Ah, so sorry...I misquoted you.
You didn't say "geologic".
You said "5uS is half a geological era ...."
And now, you respond ""Oh, that's easy, 5 uSec.."".
Progress
Cheers, jn
You didn't say "geologic".
You said "5uS is half a geological era ...."
And now, you respond ""Oh, that's easy, 5 uSec.."".
Progress
Cheers, jn
Last edited:
5uS is your invention, JN. Half a geological era in TL terms - but the cable is not behaving as a TL at audioband risetime, rather as a lumped-circuit LCR as you agree. Context. And to obtain 5uS you have to define your own artificial conditions, including an artificially low load, specific cable and length to suit. I made it plain I anticipate latency c 130nS arising from inductance of decent cable into 8R with audioband risetime under conditions tests otherwise of your definition.
Last edited:
Again, your argument is with Otala and Huttunen..
Yah, I remember you picking arbitrary cable parameters as well, cherry picking numbers which I stated were needed to reduce the delay. And, you seem to think that an 8 ohm speaker is 8 ohms across the audio band..I guess you can order it to behave?
And now, you can't even agree with yourself..
Why does your continued flailing remind me of a Star Trek Episode.. You know, the one where they say..."Everything he says is a lie"... "I'm lying"..
The funny thing is, in your arrogance, you still believe this discussion has always been about t-line theory vs LCR.
You've been played.
Think about what the real take-away is here.
jn
Last edited:
I suspect you might find a similar result from a single cell LCR. Filters need correct termination too! If, that is, you are worried about avoiding overshoot or undershoot.jneutron said:
You still don't see, do you?
We started this discussion with you claiming that T-line gives a result which is not given by the single cell model, and that this result might be relevant to audio - if this were not your original claim then there would be no point in putting forward your view. You now admit that the result can be obtained from a single cell LCR model, and that it is probably irrelevant to audio. Why are you still arguing for using an inappropriate model to obtain an irrelevant result? Are you a Monty Python fan?
Some of didn't need any reminding that cables with small wavenumbers are equivalent to lumped-LCR models............
It was your suggestion to use resistive loads, JN. Another artificial condition. Real speaker loads totally swamp any cable latency effects, as has been pointed out several times.
Assuming band limited, of course.
You've also been played. The takeaway has never been the wire model..
Recall, this is an audio website.
"Probably"...is that a physics term to reflect a lack of understanding or data on ITD? Granted, that's a human thing, this Interaural stuff, whereas you are a physicist.. <<low hanging fruit cheap shot...😀
Silly guy...yah, I can see you didn't like being played. You're continuing with your silly assertions..flailing as it were..
Think about what the takeaway is here. It's not the wire model choice..
You are still arguing with Otala and Huttumen. And yet, using their data, you come up with 5 uSec "without needing a calculator".
ps..I've heard of Otala, but never heard of Huttumen.. But Fred Davis seems to accept their data, having stated and referenced it in his paper, you know, the paper being bandied about as a "source".. Perhaps you need to do some research??
Nah, you'll never do that...what was I thinking..
jn
Progress.
BTW, I notice you don't mention TL terms anything like as often as in your early posts on this thread, JN. - That has to be a takeaway.
There's no need to. You just did..
And, you've already proven via simulation, that a simple "cable" can introduce delays which rise into the threshold of audibility when the load reactance has a wide span, which of course, MATCHED the t-line analysis I provided back in 2011. Again, thanks for working to confirm what I posted oh so many years ago...
No, bad guess. C'mon, try again.
What is the takeaway here? Hint, this is an audio website, and this thread in particular, discusses cables.
I'm patient, Mr "5 uSec is half a geologic era"...
ps..oh, don't forget..be careful when limiting the model BW, as it's easy to eliminate what humans actually hear..those pesky low microsecond delay thingys that researchers (darn them pesky researchers) have proven humans are sensitive to..
jn
Last edited:
I really like this thread... 
As far as I can understand, the delay induced by the LRC components of the speakers cable is - perhaps? - significant under free-field listening. But nobody listen to music in free-field, and I'm sure the reverberant field inside a room will completely mask any of such time errors due to cables. 😕 😕
So...I ask why this effect is so important in audio?
As far as I can understand, the delay induced by the LRC components of the speakers cable is - perhaps? - significant under free-field listening. But nobody listen to music in free-field, and I'm sure the reverberant field inside a room will completely mask any of such time errors due to cables. 😕 😕
So...I ask why this effect is so important in audio?
Crossovers inside the speaker boxes are much worse
a speaker box is a reverberant room..ehm, field
Why not conjugating x-overs and cables ?
One becomes the other and they no longer exist as determinate objects.
So no more speculating upon " cables"...
a speaker box is a reverberant room..ehm, field
Why not conjugating x-overs and cables ?
One becomes the other and they no longer exist as determinate objects.
So no more speculating upon " cables"...
Great, so all that TL nonsense you posted was indeed irrelevant and a waste of time, as was pointed out.
Have you run a simulation that shows effect of C/length variation is negligible yet for audioband risetimes? That will put a seal to you giving up on TL terms.
You missed 'artificially' before the term 'wide span', BTW.
Here's the context, in reply to you post "You cannot even measure a time delay of 5 uSec in a 1Khz waveform accurately within a circuit loop having 4 ohms impedance," and so now we have 4 ohms and 1KHz and the context is measurement..........make your mind up, and 5uS audioband latency isn't going to happen into 4R anyways.......jneutron said:
Have you worked out how to calculate it in your head yet, JN ?
Nope. As you clearly stated, the TL model and the 201 cell LCR provide the exact same response. And, furthermore, when YOU decided to band limit the signals, even the bog simple LR model duplicates the T-line model.
REALLY? you mean, Fred Davis lied when he said " Higher cable capacitance will tend to reduce the combined reactive component of the cable, thus lowering cable impedance at high frequencies and improving the high frequency response. This effect is contrary to the popular belief that high frequencies will be attenuated more with higher cable capacitance"".
Holy mackeral, who can you trust nowadays...even Fred Davis can't be believed according to you..
Again, your ridiculous strawman argument is with Fred Davis, not me. I increased font size to that you can't miss it...
Again, argue the point with Otala and Huttunen, as you are arguing with them.
Wow, so you did measure the 5 uSec delay in a 1Khz waveform accurately..
Where's the waveforms, where's the measurement???
You already provided the answer...remember, 5 uSec..
Boy, you are flailing way too much...
The best part, is you still don't know what the takeaway is...
jn
I really like this thread...
As far as I can understand, the delay induced by the LRC components of the speakers cable is - perhaps? - significant under free-field listening. But nobody listen to music in free-field, and I'm sure the reverberant field inside a room will completely mask any of such time errors due to cables. 😕 😕
So...I ask why this effect is so important in audio?
I would worry about that whole first arrival thing.
The important thing is, it's just so trivially easy to drop the cable impedance (or if you are challenged, inductance) such that the delay is way below the microsecond level and of no concern. That is actually what good engineering is all about..don't reduce an effect to juuuust below hearing thresholds when it is trivial to make it an order of magnitude below.
Scott mentioned a paper that indicated 10usec as being discernable, I don't know if that was anechoic, or in a listening room..
Greisinger mentioned IIRC, 5 uSec not only in free field, but in an auditorium with a string quartet. It's been a while,3 or 4 years, so my recall may not be totally accurate. It was a paper from 11/11/11.
Again, for me, the 100 foot long landscape wiring in the patio works just great. Background music while I'm enjoying life.
jn
- Status
- Not open for further replies.