Sy is not a moderator on this thread, he is just like us.... All I do is report what I don't hear in real world electronics, i.e. some of the stuff spouted here, in fact some beliefs cause some quite interesting reactions, many not that complementary....
I agree with Sy, why moan about dirty connectors its so stupid, go clean them and hey presto no problems....
I agree with Sy, why moan about dirty connectors its so stupid, go clean them and hey presto no problems....
Actually Sys little pets expression is very similar to the standard wife expression, when she is not happy with some aspect of the husband, I term this expression the 'Rottweiler sucking a wasp', watch your wife's face next time you suggest something, a good example is "Is that a new haircut or have you just done 12 rounds with a lawnmower".
The 'Archie Bunker@ attitude is just asking for some proof or proper research into perceive problems and made up effects, cable directivity being a main one.
The 'Archie Bunker@ attitude is just asking for some proof or proper research into perceive problems and made up effects, cable directivity being a main one.
Last edited:
Accuracy is always going to be essential, but if you do your best calibrating the "professional" way and the colours still doesn't quite gell at times which path do you choose? Measurement accuracy, or some tweaking which improves the realism of what you see? Ultimately, human perceptions are what it's all about - we're not doing this for some robotic vision to enjoy ...
It would be nice if it were that easy - but, unfortunately it's not. Some people may have gear where this doesn't raise its ugly head, but I'm not one of them, 🙁. As already said, I did the rounds years ago - and never solved it using conventional, and easy means. I hate being irritated by things being almost, but still not quite right - so will always work towards a permanent solution, where I can just forget about an issue, it no longer is something I have to think about on an ongoing basis.
Cable directivity is not worth the time of day. Copper isn't a diode. But I admire your keeness to debunk the good with the bad here, marce.
Cable lifters are probably hoey too. But we have done a lot to define a better speaker cable that might be immune to some noise effects of this ilk. So that's a takeaway.
Shannon's Coding theorem, beloved of all those dumb professors and myself who believe in the science, tells you that improving signal to noise ratio improves information capacity on a channel. In other words, GET THE NOISE FLOOR DOWN.
Tighter connections will help, as will switch cleaning on my amplifier that my butler does for me every year or so. I also get him to polish the mains plugs with Brasso, whilst doing the nameplate to system7 Manor. 😉
Cable lifters are probably hoey too. But we have done a lot to define a better speaker cable that might be immune to some noise effects of this ilk. So that's a takeaway.
Shannon's Coding theorem, beloved of all those dumb professors and myself who believe in the science, tells you that improving signal to noise ratio improves information capacity on a channel. In other words, GET THE NOISE FLOOR DOWN.
Tighter connections will help, as will switch cleaning on my amplifier that my butler does for me every year or so. I also get him to polish the mains plugs with Brasso, whilst doing the nameplate to system7 Manor. 😉
NO wrong, it is colour (or sound) accuracy, not what you think is accurate or what you prefer... that's the difference I want ACCURACY.
Dam, I have never cleaned my plugs....
Just saying in the areas of electronics I have worked in people don't get as wound up over these things as in Audio, solutions are engineered and all possible factors taken into account, connectors are used and specified for the job, low level signals seem to pass through OK and stuff works.....
Grease or Vaseline is good for keeping water out of electrics and battery connectors IIRC.
marce, you and fas42 are actually saying the same thing. Why all the confrontation? 😕
As for cleaning plugs, well it does no harm anyway! 😀
To try and get this thread back to mildly interesting, who likes what Troels Gravesen is doing with high efficiency and low stored energy?
JA8008-HMQ
I like this sort of speaker. Much more lively and informative than the overdamped, flat variety. I think Peter Walker defined high fidelity as high dynamic range. 🙂
marce, you and fas42 are actually saying the same thing. Why all the confrontation? 😕
As for cleaning plugs, well it does no harm anyway! 😀
To try and get this thread back to mildly interesting, who likes what Troels Gravesen is doing with high efficiency and low stored energy?
JA8008-HMQ
I like this sort of speaker. Much more lively and informative than the overdamped, flat variety. I think Peter Walker defined high fidelity as high dynamic range. 🙂
Last edited:
CHOO CHOO! chugga chugga chugga...
SY's avatar always just looked like a regular dog with his head out of a car window, as dogs like to do.
About connector cleanliness....I admit I've been involved in this hobby for a shorter time than some of you (about 20 years) but I'd like to know what you all are doing with your connectors to cause them to end up so dirty that conductivity is affected negatively enough to be sonically noticed.
Like I said doing electronics for a standard living room is bliss, pollution level 2, little vibration etc.
But if some don't have some minutia of detail to worry about they would have to listen to their music collection....
Or like some calibrate your monitor to a known standard, then tweak it cos you don't like true colours (in the case4 of sound this would be adding colour to your sound to suit your personal preference and accuracy be dammed).
But if some don't have some minutia of detail to worry about they would have to listen to their music collection....
Or like some calibrate your monitor to a known standard, then tweak it cos you don't like true colours (in the case4 of sound this would be adding colour to your sound to suit your personal preference and accuracy be dammed).
Finally, you have come around..I'm glad I persisted.
The step function only provides a temporal value. The choice of settling percentage only describes the quantity of time that the load will be delayed with respect to the drive voltage.
Conceptual understanding is important here.
Again it does not. It is important to understand the concepts before trying to discuss it. The 95% value only shows the temporal gap at an arbitrary rise.
Incorrect. The large LCR and the t-line match very well. The simple lumped model is only accurate in one direction. Remember, the load is non linear.
The use of an RF t-line model is ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE at predicting the response of a cable set REGARDLESS of the ratio of wavelength of the signal to the length of the line for this specific system. Edit: The RF model is absolutely accurate because all of the latency delay occurs in the first 5 to 10 uSec, which is NOT the audio domain..but closer to RF.
As you now have seen, the latency is INDEPENDENT of the slew rate of the signal..
I guess you will now pull back on your statements that I've made a mistake, that I don't understand, that T-line models with fast step has nothing to do with real world...
I do not hold my breath. At least you now OWN the concepts as well. That has been the goal all along.
This is a good thing, and I am glad that I've patiently awaited your "conversion". You've been harping all along that the T-line model cannot apply, for silly reasons such as wavelength, slew rate...
Good. You chose the #12 awg cable. It has an L of 225 nH per foot, a C of 24 pF per foot, and a prop velocity of 43% lightspeed, with a dielectric equivalent of 5.22.
I repeat your words for all to see...
no significant difference between the 3 models.
Oh, that's easy. A single cell is a low pass filter, and directional. It also does not clearly show the cusp in latency delay..But alas, that is another concept for another day, I am happy for now that you are learning some concepts.
The T-line model shows what is actually happening within the channel that is moving the energy from one location to another. That channel is only able to convey energy from one location to another as a consequence of the prop velocity of the channel and the energy storage within the channel which is NOT the intrinsic impedance of the channel, but rather, forced upon it as a consequence of the load impedance.
In your example, the characteristic impedance of the channel is 96.8 ohms. It is only capable of moving energy at prop velocity if the energy has the V to I relationship of the channel. When the load is very low Z, the signal has to bounce back and forth until the channel energy has reached that which the load demands.
So the next time you claim that t-lines cannot work for audio frequencies and lengths consistent with actual use, I will link you back to this location, where your constant insistance has been shown as inaccurate.
I repeat lucky's words..no significant difference between the 3 models.
Lies do not become you. Why start now? Condescention, you've got that down pat.
Now, it's car batteries..
jn
ps. Lucky, Your arrogant posturing and continued statements regard my understandings have earned you such a nasty response from me.
I apologize for that. And thank you for your continued discussion.
Actually, that is only partially correct.
The step function only provides a temporal value. The choice of settling percentage only describes the quantity of time that the load will be delayed with respect to the drive voltage.
Conceptual understanding is important here.
Again it does not. It is important to understand the concepts before trying to discuss it. The 95% value only shows the temporal gap at an arbitrary rise.
Here is but one conclusion based on lack of comprehension. At NO TIME, EVER, has modification of the waveshape been either a point, or a concern. the only concern I have shown from day 1 has been the temporal shift caused by the channel energy storage.
No. You are confusing channel temporal delays caused by energy storage with lumped element timeconstant response. It has never been about crude model responses.
I've never been worried, I've been saying all along that they must.
Incorrect. The large LCR and the t-line match very well. The simple lumped model is only accurate in one direction. Remember, the load is non linear.
There are so many conceptual errors within that sentence..
Congratulations. You have arrived at the exact conclusion I forced you to. Of course, you still need to understand the difference between the lowpass model and reality.
The use of an RF t-line model is ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE at predicting the response of a cable set REGARDLESS of the ratio of wavelength of the signal to the length of the line for this specific system. Edit: The RF model is absolutely accurate because all of the latency delay occurs in the first 5 to 10 uSec, which is NOT the audio domain..but closer to RF.
As you now have seen, the latency is INDEPENDENT of the slew rate of the signal..
I guess you will now pull back on your statements that I've made a mistake, that I don't understand, that T-line models with fast step has nothing to do with real world...
I do not hold my breath. At least you now OWN the concepts as well. That has been the goal all along.
This is a good thing, and I am glad that I've patiently awaited your "conversion". You've been harping all along that the T-line model cannot apply, for silly reasons such as wavelength, slew rate...
Good. You chose the #12 awg cable. It has an L of 225 nH per foot, a C of 24 pF per foot, and a prop velocity of 43% lightspeed, with a dielectric equivalent of 5.22.
I repeat your words for all to see...
no significant difference between the 3 models.
Oh, that's easy. A single cell is a low pass filter, and directional. It also does not clearly show the cusp in latency delay..But alas, that is another concept for another day, I am happy for now that you are learning some concepts.
The T-line model shows what is actually happening within the channel that is moving the energy from one location to another. That channel is only able to convey energy from one location to another as a consequence of the prop velocity of the channel and the energy storage within the channel which is NOT the intrinsic impedance of the channel, but rather, forced upon it as a consequence of the load impedance.
In your example, the characteristic impedance of the channel is 96.8 ohms. It is only capable of moving energy at prop velocity if the energy has the V to I relationship of the channel. When the load is very low Z, the signal has to bounce back and forth until the channel energy has reached that which the load demands.
AND, that of the t-line.
So the next time you claim that t-lines cannot work for audio frequencies and lengths consistent with actual use, I will link you back to this location, where your constant insistance has been shown as inaccurate.
I repeat lucky's words..no significant difference between the 3 models.
Lies do not become you. Why start now? Condescention, you've got that down pat.
Now, it's car batteries..
jn
ps. Lucky, Your arrogant posturing and continued statements regard my understandings have earned you such a nasty response from me.
I apologize for that. And thank you for your continued discussion.
Last edited:
Sigh..they keep changing the game.
Someday the powers that be will come to the realization that some Rohs edicts are better left undone, that the world and humanity are better served by using a common sense approach to the use of items like lead in small quantities for quality, safety, cost, and energy efficiency.
pppfffft... I crack myself up..🙁
jn
A world with no tin whiskers, 40 degree lower reflow temperatures, shiny joints that flow...ah those halcyon days....
Unlike a job I'm doing now where every component with a non tin/lead finish has a 10mm keep out moat from other components, getting tin/lead finished devices is becoming a nightmare.......
Unlike a job I'm doing now where every component with a non tin/lead finish has a 10mm keep out moat from other components, getting tin/lead finished devices is becoming a nightmare.......
Last edited:
You can actually get some? Sheesh, send me a vendor list...
Man, I hope I never need a pacemaker..😱
jn
As I understand it, the ROHS directive was implemented to help keep lead out of underground water due to leaching from buried E waste.
It seems that most E waste these days is reclaimed/recycled, so no such issue really exists.
The cynical might remark that the ROHS directive is another means of guaranteed/planned obsolescence.
There are exemptions for commercial/long service life equipment including medical products...presumably pacemakers are lead free exempted.
Dan.
It seems that most E waste these days is reclaimed/recycled, so no such issue really exists.
The cynical might remark that the ROHS directive is another means of guaranteed/planned obsolescence.
There are exemptions for commercial/long service life equipment including medical products...presumably pacemakers are lead free exempted.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.