Funniest snake oil theories - Page 11 - 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 28th April 2013, 10:00 AM   #101
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Gregg View Post
There is one thing that makes a difference..and that is if a cable is driven or not...Now you might say so what..well if you have seen the capacitive effect of HV supply systems in industry and how the cable holds the charge..you would not say a cable is not capacitive
The ability to drive the cable will have an effect on cable effect/type..NB the cable is not a link between two components its a load..
If you are saying that a cable should have low capacitance, then that is something that could be specified - and is specified in the professional world where a metre of cable could set you back $10 - low capacitance cable is not expensive. But then some 'high end' cable manufacturers make a feature of their cable's high frequency roll off (it's good for absorbing non-harmonic frequencies and harmful energy coupling apparently). Cable capacitance should not be of any importance with typical competently-designed audio equipment should it?

In discussions of $2000 cables I'm always noticing people who, for reasons of balance, play devil's advocate by introducing such low level concerns as cable capacitance, effectiveness of shielding and robustness of connectors. To me, it's an almost ridiculous juxtaposition, where engineering 'problems' that are 100% solved in the professional world for a fraction of the price are being wheeled out in a desperate bid to justify the cost. I think we can take it as read that a cable costing more than a few quid has pretty much got the capacitance/shielding/connectors thing under control (unless, ironically, it's being made by one of these 'high end' cowboy outfits - see the power conditioner photos yesterday). For a few more quid it will meet military specifications where actual lives depend on its ability to transmit the signal intact.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 11:07 AM   #102
M Gregg is offline M Gregg  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
M Gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
I can't comment,

Except to say I'm not defending high cost cables or components...what has cost got to do with spec?

Regards
M. Gregg
__________________
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 11:12 AM   #103
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: At the output stage
Send a message via Yahoo to mr_push_pull
the pro audiophile cable arguments are not necessarily stupid if the ear is proven to be more sensitive to some aspects compared to other applications (instrumentation etc).
what I don't get is how some types come up with formulas for the price. "if your system costs 30k, why not spend as little as 10% on the cables? doesn't a good system like that deserve some good cables?"
__________________
we all love a good ol' stereotype until it's against us

Last edited by mr_push_pull; 28th April 2013 at 11:17 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 11:36 AM   #104
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_push_pull View Post
the pro audiophile cable arguments are not necessarily stupid if the ear is proven to be more sensitive to some aspects compared to other applications (instrumentation etc).
But this ostensibly reasonable comment assumes as a given that there is something fundamentally different between an audiophile cable and an instrumentation cable, that the wondrous human ear can latch onto. There isn't. Can anyone demonstrate that there is? It really does seem that we are in the realms of taking any old marketing person's word unquestioningly that something is 'audiophile' if it is called audiophile and priced accordingly.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 11:46 AM   #105
M Gregg is offline M Gregg  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
M Gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_push_pull View Post
what I don't get is how some types come up with formulas for the price. "if your system costs 30k, why not spend as little as 10% on the cables? doesn't a good system like that deserve some good cables?"
No wire it with Belden rubber mic cable..Bell wire for the speakers.. it will sound great..cringe...

Don't forget to wire the inside of the amp with it as well...

remember if you can hear the cable the system is no good anyway...LOL

Regards
M. Gregg
__________________
What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Last edited by M Gregg; 28th April 2013 at 11:52 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 12:05 PM   #106
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nieuwveen
Quote:
Originally Posted by thoriated View Post

Remember CD? Philips was going to introduce it as a 14 bit format as a lower audio quality version of the LP. Sony got on board, convinced Philips to boost the standard to 16 bit, .

Hm ..... 14-bits gives anyhow a s/n ratio of 80 dB, better than the LP!

The CD was developed in the days that 8-bit and 12-bit integrated computerchips were becoming most popular.
Philips had developed its own 14-bit processor for administrative purposes and for cost reasons wanted to use that.
The laboratory CD development ran on DE PDP-11 machines. DE had already developed an integrated 16-bit processor and was soon followed by Intel and Motorola.
Sony recognized this development and pushed for 16-bit processing and the the likewise change of the CD-format. It also had the advantage that it made Sony less dependent of Philips' IC-factory.

Integrated A/D and D/A converters in 16-bit were hardly available at that time so at introduction of the CD lots of machines used 14-bit D/A converters.
CD opened up a whole new market for mass-producing such chips so development and production speeded up like hell.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 12:24 PM   #107
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Gregg View Post
No wire it with..Bell wire for the speakers.. it will sound great..cringe...
I believe that is called a Straw Man argument!

There are real engineering for not using thin wire for your speakers, and yes, bell wire would sound bad. But just buy thick enough cable at a few dollars per metre and you'll have exactly the same performance as the most expensive speaker cable in the world.

People used to come up to the Quad stand at shows, very impressed by the sound, and ask where they could buy the special orange speaker cable they used. It turned out to be lawnmower cable.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 02:07 PM   #108
M Gregg is offline M Gregg  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
M Gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by CopperTop View Post
I believe that is called a Straw Man argument!

People used to come up to the Quad stand at shows, very impressed by the sound, and ask where they could buy the special orange speaker cable they used. It turned out to be lawnmower cable.
Yes a long time ago telecom cable interconnects were the way to go..Silver from the jewellers left it for dead oups..

I don't like the straw man argument...I was just having a laugh..

I think at the end of the day..use what works for you..
Nothing wrong with solid copper from mains cable for high current..
I would ditch the PVC...I don't like OFC<<<oups there I go again..LCOFC or solid standard with PTFE sleeving..
Nothing wrong with Belden cables either just not the rubber kind..

NB no mention of SUPER cables<<< Oh Audio quest..Digital interconnect..also ditched for a home made silver twist..oups done it again...LOL

Monster cable<<<ditched again for a home made version...

No stick with RS twin screened much more interesting..if you want adventure use RS twin screened with semi conductor shield<<<Yawn...
Used in industry for years just like the 741 Op amp<<<got to be good hasn't it..Does what it says on the tin!..LMAO..sorry


Regards
M. Gregg
__________________
What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Last edited by M Gregg; 28th April 2013 at 02:24 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 05:01 PM   #109
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Gregg View Post
No stick with RS twin screened much more interesting..if you want adventure use RS twin screened with semi conductor shield<<<Yawn...
Used in industry for years just like the 741 Op amp<<<got to be good hasn't it..Does what it says on the tin!..LMAO..sorry
But that's a bit like saying

"Why not use multicore solder with flux?! ... ROFL... Or copper tracks on fibre glass PCBs!... LOL... I bet you think gold contacts sound good... WTF... Been around for years, must be good, yeah? LOL"

In other words you haven't actually justified why RS twin screened is bad. You're just taking it as read that because it is a commodity part then it is beneath contempt for an audiophile. Do you really think you could hear or measure the difference between RS twin screened and Shinwa Agamemnon? Where is it that RS has gone wrong with its screened cable? Well there's no liquid shield I suppose. And no crystals taped to it. It hasn't got some of this stuff on the outside

Buy Cable Sleeves Cable Sleeving Polyester Braid 25mm HellermannTyton 170-12500 online from RS for next day delivery.

then heatshrinked around the outside of the phono connectors, so that might be part of the problem.

(The 741, of course, is another Straw Man).
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2013, 05:18 PM   #110
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: flyover country
Quote:
Hm ..... 14-bits gives anyhow a s/n ratio of 80 dB, better than the LP!
14 bit linear encoding gives a 'useful' dynamic range with distortion artifacts below 3% of between 30 and 40 db. I actually have a couple of LPs mastered from 14 bit digital from the late '70's, and there is a near absence of lower level acoustical detail in them. Also decent analog encoding allows audible recovery of musical information as much as 20-30 db below a noncorrelated wide spectrum weighted acoustical noise floor which reproduces basically spread across the sound stage in 2 dimensions allowing spatially and/or spectrally localized sound sources at lower levels to be identified. This feature which CDs, which were mostly never encoded for improved noise weighting, lacked. And if raw measured SNR was the end all and be-all of sound quality, why hadn't DBX encoded LPs which boasted SNR's exceeding 100db, taken over the field?

Last edited by thoriated; 28th April 2013 at 05:43 PM.
  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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Snake oil or not? Carlp The Lounge 21 28th February 2011 09:03 PM
More snake oil astouffer Tubes / Valves 22 26th May 2009 01:50 AM
Looks like snake-oil but really works. Circlotron Everything Else 18 28th November 2002 10:40 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:49 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