Cable Distortion Measurements: Part Deux

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
diyAudio Retiree
Joined 2002
What is your goal?

"Making Steve happy is not my goal here"

No, it is more like helping Steve make every else unhappy. I don't understand why anyone tolerates Mr. Eddy's unending fixation with persecuting Mr. Curl. Mr. Eddy has fallen flat on his face in nearly every technical argument of his that I have tried to follow. When people like him run off everyone worth reading on the forum I will remind you of your statement........
I wouldn't have anybody in my lab or house that has any links to someone that is practically a stalker. The same people that scream for the physics and measurements to unravel the gap between what we hear and what we can explain and measure, are the first ones to try to dismiss any measurements or theories made in pursuit of this goal. Like you said people have jobs and a life. Mr. Curl's is to continue be one of the most respected audio designers in the world and Mr. Eddy's seem to be spending all his waking hours on the Internet rguing about things he doesn't have a clue about......... Given a choice between one or the other of these gentleman's presence here, I think it is a no brainer who almost everyone would prefer to be here.

Fred Dieckmann
 
SY,
I am not talking about this thread specifically but I always seen some type of affinity, or like-mindedness, between you and SE. Maybe it's just geography. ;)

As far as opening-up laboratories I think it's a bit pretentious on anyone's part, and it's almost never done, at least in science there is an unspoken sense of how far you can go even with a conversation. Going in to check a colleague's work is certainly beyond the boundaries. In industry investment bankers are probably the only ones to be allowed in.
 
SY said:
"Speculation in the absence of data is a capital mistake." ......... In the scientific world where I grew up, the first thing one does when getting results like this is to consult with peers, bring other experts into the picture to try to eliminate error sources or unaccounted for variables, publish full and complete procedures for people to replicate, and in general, tighten up the protocols. It's certainly the least that I would do, but I'm not an engineer, so what the heck would I know.
Quite a bit from reading this :)

I am no engineer either .... but my field (medicine) is rife with marginal claims and we are talking orders of magnitude difference in $$$ vested interest.

I would echo SY's statement and close with one of my favourite quotes:
In God We Trust .....
Everyone else should bring data!
;)
 
Charles Hansen said:
Your combination of ignorance and willingness to argue over *anything* is too much for me.

1) Actually all of the ST 1700 series instruments were discontinued many years ago. The don't have a "current model" 1700 series.

That might come as a surprise to the folks at Sound Technology.

http://www.soundtechnology.com/ST1700S_PIC.htm

Sound Technology manufactures three Distortion Measurement Systems designed to provide precision audio measurements quickly and easily.

If the 1700 series has long since been discontinued, why are they saying on their web site that they manufacturing a 1700 series? And why do they have price list request links for stuff that they've long since discontinued?

Far as I can tell, everything in their Test Gear line, which includes the ST1500 series, the ST4000 series, the ST3000 series and the ST1700 series is in current production.

2) There have been no fundamental breakthroughs in the performance of low distortion audio oscillators since the HP 200 series over 50 years ago.

So? What's that to do with the oscillator in John's 1700B?

3) At the risk of being repetitive, Curl's ST oscillator has roughly (say within 5 dB or so) the same residual distortion as the AP.

I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever. And going by John's own claims, that's clearly not the case.

4) Nowhere that I can find in the AP manual does it say that unit is capable of the test you claim is being made.

Geez, Charles, even the System One was capable of that!

Prove your finest designs with System One’s ultra-high performance; typical 0.0007% distortion, 0.03 dB flatness, 1.2 microvolt noise levels in the audio bandwidth. Use FFT analysis following the analog notch filter to resolve distortion components 145 to 150 dB below the fundamental.

5) I'd be willing to bet that Putzeys test setup is not what you claim it is. My strong suspicion is that he is instead using the digital analyzer section of his AP to perform both the notch filter and the FFT. This approach will not work for the very simple reason that the ADCs used in that device are incapable of performing at the required level of resolution.

No, it's using the analog notch filter, just as the System One did.

Please confirm that Putzeys' measurement is being made in the manner you specified. You could do this in a few different ways.

Who cares HOW they were made? The measurements speak for themselves. Show me evidence that John's measuring below that. His Mac The Scope plots don't show it. Nor do John's own claims as to the levels he's measuring.

se
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Re: What is your goal?

Fred Dieckmann said:
I don't understand why anyone tolerates Mr. Eddy's unending fixation with persecuting Mr. Curl.


I am not sure where you read this "persecuting" thing. John made a claim and Steve challenged him on that on technical ground. As far as I am concerned, one can raise questions on claims made by anyone, Mr. Curl included.

Fred Dieckmann said:
Mr. Eddy has fallen flat on his face in nearly every technical argument of his that I have tried to follow.

so what? someone who has always been wrong will remain wrong forever? or vice versa? there is no logic in this.
 
Hang-on SE ......

Please remember there are neophytes like me following this thread and some of the questions raised by Charles seem worthy of verification.

IF you are correct in your description of Bruno's set-up, then Charles' request for verification would seem easily achieved and in doing this we (the collective watching) have eliminated another possible source of discrepancy.

As stated, I am no engineer, so when someone who has clearly been using "similar" equipment (believing Charles' claim on word) raises a concern I would feel a lot more comfortable if we could put his mind at rest that "all is well and proper".

One of the major irritations to yourself (and many of the rest of us) in the previous thread was certain people taking the position "I know, therefore it is true" ...... I agree, these people have achieved nothing but to diminish their own standing in our general community. And their attemps to reduce this thread to a similar level are sad.

You may well be absolutely correct in what you say to Charles ...... for the sake of the rest of us, could you verify Bruno's set-up for Charles.

You asked for a technical/scientific thread and there a good number of us out there who are watching with interest.

mark
 
Sy, if you wish, we could meet together and I could run a few tests for you. I am on MLK in north Berkeley. E-mail me and I will give you my complete address. We could even measure a coat hanger together. I have one around here somewhere. Sorry, I missed your original suggestion about this, I will back up and look for it. For some reason, I thought you were in a far away location. If you can find something that I can further address, I would be grateful.
 
kamskoma said:
Please tell me how to connect my test instruments for the cable test a schematic diagram would be nice with all component parts.
The instruments is AP Portable One and a PC with Card DeLuxe soundcard from Digital Audio.
1.Connection diagram
2.Signal level
3.Thank You

Does the Portable One have an output for THD residual? If so, then you can run that into your FFT.

But basically, the test goes like this:

Signal Generator --> DUT --> Notch filter --> FFT

The signal levels used for Bruno's tests, which were the same as those used for John's tests which he produced the Mac The Scope plots with, were 30mV at 1kHz.

se
 
Re: Hang-on SE ......

mefinnis said:
Please remember there are neophytes like me following this thread and some of the questions raised by Charles seem worthy of verification.

IF you are correct in your description of Bruno's set-up, then Charles' request for verification would seem easily achieved and in doing this we (the collective watching) have eliminated another possible source of discrepancy.

As stated, I am no engineer, so when someone who has clearly been using "similar" equipment (believing Charles' claim on word) raises a concern I would feel a lot more comfortable if we could put his mind at rest that "all is well and proper".

One of the major irritations to yourself (and many of the rest of us) in the previous thread was certain people taking the position "I know, therefore it is true" ...... I agree, these people have achieved nothing but to diminish their own standing in our general community. And their attemps to reduce this thread to a similar level are sad.

You may well be absolutely correct in what you say to Charles ...... for the sake of the rest of us, could you verify Bruno's set-up for Charles.

You asked for a technical/scientific thread and there a good number of us out there who are watching with interest.

Fair 'nuff.

Below is the block diagram for the fully-loaded System Two Cascade. As you can see, the analog analyzer's post notch residual output can feed into the A/D and subsequently to the digital analyzer for FFT analysis. Since the System Two Cascade's analog notch filter is part of the analog analyzer, it's possible to do the measurements just as John is doing his, feeding the residual output of his 1700B into his FFT analyzer.

Even the System One had this capability (depending on which model and options) so I'm at a loss as to why Charles keeps claiming that not even the System Two can do it and demanding proof of it.

In any case, I'll confirm Bruno's setup and post his response here when I get it. He might be off for the holidays so it might not be until after New Years.
 

Attachments

  • systemtwoblockdiagram.jpg
    systemtwoblockdiagram.jpg
    37.6 KB · Views: 238
diyAudio Senior Member
Joined 2002
Hi,

there is no logic in this.

Maybe not logic per se but the likelyhood for erroneous conclusions is growing as days go by.

Anyway, for all of those who followed the previous thread where I said that Dr. De Ceuninck had measured distortion in wires:

There was a good reeason why I didn't want to disclose this professor's full name besides the commercial ones. (Not commercial on my part in anyway today.)

At the time of writing, due to my residing in Germany a few years back, I had lost touch with this professor and moreover, due to inadvertance on my part, had lost his private telephonenumber as well.

This afternoon I got a call from a friend, manager of Phelps-Dodge Europe, and as we'd visited the professor at home a few times, I asked if he had the professors' telephone numbers.
He did and passed them on to me.

So, here's the deal: I'll get in touch with the professor asap and ask him how much he can divulge on his research regarding his measurements and if we get lucky we'll come up with solid proof.

I don't doubt for a minute that if we can get his go ahead it will be fulproof.

Further during the telcon I mentioned the addition of manganese to Cu to promote crystal formation as SE suggested before: guess what?

The reason this is done is to augment the tensile strenght of the Cu wire according to him, NOT more crystals.
Which, BTW, is not what you want in audiowire, the less crystal boundaries the better.
Ag, by its very nature, will tend to form less crystals for a given length of wire than Cu.

Ergo, hint #4 : Electromigration.

Going back to the university where our friend the professor works, to do this kind of research they don't use ordinary ( excuse me) test equipment but an electron microscope amongst other countless equipment.

Hope this helps,;)
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.