Allow me to leap to a competitor's defense.
Indeed it does to some degree, but 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. I believe that Krell's 'CAST' system is a similar attempt. But I have not investigated it deep enough (CAST system). All this is debatable, hence the discussion.
I explained to John in a phone call why this is critical function, with respect to another entire area of physics that involves amplifier design. And due to what it means when looking at active circuits and how to proceed at the design and final implementation stage, I'm asking him to keep it to himself. It cascades into a very minor change in design and implementation but changes the perceived sound of the given active circuit to a great degree, in my experiments on the matter.
Monster lost their infringement lawsuit against AudioQuest didn't they?
That was a rather bittersweet decision for me. I think Noel Lee and his lawyers are little more than a bunch of thugs given all the trademark lawsuits they've filed against people they have no business filing lawsuits against so I'm glad the bastards lost and had to end up paying AudioQuest for legal fees. But by the same token, I felt that AudioQuest's DBS was ultimately an infringement of your patent.
se
My favourite monster cable stories is this one:
Blue Jeans Cable Strikes Back - Response to Monster Cable — Reviews and News from Audioholics
Wrinkle
HA! Yes, I remember that one. Don't think he ever heard back from Monster's thugs if I recall.
Thanks for reminding me of that!
se
All lawyers are thugs, unless they are your thugs.
The battle stopped at the claims construction phase. It all revolved around the meaning of coaxial. The Judge adopted a very strict definition meaning exactly at the center. The associated drawings don't matter at that stage and I learned that everything from definitions (and where they come from) to how a claim is worded change over time and old interpretations don't work. Also inexperienced patent lawyers may not express what you disclosed in the actual disclosure (and the patent office lost the original file to make it more fun). Monster could have appealed but found better ways to make money.
Its all about money and high end audio has none.
Maybe for recording flutes?
se
Makes a good intrusion detector if attached to a fence.
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?
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?
Yes.
Here do you mean they're sampled over a non-integral number of cycles?
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).
I'm not clear what your question here means.
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
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.
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?
Yes.
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.
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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.