| destroyer X |
Good to think about.... some folks can have self criticism and perceive they are included in that group mentioned..others will blame the next guy...as his Rodhium plug really sounded better.
I hope all forum folks come to read this...there are a lot of friends that can match some characteristics, or behavior, explained in that text..some can be included in some topics there... and others will have a chance to repair themselves, producing some shake into internal head... and i hope no brown fluid leakage will happens to some of them...i hope few.
It is extremelly interesting...those things are the same as religion.people believe and do not make questions about..or answer themselves as "mistery"....there are a lot of people that belief in those special materials...special plugs, cables and big magic.
There are many groups in my place..they have the big magic to extract money from people pockets to save the mankind...maybe to pay the one will save mankind.... and intelligent people goes doing this...it is extremelly interesting how people make self hipnosis... and how some guys can disconnect the brain this way.
The last i heard was that the amplifier must be ruge... strong and non vibrating..as electrons can be disturbed....well.....well... well.
regards,
Carlos |
|
|
| rdf |
| Healthy criticism is one thing. That article is one smug, contentless, empty troll packed with factual inaccuracies. Must be spring already. Try harder guys. |
|
|
| bikehorn |
| I never read audio magazines, because I've never come across one that hasn't been staffed by audiophools. Every time i pick one up at the bookstore, I read about how a product is "great for the audiophile on a budget" or something, except it will still cost $1300. some budget product eh? then you get the rest of your "budget" components at similar prices, so when you're done, it's no longer particularly affordable. Of course the manufacturer will also sell an "upgraded" version with Cardas or WBT RCA sockets, or Bybee Quantum Cashsuckers or something stupid like that and charge another $400, which the magazine will say "understandably sounds better". Or worse, they start talking about power cords...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| DCPreamp |
I think the word “audiophool” should be added to Wikipedia.
Audiophool: Someone who believes in, and vehemently defends, totally unprovable and ridiculous techno-babble all while paying exorbitant prices for nothing more than moderate exclusivity.
Funny article with some good comparisons of the equally idiotic, and also sadly supported, concept of homeopathy. I’ll have to watch for this on James Randi’s website or perhaps even point it out to him and his crew. Fortunately audiophools only hurt their wallets and their integrity where homeopaths may kill themselves or loved ones forgoing knowledge and fact.
The funniest thing is/will be the responses to this from other diyAudio members. Generally, it’s instantly obvious who follows the audiophool way-of-thinking and who is rooted a little more in reality. |
|
|
| mikeks |
| quote: | Originally posted by rdf
Healthy criticism is one thing. That article is one smug, contentless, empty troll packed with factual inaccuracies. Must be spring already. Try harder guys. |
AH SO!
The "standard" vacuous response of a die-hard subjectivist. :D |
|
|
| andy_c |
| Here's an article in a similar vein that I found very entertaining. It's from one of the back issues of The Audio Critic that are now available online. Peter Aczel is rather extreme, but I do agree with many, though not all, of his views. The thing about him is that his extreme objectivist views make for some pretty amusing counterpoint to the mainstream audio press - particularly the online publications that can get pretty wacky. Anyway, the article is in this file, and is called, "The 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention; or, The Invasion of the Credibility Snatchers" on page 36. |
|
|
| Wavebourn |
Did you consult that guy? :D
I especially like the statement about abandoned by audiofools shielded by a foil cable with XLR sockets in favor of unshielded pair with phone plugs. :clown:
Enough of technical terms to impress housewives and save their husband's money they tend to spend on audiofoolery. But I am afraid that a single nicely erected hot EL34 is much stronger argument than hundred of such profane articles. |
|
|
| jeff mai |
| quote: | Originally posted by mikeks
The "standard" vacuous response of a die-hard subjectivist. :D |
Everyone is a die-hard subjectivist. |
|
|
| rdf |
| quote: | Originally posted by mikeks
AH SO!
The "standard" vacuous response of a die-hard subjectivist. :D |
Your troll-fu is weak today mikeks, and it's obvious from the thread's title troll was the intent, but I'll bite. I do find it amusing so many of the realist/scientific replies here, as the title, have been ad hominems and essentially anti-science. Anyone care to focus on the article's content, or is this going to be another pseudo-science strut? Just want to know the rules going in. |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
| quote: | Originally posted by mikeks
HEEEELLLLLLLL NO! |
:scratch2: You mean, if you don't like the sound of a piece of equipment, but it measures better, that you'll keep it? :) |
|
|
| jeff mai |
| quote: | Originally posted by mikeks
HEEEELLLLLLLL NO! |
Assuming this response was directed at my assertion that everyone is a die-hard subjectivist, I'll expand my thought.
Whether you're choosing by listening, looking at cosmetics, reading glossy mags, reviewing measurements or any other thing you can think of, the fact is that YOU are involved in the choosing and that is automatically subject to your own ideas, knowledge and most importantly BIASES. It's subjective! One can be influenced just as much by the look of the measurements as they can by a thick faceplate or a glossy ad or a novel length magazine review.
The most "die-hard" of subjectivists are the ones who think they aren't subjectivists!
EDIT: I'll add that I look on many wild claims with as much contempt as anyone, but I'm not fooling myself that this somehow makes me objective. |
|
|
| Irakli |
| Guys, stop quarreling and let's organize a group buy for CD demagnitizer :) |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rdf
Anyone care to focus on the article's content, or is this going to be another pseudo-science strut? Just want to know the rules going in. |
Seems to me the article is mocking consumers who buy the products mentioned. If I could get $3800.00 for a 1 metre "interconnect" I'd be making them night and day, and would not waste my time feeling sorry for the guy who thinks it"s superior. There are such extremes in everything though, not just audio. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Irakli
Guys, stop quarreling and let's organize a group buy for CD demagnitizer :) |
That's almost as funny as unobtainium
:) :) :) |
|
|
| rdf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MJL21193
Seems to me the article is mocking consumers who buy the products mentioned. If I could get $3800.00 for a 1 metre "interconnect" .... |
I completely agree. It was done however using anecdotes, factual inaccuracies, and cherry picking extremes to represent common practice (how many $3800 interconnect owners do you know?), and in general purported to represent a point of view 'rooted a little more in reality' in an embarrassingly unscientific manner. It was hypocritical. On that point, little I saw in his bio gives him the right to weigh in on these matters so authoritatively, so why is it being accepted at face value? On agreement with its sentiments? Science is a method guys, not a popularity contest.
Who here, for example, really believes 'audiophools' use RCA instead of XLR for subjective reasons or plating? RCA connector use is based in historical precedent and the irony is it's typically very high end gear which includes a balanced option, usually mocked as overkill and unnecessary 'audiophoolery' in the home. Damned, do or don't if you're on the wrong side of the argument apparently. And what would Mr. Emmerson think of the very common silver - yes, SILVER! - plated XLRs littering studios around the world? He'ld no doubt drop dead at discovering the number of professional studios full of 'audiophool' cable, amplifiers, and speakers. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rdf
Who here, for example, really believes 'audiophools' use RCA instead of XLR for subjective reasons or plating? RCA connector use is based in historical precedent |
XLR is the professional standard. RCA is the HiFi standard, it's on practically every component ever made. Audiophiles like to mix and match components to achieve the golden sound. As far as gold plating goes, it's not very expensive, and it's very practical - it stops corrosion. I have lots of different cables with gold plated banana jacks, RCA jacks, mini jacks, etc. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
A lot of the audiophile gear is iceing on the cake, the chrome plating on the hot rods engine. It's just for show and bragging rights. If I had buckets of money to throw around, I'd buy a few of the oxygen free this or the rhodium plated that or the $8000.00 power conditioner, or the $1100.00 powercord .
It's when a person believes their system is inferior without these things, that's sad. |
|
|
| mltaunt |
I once did a stint behind the counter at a camera store. The most important sales advice I got from my boss was "Son, collecting camera equipment is a perfectly acceptable hobby, just don't confuse it with photography!"
I sold a lot of supplies and equipment to both types of hobbyists and became convinced that both groups got what they wanted for their time and money spent. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mltaunt
I once did a stint behind the counter at a camera store. The most important sales advice I got from my boss was "Son, collecting camera equipment is a perfectly acceptable hobby, just don't confuse it with photography!"
I sold a lot of supplies and equipment to both types of hobbyists and became convinced that both groups got what they wanted for their time and money spent. |
Exactly! Why do I only have 2 ears and 22 sets of speakers?
rdf: the article was funny, I laughed pretty hard at most of it (especially unobtainium). |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
| quote: | Originally posted by rdf
I completely agree. It was done however using anecdotes, factual inaccuracies, and cherry picking extremes to represent common practice (how many $3800 interconnect owners do you know?), and in general purported to represent a point of view 'rooted a little more in reality' in an embarrassingly unscientific manner. It was hypocritical. On that point, little I saw in his bio gives him the right to weigh in on these matters so authoritatively, so why is it being accepted at face value? On agreement with its sentiments? Science is a method guys, not a popularity contest.
Who here, for example, really believes 'audiophools' use RCA instead of XLR for subjective reasons or plating? RCA connector use is based in historical precedent and the irony is it's typically very high end gear which includes a balanced option, usually mocked as overkill and unnecessary 'audiophoolery' in the home. Damned, do or don't if you're on the wrong side of the argument apparently. And what would Mr. Emmerson think of the very common silver - yes, SILVER! - plated XLRs littering studios around the world? He'ld no doubt drop dead at discovering the number of professional studios full of 'audiophool' cable, amplifiers, and speakers. |
Number of $3800+ interconnect owners - 8
With the exception of his XLR thingy, I saw no 'factual inaccuracies', or 'cherry picking extremes'. And there may be silver plated XLRs littering studios where you come from, but not in this neck of the woods.
Our hobby is the only one where false advertising is the norm. When was the last time an 8 ohm speaker was, in fact, an 8 ohm speaker. Or that a 20w/ch into 8ohm amplifer (20-20kHz) actually could produce 20w from 20-20kHz? Or even worse, combining the 2 together finding that the 2 exacerbate each others failings. When was the last time a 90dB/w/m speaker was anything more than 87dB/w/m?
He is correct, this hobby is littered with people who will willing pay for 'snake oil' and who are phooled by pseudo-scientific bull(stuff). But, luckily, most of the people on this site are actually a bit more credible than the people who have to go into a hi-fi shop (salon, boutique, take you choice of words). Case in point - ygacoustics speaker, being talked about in this thread.
I too laughed at the article, like I laugh at most things that are sad, but true... :(
The opinions stated here are not necessarily those of the management. :) |
|
|
| destroyer X |
for sure will not agree with our criticisms...this thread will show them to us..hehe
Cd demagnetizer made me fall down from my chair...lol.
regards,
Carlos |
|
|
| Wavebourn |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cloth Ears
I too laughed at the article, like I laugh at most things that are sad, but true... :(
|
What? :D
The article is a mess of criticism of audiofoolery and conter-audiofoolery, like the author did not know what he writes about, just collected all available articles and mixed them in a blender for taste. ;) |
|
|
| Cal Weldon |
| What he was doing was throwing down a gauntlet that he knows no one will pick up. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
In a rescent issue of UHF Magazine (I subscribe) they do a "blind" evaluation of 6 different power cords (yes, the cord for plugging a componet into the AC mains). The panel of 3 had no difficulty at all hearing which of these was superior. Included in this test was the original cheap ones supplied with some componet. The "sound" from this cable was so offensive, they could not finish the listening session for this and had to move to the next. The lowest price for any of the high end cables was in the $400.00 US range, with one reaching into the $1500.00 US area.
The proof is in the listening. Why would they mis-represent the sonic value of a power cord? More important, why take the chance that your power cord is allowing your system to sound like garbage?
Don't be so cheap, the best components deserve the best power cord.;) |
|
|
| neutron7 |
| One day a peculiar branch of quantum physics(or psychiatry) will discover that knowing the price of a piece of equipment will make it appear better. |
|
|
| neutron7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MJL21193
In a rescent issue of UHF Magazine (I subscribe) they do a "blind" evaluation of 6 different power cords (yes, the cord for plugging a componet into the AC mains). The panel of 3 had no difficulty at all hearing which of these was superior. Included in this test was the original cheap ones supplied with some componet. The "sound" from this cable was so offensive, they could not finish the listening session for this and had to move to the next. The lowest price for any of the high end cables was in the $400.00 US range, with one reaching into the $1500.00 US area.
The proof is in the listening. Why would they mis-represent the sonic value of a power cord? More important, why take the chance that your power cord is allowing your system to sound like garbage?
Don't be so cheap, the best components deserve the best power cord.;) |
well they SAY they did that test, who knows what really happened.
check to see if any of those power cords are advertised in their magazine or sister publications. |
|
|
| rdf |
One last kick at the can I suppose.
| quote: | Originally posted by Cloth Ears
Number of $3800+ interconnect owners - 8 |
Are you claiming it's the norm then? Very extraordinary claim in my neck of the woods. It misses the point entirely otherwise, which was this isn't at all typical of those who believe interconnects make a difference. It's another, this time local, example of using extremes to stereotype the vast majority of 'audiophools' who've never seen a $3800 interconnect.
| quote: | Originally posted by Cloth Ears
And there may be silver plated XLRs littering studios where you come from, but not in this neck of the woods. |
http://www.neutrik.com/content/prod...d=CatMSDE_audio
http://www.neutrik.com/content/prod...d=CatMSDE_audio
Look again, pulled almost at random from the site of arguably the world's most popular manufacturer of XLR. I've tossed boxes of silver-plated Cannon and Switchcraft rewiring radio plants.
| quote: | | Our hobby is the only one where false advertising is the norm. When was the last time an 8 ohm speaker was, in fact, an 8 ohm speaker. |
Be serious. Again this is historical nomenclature well pre-dating 'audiophoolery', shorthand approximations for ease of selection and to simplify things for inexperienced shoppers.
| quote: | | Or that a 20w/ch into 8ohm amplifer (20-20kHz) actually could produce 20w from 20-20kHz? |
In one form or another in North America since about the mid-Seventies:
http://www.ce.org/Standards/browseByCommittee_2624.asp
Not sure what the point of all this is though. When was the last time you read a motorcycle test in which wet weight and rear wheel horsepower matched manufacturer's spec? If you don't read them, it's not very often. Unless your objection was specifically limited to 'hobbies', you must not be seeing the same advertising world I do. Audio isn't unique.
But back to the original topic:
- 'audiophools' are analogue only? Hard pressed to make the case from the pages of Absolute Sound, Stereophile or DiyAudio.
- 'audiophools' listen to reference recordings only? I have 2000+ releases to toss. And contact those reviewers who attend concerts and play instruments to stop, immediately.
- The established techniques developed and proven over the years by audio professionals blah blahblah. Which audio professionals? Emmerson's television peers? I've been in broadcasting a quarter century now and, our little secret, audio quality hasn't been a driving industry force since Guy Lombardo and his band played live to air. To re-iterate an earlier and ignored point, the production magazines I get at work often feature studios full of 'audiophool' gear.
- Twin line interconnect? Niche Brit-only as far I know, yet Emmerson leaves the reader with the impression it's normal. The last audiophool cable I bought out of pure curiosity was triple shielded.
- MOVs. Plain ridiculous, and near incomprehensible. Is it his claim manufacturers aren't meeting their respective national safety standards? Or that there's a thriving market for high end transient suppressors? It makes me question whether he understands the difference between an MOV and a power conditioner.
- Audiophool journals. Now quite the extraordinary claim, that any magazine which discusses the sound of a DUT does so because it's on the payroll. No proof of course. 'We just know'.
- Mercury cables. Uh huh, some anecdote about someone on the Internet.
- Burning houses. Just another pathetic unsubstantiated anecdote. The 'may be legend' disclaimer is intended to leave the 'or not' impression and is again completely at odds with what I presume to be his stance: scientific.
- Interconnects vs. connecting lead. Please. This is an audiophool affectation? Or does he have an issue with evolving languages? He does come across as quite the reactionary in hindsight.
Again, Emmerson, not content at merely picking them, distorts the ridiculous, marginal and even the fictional in his efforts to whitewash a caricature. Pure punditry targeting a straw man. Anti-science. Which is fine, as you say the audio world is full of such things, unless you claim to represent the opposing viewpoint. Then it gets complicated.
Wavebourne nailed it. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
rdf: I guess you consider yourself an audiophile, therefore you take personal exception to the article. I read it thinking it was supposed to be funny, and indeed, I found it to be funny.
The writer, if he has any serious interest in audio at all, is probably guilty of the same "audiophoolery" he's making fun of. I believe everyone who frequents this forum is just as guilty, though some moreso than others. I've caught myself on several occasions wondering if I had used that 7" midbass instead of the one that cost half as much would I be transported to sonic bliss? How about the $56.00 capacitor instead of the $5.60 one? And how about my choice of speaker cable- 18 gauge lamp cord?
It's all a matter of degrees. |
|
|
| Wavebourn |
| quote: | Originally posted by MJL21193
And how about my choice of speaker cable- 18 gauge lamp cord?
|
I use an orange cable from power extender, green and black wires in parallel, it is at least thicker than 18 gauge fom your lamp. ;)
Anyway, the writer is totally ignorant of what he is writing about, or makes a fun of messing arguments and counter-arguments together. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Wavebourn
I use an orange cable from power extender, green and black wires in parallel, it is at least thicker than 18 gauge fom your lamp. ;)
Anyway, the writer is totally ignorant of what he is writing about, or makes a fun of messing arguments and counter-arguments together. |
An orange extension cord? Better than my lamp cord? We shall have to set up a blind evaluation to determine which is the superior sounding solution.;)
Totally ignorant is a little harsh, is it not? You have to have a sense of humor, and take things with a grain of salt, and not be so sensitive about things you read here. I consider forums such as this to be 99% entertainment, 1% educational, and that's because I'm feeling generous tonight.:) |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
:joker: :fight::whip: :joker:
P.S. rdf,
I knew a fellow, a few years back, who did high priced installations around here, which is where I met the 8. One pair was over $10,000 - in the late 1990's - and I scored a pair costing $2,500 for nix when they were 'thrown out'. They were badly constructed and degraded the sound of my mid-fi system.
And, regarding the XLR's, I'll have to check mine. I guess I was expecting the same lack of common sense as with RCA's (ie. the goldplate is thicker on the outside).
The rest... well let's just say I couldn't find a smilie who was fishing :):):)
Any idea why this is in Solid State? |
|
|
| EC8010 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rdf
Twin line interconnect? Niche Brit-only as far I know, yet Emmerson leaves the reader with the impression it's normal.
MOVs. Plain ridiculous, and near incomprehensible. |
What's a "twin line interconnect"? As a Brit and former broadcast engineer, I've never heard the term. Used a lot of silver-plated XLRs, though. Come to think of it, MUSA video jackfield connectors (they are niche-Brit) are always silver-plated.
For some reason, MOVs are routinely sold as aftermarket accessories in the UK. I've never really been convinced. After all, who's to guarantee that the mains spike arrives tidily on the peak of the mains waveform and not at 0V?
I found the Emmerson article quite amusing, but I didn't take it seriously, not when I know that the writer does this for a hobby:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Electronic-...r/dp/0750637889
It's actually quite a useful book, by the way.
I'm afraid we have to face up to the fact that 99% of the world couldn't give a stuff about audio quality, 99% of the remaining 1% don't understand the physics/electronics of how to achieve it, and the remainder are broke. That's why people pay to download pop music with zero dynamic range, compressed using MP3, converted by a cheap and nasty DAC, amplified by an amplifier optimised for efficiency and nothing else, then reproduced through a pair of earphones costing £1.
Incidentally, a minor breakthrough recently occurred in my house when I temporarily replaced my small broadcast monitoring loudspeakers with a pair of really ugly and badly made MDF boxes (out of practice at woodwork, I'm afraid). Despite the immediate objections on seeing the horrible boxes, there was also a complaint when they were removed because "they sounded nice." |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EC8010
What's a "twin line interconnect"? |
Twin line interconnects=two un-shielded conductors side by side.| quote: | [i]
I'm afraid we have to face up to the fact that 99% of the world couldn't give a stuff about audio quality, 99% of the remaining 1% don't understand the physics/electronics of how to achieve it, and the remainder are broke. That's why people pay to download pop music with zero dynamic range, compressed using MP3, converted by a cheap and nasty DAC, amplified by an amplifier optimised for efficiency and nothing else, then reproduced through a pair of earphones costing £1.
[/B] |
Amen. |
|
|
| KBK |
| quote: | Originally posted by MJL21193
In a rescent issue of UHF Magazine (I subscribe) they do a "blind" evaluation of 6 different power cords (yes, the cord for plugging a componet into the AC mains). The panel of 3 had no difficulty at all hearing which of these was superior. Included in this test was the original cheap ones supplied with some componet. The "sound" from this cable was so offensive, they could not finish the listening session for this and had to move to the next. The lowest price for any of the high end cables was in the $400.00 US range, with one reaching into the $1500.00 US area.
The proof is in the listening. Why would they mis-represent the sonic value of a power cord? More important, why take the chance that your power cord is allowing your system to sound like garbage?
Don't be so cheap, the best components deserve the best power cord.;) |
We just showed our gear for the first time at the Montreal audio show 2007 (FSI). I specifically went to pains to not use any high end audio power cords. We were judged by many to have the best or one of the very top (2 or 3) sound quality at the show.
What we DID do..is use two 20 amp (cont.) rated 80lb balanced AC units from Furman. Far better money spent that power cords. I won't argue that power cords do SOMETHING, but it is a far more intelligent point to go after the source in a, er, intelligent manner and move to balanced AC first. And then just use mundane power cords of appropriate guage. The quality of the sound and associated dynamics..and associated noise floor of the system was good enough that many folks told us that they expected to enter the room and see a man playing a guitar and singing (John Martyn:Solid Air)..which is a VERY high and powerful compliment from seasoned audiophiles.
As some of you know, to alleviate any possibility of surge current draw from the audio equipment rearing it's head as a crushed current transient (draw) from my balanced AC transformer, mine is a 450lb 50kva (100kva rated for 30 seconds) balancing transformer. That should stop any current limitations from rearing their ugly little heads.
I also own interconnects which are in the $2500++ range and 15k++ speaker cables. I can't tell you exactly what they are yet, but maybe in the near future, I hope. Suffice it to say, even the most die hard objectivist scientist/phd among you will agree...that I'm definitely on to something (not simply 'on something'). |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
Ok. Interconnects carry the <2 volt signal from the component to the preamp or poweramp. At any department store you can buy cables that will do this flawlessly. They will be less than $10.00, they will be properly shielded; and because it is currently trendy, they will have gold plated RCA's on each end. There will be NO difference in the resulting sound quality when these are used. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. Shielding is all that matters.
Speaker cables are another story. They don't need shielding, they just need to have low impedance. To achieve low impedance, the cable has to be thick enough to carry the current to the speaker without losses. For most HiFi setups, 18 gauge wire is enough. Heck, if you are feeling generous and really want to be absolutely sure that you don't lose even a microvolt of power on the 5 foot trip from the amp to the speaker, use 16 gauge. Anyone who thinks that $15000.00 is a good investment in speaker cable, better be buying enough to wire all of Canada for sound.:) |
|
|
| SY |
MJL, I think you need to look more carefully at the high end to understand why your assertions are oversimplification.
Audiophile-approved electronics often have high source impedances, have marginal stability, and are sometimes seem almost deliberately designed to have a frequency response that varies grossly with load. As an amp breaks in and out of ultrasonic oscillation with one cable and not another, the satisfied audiophile basks in the knowledge that his amp is very revealing of cable differences. And, of course, the unconditionally stable p.o.s. that covers up those differences is scorned as "mid-fi." Likewise the equalization effects from moderate levels of cable capacitance because of high source impedances and odd practices regarding feedback.
But the differences are real, the audiophile does sometimes hear them as he changes wires, but misattributes what he hears as some intrinsic quality of the wire.
Do not assume that people are using competently-designed electronics. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
As an amp breaks in and out of ultrasonic oscillation with one cable and not another, the satisfied audiophile basks in the knowledge that his amp is very revealing of cable differences.
Do not assume that people are using competently-designed electronics. |
Elloquently put. :) |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tomtt
from the same site,
much more interesting-
|
No it's not. |
|
|
| tomtt |
| quote: | Originally posted by MJL21193
No it's not.
|
shure it is |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| Ah! Le Professional! Now I am interested! SSSSnoreeee.... |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
| quote: | Originally posted by MJL21193
Ah! Le Professional! Now I am interested! SSSSnoreeee.... |
Leave Léon alone! :D |
|
|
| tomtt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cloth Ears
Leave Léon alone!
|
a wise idea!
 |
|
|
| EC8010 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MJL21193
Speaker cables are another story. They don't need shielding, they just need to have low impedance. |
Actually, there is an argument for shielding loudspeaker cables. Most amplifiers have global feedback to tidy up distortion, lower output resistance etc. Or, to put it another way, amplifiers with global feedback have an aerial (the loudspeaker cable) connected to the input stage. To ensure stability, the feedback resistor usually has a capacitor across it, coupling the aerial rather well. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EC8010
Actually, there is an argument for shielding loudspeaker cables. |
The point is there's an argument for everything. Shielding is not much more expensive. If you think it helps, do it.
I have a subwoofer that has two 18" drivers, wired for 4 ohms. This is driven by a homemade 500 watt amp, eq'ed by a Linkwitz transform. When I watch a movie at good volume:D , that sub is using all of that power (on transients). In a hurry to hear it when it was done, I grabbed the first thing handy: my trusty 18 gauge lamp cord. It works fine. Why? It's only 6' of wire. My DMM doesn't read low enough to measure the resistance.
It's still there. I've no reason to change it, it performs perfectly and introduces no noise (that I or anyone else can hear). |
|
|
| SY |
| Try that same thing with an "audiophile" 500W amp and you might find a difference. That's why I won't use anything exotic to drive my subs; the ancient Adcom 555 I have for my subs works just fine with whatever Home Depot wire I throw at it. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
... works just fine with whatever Home Depot wire I throw at it. |
That's where I got my 100' roll of lamp cord.
So, what you are saying is that in the pusuit of the golden sound, amp manufacturers leave out components in the signal path that promote stability? Who would have guessed?;) |
|
|
| rdf |
| Halcro, Musical Fidelity, Pass and plenty others, even the Adcom 555s (ironically in its day the stereotypical budget hi-watt 'audiophile' amp) handle those loads without issue. Wide generalizations are of little value. While it's accurate to say the realm of audiophile amps includes models that do choke on such a load, it's not to call it a defining feature of the class. |
|
|
| SY |
| I was quite careful not to, you may observe. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by MJL21193
That's where I got my 100' roll of lamp cord.
So, what you are saying is that in the pusuit of the golden sound, amp manufacturers leave out components in the signal path that promote stability? Who would have guessed?;) |
With all due modesty, I believe that I'm the one who started the underground rumor about Home Depot orange wire. Heh, heh, heh.
It goes well beyond just leaving out components. There is out and out bad design, and even more often, design without engineering. I have many horror stories about high end amps I've worked on. Evidently, many designers (not all, rdf!) aren't really engineers, but are ex-salesmen, dentists, pilots, marketing consultants, what-have-you.
I remember a VERY high end tube amp designed by a good engineer that was crippled by the addition of an RC network (done by the company that was responsible for sales and distribution of the product, not by the engineer or the manufacturer), which caused severe slewing problems and an inability to meet its power specs above a few kHz. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rdf
Halcro, Musical Fidelity, Pass and plenty others, even the Adcom 555s (ironically in its day the stereotypical budget hi-watt 'audiophile' amp) handle those loads without issue. Wide generalizations are of little value. While it's accurate to say the realm of audiophile amps includes models that do choke on such a load, it's not to call it a defining feature of the class. |
Agreed. Maybe money could be diverted away from such expensive shielded cables, and spent on well designed amps that don't have stability problems or ground loop issues, or high susceptibility to EM or RF interference.
rdf: There is a member(KBK ) posting on this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...10&pagenumber=3
Who is selling cable with secret properties for $13000 US that will:
"...make their socks roll up and down and make silly putty run out of their nose. And that is an understatement. I gave a set to a friend who runs a high end shop, and sells the best cables that money can buy. He signed a non-disclosure agreement. Then I told him what the wire was. It was such a mindblower, he literally dropped the phone. For the time being - it is withheld from the market. The high end shop friend, says they are equal to or better than the best available. But they will be at half the price."
All of the original members of The Who would have to be inside that cable to be worth that much.;) |
|
|
| rdf |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
I was quite careful not to, you may observe. |
Just watching your back. The missing 'some' qualifier is certain to be mis-interpreted in such a loaded context as an 'audiophool' discussion.
| quote: | | "All of the original members of The Who would have to be inside that cable to be worth that much." |
Given the latest Keith Richards rumour, anything's possible. ;) |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rdf
Given the latest Keith Richards rumour, anything's possible. ;) |
Good one. Use of silver cable shielding as a snorting straw is generally not recommented(braiding will tangle nose hairs):clown: |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
Here's one of my favourites. I ran across this a couple years ago. Item is an isolation platform to "tune" each component in your system.:
"Many designers feel wood (particularly Maple) offers a certain richness that enhancers harmonic structure. It has become a popular material. Winston Ma felt that while Maple (Ebony was his first choice, but far too expensive) was a good basic material for a platform, on its own it did not fully address the issue of vibration and resonance control. His experiments led him to marry the richness of Maple with the speed of roller ball technology.
His roller bearing design is unique in regards to the choice of materials. The load bearing pucks are brass, coated with hardened white steel. A stainless steel or tungsten carbide bearing is employed. The pucks are recessed into the wood for intimate contact
The FIM Isolation Base has worked exceptionally well here. In fact, I’d have to say it is one of the best products of its type I have encountered. They capture sense of the speed, attack and detail we’ve come to expect from roller bearing technology, but without the hard or metallic character some associate with this technology. Maple alone can, in many systems, tend to take things too far in the direction of warmth; roller bearing devices may move too far the opposite direction. The marriage of the two seems to be synergistic."
A bargan at $325.00 each |
|
|
| mach1 |
| quote: | | I remember a VERY high end tube amp designed by a good engineer that was crippled by the addition of an RC network (done by the company that was responsible for sales and distribution of the product, not by the engineer or the manufacturer), which caused severe slewing problems and an inability to meet its power specs above a few kHz. |
AN? |
|
|
| mach1 |
| quote: | | Here's one of my favourites. I ran across this a couple years ago. Item is an isolation platform to "tune" each component in your system. |
A lot of the drivel written by journalisits about the magical properties of supports has greatly saddened me.
While good supports can, and do often provide quite audible improvments over rickety domestic furniture, the recommendation of one particular type as a panacea (which is most often the case) for all types of audio equipment is just plain irresponsible.
Different items of audio gear have different vibrational issues associated with them: different modes, different fequencies; external vibration verus operational vibration. Supports offer two potential benefits: (i) they can isolate the component from external vibration, and (ii) they may provide a sink to provide a 'ground' for vibration caused by operation of the component. What works at ameliorating one set of vibrational issues is highly unlikely to be effective in a totally different set of circumstances.
Having said that, placing a turntable or tube amp on a large piece of furniture with multiple surface areas capable of picking up large amounts of airborne vibration and feet connected wobbly floorboards is hardly conducive to good sound. It will probaby provide a wide and complex range of vibrational feedback comprising mutiple modes and frequencies. Placing the equipment on a small support, with reduced surface area and more rigid construction, will probably reduce the magnitude of vibrational feedback and push it higher up the spectrum. In instances like these, it is no surprise that a significant difference or improvement in sound is perceived.
But to then extrapolate this finding and say that support x has a certain intrinsic sound is nonsense. It is always the combination of the properties of the support and those of the associated piece of equipment that produces the final result.
Some time ago I upgraded CD players. The old unit was very sensitive to placement, and after much experimentation I arrived at a home made support arrangement I was happy with. When the new unit arrived it was placed on the same surface. However, when cleaning it was temporarily moved to different piece of furniture. Being lazy after wielding the duster, I fired it up where it sat. To my surprise, it sounded absolutely fine in its new location. I have subsequently found that it it is remarkably insensitive to placement.
The Linn LP12 is notoriously sensitive to the surface on which it is placed. I actually think this characteristic is ultimately responsible for a lot of the current British audio press obsession with equipment supports. OTOH, the Technics SL1200 is comparatively oblivious to its surroundings (which is probably partly responsible for its popularity with DJs). While I am not saying an SL1200 is necessarily as good a turntable as an LP12, it is certainly not necessary to lay out large amounts of cash to buy an operating surface on which it is happy.
Caveat emptor ! |
|
|
| DSP_Geek |
| quote: | Originally posted by EC8010
Actually, there is an argument for shielding loudspeaker cables. Most amplifiers have global feedback to tidy up distortion, lower output resistance etc. Or, to put it another way, amplifiers with global feedback have an aerial (the loudspeaker cable) connected to the input stage. To ensure stability, the feedback resistor usually has a capacitor across it, coupling the aerial rather well. |
That's a cracking good point. I tested my shielded speaker cables in Montreal, as a matter of fact not far from the Montreal Hi-Fi Show location, and that might explain why the background was "blacker" when I set those things up after a Quad 405. It does seem to vary a LOT with gear, though, because a similar comparison in New York City, arguably the worst RF city on Earth, didn't show nearly the same difference driven by an Aragon 8008.
Speaking of New York City, Wendy Carlos mentioned in Keyboard Magazine that her studio got much quieter once she surrounded the entire space with a Faraday cage. Previously unusably noisy gear calmed down as a result, and quiet equipment became even nicer.
The same thing could hold true for stereo gear, since a lot of it is designed to run in the lab but not necessarily under non-ideal conditions. I do software for a hardware manufacturer (hence the nick), and a LOT of work can go into RF immunity, S/PDIF jitter immunity, hum rejection, output loading, and a pile of other things which can muck up the system. A system isn't done when it can just pass the 1812 overture without popping the output devices.
Francois. |
|
|
| andy_c |
| quote: | Originally posted by BudP
Anyone want to address this? |
(Art Carney on)
Hello, this!
(Art Carney off) |
|
|
| DSP_Geek |
| quote: | Originally posted by mach1
But to then extrapolate this finding and say that support x has a certain intrinsic sound is nonsense. It is always the combination of the properties of the support and those of the associated piece of equipment that produces the final result.
Some time ago I upgraded CD players. The old unit was very sensitive to placement, and after much experimentation I arrived at a home made support arrangement I was happy with. When the new unit arrived it was placed on the same surface. However, when cleaning it was temporarily moved to different piece of furniture. Being lazy after wielding the duster, I fired it up where it sat. To my surprise, it sounded absolutely fine in its new location. I have subsequently found that it it is remarkably insensitive to placement. |
I'm willing to bet a pint the crystal in the first CD player was in the middle of the circuit board, or at least far from the board's mounting points, whereas the crystal in the second player is either closer to a screw, or it's well damped.
| quote: | | The Linn LP12 is notoriously sensitive to the surface on which it is placed. I actually think this characteristic is ultimately responsible for a lot of the current British audio press obsession with equipment supports. OTOH, the Technics SL1200 is comparatively oblivious to its surroundings (which is probably partly responsible for its popularity with DJs). While I am not saying an SL1200 is necessarily as good a turntable as an LP12, it is certainly not necessary to lay out large amounts of cash to buy an operating surface on which it is happy. |
Well, that means the LP12 is *revealing* and the Technics is *soulless*. Didn't you get the memo?
Sometimes it seems that audiophiles are the same kind of guys who chase high maintenance women: they start wondering where the magic has gone if there isn't a hysterical episode every once in a while. Meanwhile the rest of us enjoy our lives. |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mach1
But to then extrapolate this finding and say that support x has a certain intrinsic sound is nonsense. It is always the combination of the properties of the support and those of the associated piece of equipment that produces the final result.
|
I take it this is not your favourite cutting boar...er, support?| quote: | Originally posted by BudP
Well, here is something for all of you to adjust to.
I began R&D on tube OPT's a number of years ago ....Anyone want to address this?
Bud |
Nice stroll through the Twilight Zone, Bud. Were you being serious? |
|
|
| mach1 |
| quote: | | I take it this is not your favourite cutting boar...er, support? |
Nope - I have always found a mahogany / Cambodian teak laminate with equidistant golden section zircon inserts a more effective counter to the excessive warmth of Maple than roller bearings...
This arrangement stops the buildup of standing waves in the support which can cause a significant impairment of CD crystal function at the quantum level.
pm |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mach1
Nope - I have always found a mahogany / Cambodian teak laminate with equidistant golden section zircon inserts a more effective counter to the excessive warmth of Maple than roller bearings...
This arrangement stops the buildup of standing waves in the support which can cause a significant impairment of CD crystal function at the quantum level.
|
Are your fingers crossed when you're saying that? Are you being serious with me? Because, you know this is a serious thread?
:) |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
| quote: | Originally posted by BudP
Nice stroll through the Twilight Zone, Bud. Were you being serious?
Unfortunately, yes, throughout all of the stroll. Just wondering if some objective questions could be raised, that I could go find answers to, that might help me out of the zone for a bit. I do spend quite a bit of time there, practicing my black arts of analog transformer design.
Bud |
Sorry, Bud.
I thought it would be nice for this thread to stay out of the gray areas, where vagaries and slight subtleties reign. One can find lots of that in the "beyond the ariel" thread.
I, for one, don't want to get mired in the suggested differences between the way two pieces of wire sound with the only difference between the two, is the colour of the insulation used.
I thought it would be a good place to highlight some or the more interesting things that are out there in the wide world of audio. You know, poke a little fun, then an "audiophool" comes rushing in all indignant and sets everyone straight.
Light musings. |
|
|
| mach1 |
| quote: | | Are your fingers crossed when you're saying that? Are you being serious with me? Because, you know this is a serious thread? |
My product distributor just dropped the phone.... |
|
|
| analog_guy |
EC8010,
EMI is a notoriously difficult problem to manage because the underlying physics is complicated. Where I work we have a whole team of experts who develop simulation models and modeling methodologies in an attempt to make the problem computationally tractable.
The modeling difficulty lies in the need to solve Maxwell's equations that govern E+M wave propagation. These equations have analytic solutions only the simnplest of geometries. For everything else, numerical methods must be employed. And remember, at this point we have not yet even begun to consider the effects on active circuitry.
From a practical point of view, EMI is best controlled by putting the sensitive electronics in a sealed, conducting enclosure and making sure no EMI gets in or out over any cabling or through any other apertures.
If the amplifier has a load isolation inductor (many amps do in order to isolare reactive loads), that will offer some protection. The other aproach is to wrap the speaker cable several times through a ferrite core. Doing so creates a so called transmission line transformer. It will block common mode RF energy, but will have no impact on the (differential) audio signal. The same approach can be used for any cabling going to/from the amp.
BTW, I am currently designing an amplifier, and I have included line filter modules on the AC mains and plan to use ferrites on the input. The amp also has load isolation inductors.
I'll try simulating my amp's performance in the presence of RFI.
JCM |
|
|
| EC8010 |
| Hello analog_guy, I must confess that I have not actually tried screened loudspeaker cable, but I can see a logical reason as to why it might help. Yes, most transistor amplifiers have an output inductor, but this is often in parallel with a 10 Ohm resistor. A N Thiele (of Thiele and Small fame) addressed this problem explicitly and suggested filters at the output of amplifiers to prevent backwards injection of EMI. The problem (as I'm sure you're aware) is that as one has no control of the EMI environment, any "fixes" tend to take on a snake oil quality and predictability is low. And then, of course, there's the possibility that SY mooted, that the amplifier is conditionally unstable... |
|
|
| DSP_Geek |
| quote: | Originally posted by EC8010
A N Thiele (of Thiele and Small fame) addressed this problem explicitly and suggested filters at the output of amplifiers to prevent backwards injection of EMI. The problem (as I'm sure you're aware) is that as one has no control of the EMI environment, any "fixes" tend to take on a snake oil quality and predictability is low. And then, of course, there's the possibility that SY mooted, that the amplifier is conditionally unstable... |
I suspect SY is right on this one. A fellow over on Usenet (Dick Pierce) points out that some "audiophile" DACs have indifferently stable S/PDIF receivers, and mirabile dictu, they happen to be the most "revealing" of different cable types. Could it be the receiver jitter depends on how the cable transmits pulse risetime/falltime? Nooooo, this stuff is all unconditionally stable! Honest!
Speaking of amplifiers, class-D amps have a great big capacitor to ground right on the output before the signal goes anyplace else. I'd bet a UcD will be less "revealing" of speaker cable differences than, say, a Naim (the older ones didn't play well at all with high capacitance speaker cables).
Francois. |
|
|
| panomaniac |
| quote: | Originally posted by DSP_Geek
Speaking of amplifiers, class-D amps have a great big capacitor to ground right on the output before the signal goes anyplace else. I'd bet a UcD will be less "revealing" of speaker cable differences than, say, a Naim |
That's been my experience with Tripath Class-D amps. FWIW, they seem to be more forgiving of crossover faults, too.
Dare we say that the amp and speaker work together as a system? ;) |
|
|
| MJL21193 |
Going on the assumption that that your audiophile amp is lacking in the stability department and is sensitive to EM and RF interferance, how can these deficiencies be corrected by using +$10K speaker cables? Cable construction is not magic, it's meant to carry current from point A to point B without degradation. A single unshielded conductor, of adequate size will do that. Add shielding if your amp is poorly designed, wrap tin-foil around your speaker cabinet while your at it to shied the componets inside. The only other changes that can be made to get different results are negitive.
I've read about "skin effect" and "oxygen free copper" and "polarized crystalline structures" and " teflon insulation" and " low capacitance/low inductance" and "triple shielding" and on and on. All marketing, nothing else.
The bottom line is, if you believe it makes a difference, do it. Better start saving though... |
|
|
| phn |
It's true that the cables used in home audio set-ups generally are too short to make shielding a factor. (They are generally too short to even matter.) Lots of ultra high-end decks and tonearms have the tonearm leads exposed without any problem. But it's equally true that our environments are getting increasingly noisier, with cell phones, wireless LANs, etc. Of course, we still deal with, does it matter? But considering one meter shielded microphone or instrument cable costs about a $, I do not consider myself cheated.
"Skin effect" (i.e. self-inductance), solid-core, OFC (first used in pro audio), etc. are snake oil in that they have no scientific foundation whatsoever. While self-inductance is real, the level of self-inductance in a cable is too low to matter. Unshielded interconnects also fall into the category of snake oil. What makes unshielded interconnects snake oil is the claim that (I'm not making this up) unshielded interconnects have more open sound than shielded interconnects. The same applies to solid-core and OFC. Solid-core is used in mains installation cable. OFC is used in microphone cable and transformers. Solid-core is stiff. OFC is soft. But once you attribute other qualities to them, you have created snake oil.
It would be presumptuous of me to say a cable or anti-vibration device cannot possibly make a difference. But if they did in my system, I would assume the problem is the electronics. I would assume that the amp or whatever is defect and needs to be repaired. I wouldn't go out and buy a new cable, high-price or otherwise. Turntables are a bit different when it comes to vibrations. But I would assume that the manufacturer has taken sufficient steps to make it as vibration proof as reasonably possible if it's a deck of any quality to speak of. |
|
|
| SY |
There's certainly some flights of fancy out there, that's for sure. But don't let that blind you to the possibilities that some stuff is real, and when it is, finding out the cause is pretty interesting.
May I give an example? When switching between two cables connecting phono (high output MM) to preamp, a definite difference was heard, one cable having a raspy sound on certain notes and a more hashy presentation compared to the other. One cable was a high end silver and Teflon coaxial construction using top-of-the-line RCA plugs, the other was a generic tinned copper polyolefin coax with decent-but-nothing-special RCA plugs.
Easy to pick blind 100% of the time. Now what was the cause? |
|
|
| DSP_Geek |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
May I give an example? When switching between two cables connecting phono (high output MM) to preamp, a definite difference was heard, one cable having a raspy sound on certain notes and a more hashy presentation compared to the other. One cable was a high end silver and Teflon coaxial construction using top-of-the-line RCA plugs, the other was a generic tinned copper polyolefin coax with decent-but-nothing-special RCA plugs.
Easy to pick blind 100% of the time. Now what was the cause? |
Off the top of my head, possible causes might be triboelectric effects, connector corrosion, perhaps even a dodgy solder connection. Hard to tell without looking at the wire.
I think high impedance links must be eschewed and interconnects should be run at no more than a few kOhms, because a lot of cable effects seem to go away once you have more than a few microamps of current in the wire. I also recommend going balanced for common-mode noise immunity - anything external which gets into the wire most likely will hit both conductors and get canceled out at the receiving end. There's a reason pro audio setups run low impedance balanced, and it's not because XLR connectors are dead sexy. |
|
|
| rdf |
| quote: | Originally posted by DSP_Geek
There's a reason pro audio setups run low impedance balanced, and it's not because XLR connectors are dead sexy. |
It's because our 'interconnects' are often 200+ feet long. Hard to argue the need for home use though, especially phono cartidges which usually tied output grounds pins to the body and were no longer balanced. No arguing the technique in general however, especially transformer coupled or using true instrumentation amps (the latter rare in pro audio.) I set up a 2 km run using a line amp at the source driving a 600:150 connected transformer to a 150:600 connected transformer at the far end. 1 dB down at 18 kHz, S/N in the -65 dB range, low distortion and well suited to the FM application required.
My guess: poorly designed "top-of-the-line RCA plugs" causing rectification? |
|
|
| juergenk |
my guess: phono pickups need a matched capacitance, that's why some phono inputs have dip switches for individual input capacitance
swapping cables will lead to different sound, because of their different capacitance
regards |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | possible causes might be triboelectric effects |
Winner on the first try! |
|
|
| mach1 |
| quote: | | Winner on the first try! |
Sy, more information please - how do you know that was the cause ? Did you measure the charge / potential on the interconnect and that on the socket ?
Are you implying that the charge was built up from the friction induced by inserting and removing the plugs, or from friction between the interconnect outer sheath and the external environment? ? If the former, was the plug surface plating material different on the two cables? Was the plating material on the plugs different to that on the sockets?Was there an oxide layer on either of the sets of plugs or the sockets?
In my experience, copper and silver sound quite different as conductors, and perhaps this physical difference could offer just as plausible an explanation.
phn, you state:
| quote: | | Skin effect" (i.e. self-inductance), solid-core, OFC (first used in pro audio), etc. are snake oil in that they have no scientific foundation whatsoever. While self-inductance is real, the level of self-inductance in a cable is too low to matter |
Many years ago, I remember reading an article in HFNRR on signal propagation in cables authored by Malcolm Hawkesford (i think - can't be sure). In it the author offered a mathematical proof that high frequency signal propagation (at frequencies that could negatively impact music reproduction) is indeed impacted by skin effect at the diameters commonly used in signal cables. The inference was that small diameters (in the order of 0.25mm dia) offer plausibly superior hf characteristics to those in the order of 1 - 1.25mm dia. I believe this to be reason why some manufacturers (eg Cardas and Kimber) use a mix of large and small dia wires in their small signal cables
Antother interesting point I remember, is that the electromagnetic wave induced by a signal actually propagates around the outside of the conductor, thereby travelling through the insulating material. This could possibly go some way towards offering an explanation for some of the observations on cable sound posted here by BudP (but which appear to have mysteriously disappeared ?). If they have been pulled by the author or moderators I feel rather saddened.
I am now going outside and may be some time ......
pm |
|
|
| Conrad Hoffman |
IMO, DSP_Geek has a very valid point. Though I can't hear the difference between decent capacitors, I can easily hear the difference between different low level interconnects. The reason can always be determined if you make enough measurements of well understood phenomena, even if the cause is a bit exotic, but it shouldn't happen at all. We seem to be stuck with the high impedance levels from the days when tube preamps couldn't drive much and power amp inputs were chosen accordingly. Plus, every manufacturer does it differently. Just like scope inputs are standardized to specific R and C values, it would make more sense today to standardize on some lower impedance- all power amps would present a purely resistive 600 ohm load, and all preamps would be capable of driving that load. Lower the impedance and issues of cable capacitance, DA and DF would disappear or be greatly reduced. Of course finding decent coupling caps would then be near impossible, but coupling caps are no longer a necessity with decent circuitry. Or, why not go to a current drive scheme and keep voltage near zero. Solves a bunch of problems, though I'm sure more would show up to replace them.
I think I'm hearing a difference between conductors, but the psychological difference between brass and silver is too hard to overcome! Lot's more tests needed to make up my mind on that somewhat controversial topic. |
|
|
| rdf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Conrad Hoffman
Or, why not go to a current drive scheme and keep voltage near zero. |
600 ohms is a legacy standard from early telephony days and I'm not sure has anything particularly optimum about it for home use compared to, say, 50 or 75 ohm. 'Zero' impedance current busses, now that makes sense and is a technique common of many analogue recording console backpanes. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | Sy, more information please - how do you know that was the cause ? |
No need for sophisticated measurements; tapping the cable, then rubbing them on the surface of the table caused clear microphonics. The stuff was a great transducer. I still have a couple feet of it laying around if you want to try it for yourself.
BTW, the tube amp I mentioned earlier was not anything with the initials AN. |
|
|
| BudP |
Sy was rubbing the cable with his rabbits foot because his partner was blinded by the double, who had no rabbits foot.
Attached is a skin effect table for RAC and RDC |
|
|
| jlsem |
Skin effect is defined by phase lagging of the plane wave. The skin depth for a given frequency is where the plane wave begins to lag by an assigned angle, I forget what it is. I don't know if the current lag is audible. Geez, am I getting old or what?
John |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by BudP
Sy was rubbing the cable with his rabbits foot because his partner was blinded by the double, who had no rabbits foot.
Attached is a skin effect table for RAC and RDC |
That table needs very carefull interpretation. On the face of it, a delta-impedance of 5% with frequency sounds, well, significant.
Let's plug in some numbers. Assuming a DC resistance of an interlink of 1 ohms, feeding a 10k load from a 100 ohms source. What would be the change in freq response between 20Hz and 20kHz from an interlink change in impedance from 1 ohms to 1.05 ohms?
At 20Hz, attenuation due to cable Z is 10k/(10k+1). That's about -0.00086 dB. Now at 20kHz it's 10k/(10k+1.05). That's about -0.00092 dB. So, the freq response deviation because of a 5% delta in Zcable due to skin effect amounts to about 0.00006 dB. 20Hz sounds 0.00006dB louder than 20kHz. Are you sure you can hear that? ;)
Jan Didden |
|
|
| dnsey |
| quote: | | No need for sophisticated measurements; tapping the cable, then rubbing them on the surface of the table caused clear microphonics. |
Yes indeed - this is true of a large proportion of cable types, as is well known to anyone who has had to use unbalanced mic cable with PA rigs. The fact that the noise produced often seems to have a natural frequency can't help! |
|
|
| EC8010 |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
What would be the change in freq response between 20Hz and 20kHz from an interlink change in impedance from 1 ohms to 1.05 ohms? |
A more extreme condition would be a low resistance moving coil cartridge (3 Ohms) feeding a transformer that has had its HF response optimised for that 3 Ohms. In which case, the 1 Ohm cable (not unreasonable) would cause the total source resistance seen by the transformer to change from 4 Ohms to 4.05 Ohms; a 1% change that wouldn't cause a noticeable change in HF response of even the most highly optimised transformer/cartridge combination. I really don't think skin-effect is significant at audio, but microphony, oh, I'll believe that. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by EC8010
A more extreme condition would be a low resistance moving coil cartridge (3 Ohms) feeding a transformer that has had its HF response optimised for that 3 Ohms. In which case, the 1 Ohm cable (not unreasonable) would cause the total source resistance seen by the transformer to change from 4 Ohms to 4.05 Ohms; a 1% change that wouldn't cause a noticeable change in HF response of even the most highly optimised transformer/cartridge combination. I really don't think skin-effect is significant at audio, but microphony, oh, I'll believe that. |
Agreed. And, actually, I cheated a bit:o ; interlinks are more like 0.05 ohms or lower. So the effect really isn't there for practical purposes in audio.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| phn |
| Correction: I do consider amps that cannot cope with high capacitance speaker cable defect or poorly designed, which really is the same thing. But I wouldn't consider my gear defect because an interconnect makes a difference. I would assume that something has changed and would try to find out what. |
|
|
| SY |
True, but if an amp showed differences between two non-pathological cables, I'd kick the amp designer.
edit: I believe that the table is derived using an incorrect formula, the one for skin depth for a planar conductor with no other conductors nearby. |
|
|
| BudP |
Sy,
"edit: I believe that the table is derived using an incorrect formula, the one for skin depth for a planar conductor with no other conductors nearby."
That would be a very interesting point to pursue. The table, as presented, is the de-facto standard used in the transformer industry, for designing high frequency switch mode power transformers. I would be very interested in any additional input.
I posted the chart in an attempt to take "skin effect" completely off of the table, in conductor discussions.
Bud |
|
|
| DSP_Geek |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Winner on the first try! |
The teflon one, right? I heard the same thing with cheap guitar cables when I was a roadie.
Triboelectricity is a solved problem, anyway. Google up 'triboelectric medical cable' to find all kinds of suppliers who'd be glad to sell you low noise wire. Maybe there's a group buy opportunity here. |
|
|
| phn |
| Most cables used in pro audio are "triboelectricity-proof." The better ones are cotton-insulated, or use some material with similar characteristics. |
|
|
| EC8010 |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
I cheated a bit:o ; interlinks are more like 0.05 ohms or lower. So the effect really isn't there for practical purposes in audio. |
Ah, but you'd be amazed at the resistance of those nice thin wires down your pick-up arm - 1 Ohm loop resistance is realistic. |
|
|
| mach1 |
| quote: | | True, but if an amp showed differences between two non-pathological cables, I'd kick the amp designer. |
I would defy anyone to say, hand on heart, that they COULDN"T hear the difference between a 1m interconnect made from a copper conductor, and an otherwhise identical cable made with a silver conductor.
BTW, I am not alluding to the superiority of one material over another: their relative merit is contextual.
pm |
|
|
| SY |
Hand on heart, when I've done controlled comparison with line-level interconnect wires (preamp to power amp, both units being properly engineered), I don't hear a difference, except with pathological cables.
Going to silver on a tonearm is a different kettle of fish and chips, as EC has pointed out- I'd be surprised not to hear a difference, at the very least a perceptible level change. |
|
|
|
