John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 886 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th January 2011, 10:12 PM   #8851
1audio is offline 1audio  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
Maybe for recording flutes?

se
Makes a good intrusion detector if attached to a fence.
__________________
Demian Martin
Product Design Services
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2011, 11:06 PM   #8852
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1audio View Post
Makes a good intrusion detector if attached to a fence.


se
__________________
The Audio Guild
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2011, 11:29 PM   #8853
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott wurcer View Post
>the DBS creates an electrostatic field that saturates and polarizes the molecules of the insulation to minimize energy storage in the dielectric.<

Of couse this maximizes the energy storage.
The insulation between the plates IS the dielectric. What is this technobabble about anyway, a DC offset voltage to bias the plates away from zero volts? What is that necessary? Is there supposed to be an inertial force to overcome in the dielectric to generate an induced field as a dual to the magnetomotive force required to generate an induced magnetic field in the ferrous core of an inductor?
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2011, 11:41 PM   #8854
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post
Maybe for recording flutes?
Darn it Steve, I really want to build one now! No idea what for, but it just seems really cool. Wonder how flat strip vs round cable would work out?
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2011, 11:41 PM   #8855
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBK View Post
I'm guessing the point is to get the diode like molecular polarization flip (zero point or thermal noise) point to cease to exist as part of the problem.
Why isn't the polarization continuous through 0? References? No one mentions that the force between the conductors is totally rectifying.
__________________
Silence is so accurate.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2011, 12:29 AM   #8856
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Heavens to Van der Waal's forces. The one with the greatest resistance to deformation and therefore fluctuating capacitance resulting from geometric distortion in the face of Van der Waals forces wins. I guess that would be.....ceramic.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2011, 01:03 AM   #8857
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 99
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by simon7000 View Post
I did not mean this as a trick question. The foundation of Fouier's theorem is that any periodic wave form can be considered as a series of sine waves.

There are two types of problems with this approach. Waveforms such as noise are not periodic.
Yes.

Quote:
Secondly there are periodic waveforms that are not properly sampled in normal practice.
Here do you mean they're sampled over a non-integral number of cycles?

Quote:
When I look at FFT displayed data I often see the "DC" or lowest frequency "bucket" changes on repeated tests of the same experiment. This can be noise, actual DC change, or partial sampling of a very low frequency waveform.
It doesn't even need to be very low frequency. Its most likely you've got a partial cycle of a higher frequency signal in there. That's what windowing's for (or as some prefer to call it, apodizing). Then the subjective element comes in - what windowing function do I choose? I'll generally go for Blackman-Harris myself, but even that has various options (number of terms for example - its a family of windows). According to what we're looking for, we'll choose the windowing function accordingly. Or alternatively, acquire only integer numbers of cycles which then means we know what we're looking for before we do the acquisition. I've worked in machinery vibration diagnosis incidentally, so have some experience here - its possible to make all the stuff you're not interested in totally disappear into the noise given enough averages. That's only possible when the sampling frequency is somehow phase-locked to what's doing the signal generation - a kind of 'lock-in amplifier' (explained in Horowitz and Hill if you're interested).

Quote:
So the question is are there other cases where the theorem is not properly applied?
I'm not clear what your question here means.
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2011, 01:10 AM   #8858
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundminded View Post
Is there supposed to be an inertial force to overcome in the dielectric to generate an induced field as a dual to the magnetomotive force required to generate an induced magnetic field in the ferrous core of an inductor?
I believe the impetus behind it is to overcome the effects of dielectric absorption, though I'm not aware of anyone demonstrating it being a problem with audio cables.

se
__________________
The Audio Guild
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2011, 01:14 AM   #8859
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 99
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1audio View Post
I find it fascinating that a patent I was issued in 1994, 5,307,416, describes this technique. The merits of it and its audibility are a separate issue.
That's the very issue that prompted me to post up the quote. I have no issues with the theory behind the dielectric biassing, just cannot imagine how that could translate into improvements in 'color' via a digital cable. Hence my curiosity dry-up.

Quote:
However, believing that a digital link won't be influenced by various external effects is naive. If it is self clocking it can be very affected by cables issues. The second question is whether the jitter and noise will be audible. Again the issue has not been fully resolved but its easy to see that a digital link is a clear path for high frequency noise to enter the analog stages with possible effects.
Yes, in which case the equipment downstream has not been competently designed. So let's fix the problem in the design, rather than require expensive cables to band-aid it for us eh? Here's where I am somewhat curious - do the guys who hear these differences with digital cables ever feed back their findings to the manufacturer of the DAC? Or do the DAC designers deliberately sell poor designs so as to help make money for the cable vendors?

Quote:
I have looked for distortion in cables with a -170 dB floor and found nothing. However this may be the wrong way to look.
Yes.
__________________
It doesn't have to take the form of a conspiracy, rather a consensus... James H Kunstler
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2011, 03:19 AM   #8860
1audio is offline 1audio  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Blog Entries: 3
John C tells me that he has repeated his measurements of cables and saw the same results (with one of my ST analyzers). I need to try it again.

Noise isolation with digital connections is much harder that it may first seem. As the frequencies get higher it takes less to couple them. Also the noise can find many ways into the circuitry, not just the obvious ones. Even more likely to be an issue is coupling between cables independent of the box they are connected to.


For the Physicists reading:

I don't have a good enough understanding of electrostatics to say what happens when a conductor is between two conductors that have a potential. If the conductor is not connected to them I believe it will adopt a potential relative to them proportional to the capacitance. If its connected to one of the conductors then it won't have a potential to the conductor its connected to. In the second case would the lack of a potential between the conductors be affected by the electrostatic field from the conductor with a potential? If so, how and how much?

This is the situation with the Audioquest design as far as I can tell.
__________________
Demian Martin
Product Design Services
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:34 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2