That's it? No scientific citations, a denial of peer review requirements in science, fabricating claims that I support cable manufacturer ad copy, and all the while doing this in the name of science? You do more damage to it than I.
Steve,
UL813 Covers commercial equipment
UL6500 Covers Musical AV stuff
and UL60065 Covers most consumer AV gear.
As to hot chassis the heat only started getting limited in the 70's. You still have caps to chassis on a lot of listed gear but the maximum current allowed is much lower. You also have to use listed caps for that connection. Before it was assumed that the standard .01 wasn't important, as that became .1 in some designs you saw lethal levels of 5ma. If the caps failed even the .01 could kill.
I just pulled Ashly, TOA, Sony and AKG gear, only the Sony had a UL number, and the category was, no surprise, consumer that does not require the safety ground!
The UL requirements for consumer gear are diluted because so many manufacturers do not participate.
So don't compare Apples to Sonys.
Last edited:
UL60065 covers consumer, commercial and professional equipment. UL813 and UL6500 are being phased out and will be withdrawn on May 1, 2012, supplanted by UL60065.
********.
se
Ah so vocal, but that may be why I am seeing so many more ETL labels. manufacturers shop too.
Of course the query was why are there problems with ground noise, not what is changing.
Last edited:
Yes, I'm reminded of that every time I see some cheap piece of **** from China.
Our exchange began with your ******** claim that "The two prong on consumer gear is allowed because very little is "Listed" (I.E. UL approved)..."
And that's where I'll leave it end.
se
useless input
hmmnn.. the thread title implies that the claims of "cables making a difference" is false, then asks for any input. All you've ever put up is that those accepting this status quo, that is, competent well made inexpensive cables don't make a significant difference relative to stuff like, oh, speaker placement, xover structure, age related hearing loss, etc. ad infinitum, have failed to prove that they don't make a difference???
And you seem to feel this is a supportable position?
Unfortunately for you, the ball's in the court of those making the extraordinary claims... otherwise, you've joined the ranks of "sound bite" statistics as purveyed in the popular press... and feeble attempts to impune others' credentials and perspectives rather than provide concrete evidence supporting the alternative looks pretty silly.
John L.
hmmnn.. the thread title implies that the claims of "cables making a difference" is false, then asks for any input. All you've ever put up is that those accepting this status quo, that is, competent well made inexpensive cables don't make a significant difference relative to stuff like, oh, speaker placement, xover structure, age related hearing loss, etc. ad infinitum, have failed to prove that they don't make a difference???
And you seem to feel this is a supportable position?
Unfortunately for you, the ball's in the court of those making the extraordinary claims... otherwise, you've joined the ranks of "sound bite" statistics as purveyed in the popular press... and feeble attempts to impune others' credentials and perspectives rather than provide concrete evidence supporting the alternative looks pretty silly.
John L.
Yes that is where you jumped in. I don't know how you have followed the UL standards on audio gear. At one time the only professional audio amplifiers to meet the standards were Rauland's. This got a few more people on board. The current standard has been through half a dozen revisions. It is based on the much more precisely written but more tolerant IEC standard.
Some items dropped are the use of an extra layer of insulation between the primary and secondary of power transformers, test voltages of more than 1410 volts peak (1000V RMS sine wave), the unguarded level out of an amplifier used to be 25 volts now it is 120 for pro and 71 for others.
Of course since the standard costs just a bit under $500 most folks will never see it.
If you don't think standards don't change due to manufacturers pressures I assume you don't sit on any standard committees.
I stand by most consumer gear does not have a UL label. But then I have asked the question what do you think is the most widely manufactured and copied piece of gear ever made? Hint it is not UL listed!
Then the house I live in must be HIGHLY unusual because so far I've yet to find a piece of consumer gear in it that's NOT UL listed. ALL of it using two prong plugs.
From my 1976 Pioneer integrated amp, to a 1980's Pioneer laserdisc player, to my brand spankin' new DishNetwork DVR/receiver, and everything in between including TVs and boom boxes.
se
Once more- the people making the claims have ZERO published data in any peer-reviewed journal. Or are you still trying to put forth the bizarre notion that the burden of proof is not on the ones making extraordinary claims?
I'd best not take a walk in the woods- it's still grouse season.
Am I naive? I thought UL (CSA up hear) was mandatory for all consumer electrical equipment. (the government was trying to protect us... never mind I am naive).
Last edited:
Got me lookin. I guess I was thinkin CE, which is mandatory in Europe, UL is just a suggestion?
Having spent 500.00 on cables wouldn't you want them to sound better?
A right mind is hard to convince otherwise. I'm glad you discovered what you did.
Expensive cables are heavily treated with anti oxidant material and therefore will outlast the radio shack speaker wire. After about 4 to five years you might notice the Radio Shack wire turning green under the insulation. But for 25.00 who cares, buy some replacements.
A right mind is hard to convince otherwise. I'm glad you discovered what you did.
Expensive cables are heavily treated with anti oxidant material and therefore will outlast the radio shack speaker wire. After about 4 to five years you might notice the Radio Shack wire turning green under the insulation. But for 25.00 who cares, buy some replacements.
@ SY,
i´d say, you got a wrong impression regarding the discussion between doug20 and rdf.
doug20 was arguing with "hundreds of dbts" and rdf´s comment was only addressing this part of the argument and the questionable quality of dbts in cables.
I would add again, that for statistically reasons it is very unlikely that hundreds of dbts have been done.
Wishes
i´d say, you got a wrong impression regarding the discussion between doug20 and rdf.
doug20 was arguing with "hundreds of dbts" and rdf´s comment was only addressing this part of the argument and the questionable quality of dbts in cables.
I would add again, that for statistically reasons it is very unlikely that hundreds of dbts have been done.
Wishes
Pick up any issue of Stereophile. Or TAS. Or the websites of any of the cable peddlers. Lots of claims, easy to find. Lots of fraud. As much backup as the astrologers, creationists, free energy/ perpetual motion, and flat earthers. I.e., none, but gimmee your money.
While i see the argument in general, that is typical for marketing in nearly every part of business, especially if it is directed towards a somewhat "normal" consumer market.
All manufactures do claim a lot (explicit or implicit) in their marketing, but it is extremely rare that objective data will be delivered to back these claims up.
Any objective data normally will only be delivered if it is needed/mandatory to do business or if it helps to raise the sales figures resp. gain more success in which part ever.
Wishes
Jakob,
Don't you think that the first cable manufacturer who can show objective data that his cables are really improving sound, would immediately corner the market? Which begs the (admittedly rhetorical) question, why don't any of them.
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.