didn't have magnets for keeping razors sharp - the fad back then was using a small pyramid (I kid thee not). This pyramid would not only sharpen razor blades, it also gave water stored in it miraculous healing properties...

    That's nothing! Back in my day, when we wanted miraculous healing properties of water, we used radium ore: "By the patented composition of highly selected and scientifically compounded radium ores of which the Revigator is made, this lost element is perpetually restored to all drinking water placed therein." We drank radioactive water, we ate radioactive drugs and we wore radioactive cotton--we were that cool.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."