Cheers, an online calculator would help!!!
This I presume is why in high speed design once we get over a certain frequncy the speed of propagation is constant for a paticular cable, as per Howard Johnsons notes on high speed proagation as the impedance is uniform for all frequencies above the skin effect region.
I have seen the book you mention in the references of a few documents now, though I will save getting it untill I have finished addling my brain with the high speed stuff.
Again I wonder how relevant this is to the audio reproduction, having done some basic calcs from the above mentioned velocities give proagation times of between 10ps and 200ps down a 1m cable for the frequency extremes!
This I presume is why in high speed design once we get over a certain frequncy the speed of propagation is constant for a paticular cable, as per Howard Johnsons notes on high speed proagation as the impedance is uniform for all frequencies above the skin effect region.
I have seen the book you mention in the references of a few documents now, though I will save getting it untill I have finished addling my brain with the high speed stuff.
Again I wonder how relevant this is to the audio reproduction, having done some basic calcs from the above mentioned velocities give proagation times of between 10ps and 200ps down a 1m cable for the frequency extremes!
Skin effect will affect the values of R and L in a frequency-dependent way, so that adds another layer of complication. The main effect is to increase R and hence attenuation at RF. The formulas I gave are generally true for any TEM transmission line. Finding the values to plug in are relatively easy for simple geometries such as coax, but the principle still works for messy things like embedded microstrip.
The book is one of the standard EM textbooks, but it is not easy reading. Useful as a reference. If Hawksford had read it he might never have published his cable misunderstandings.
The book is one of the standard EM textbooks, but it is not easy reading. Useful as a reference. If Hawksford had read it he might never have published his cable misunderstandings.
Those are very fine readings. I enjoy all of them 🙂 But they make no link between the positive audible changes which can be heard applying the ribbons techniques to audio cables.
Experiments I talk about are not new. They are just summed up in Allen Wright's "Super Cables CookBook" ...
I also tried to experiment on the "recipies" Allen teaches in the book, like www etfe interconnects, thin speaker cables, foils, low mass connectors, etc. I assume they are perfectly true from what I can hear.
Subjective results from cables should be the only musical point we should aim too in the end, regardless of different technologies and/or maths involved. I can't believe that my own perception should be invalidated by maths 😀
"And never never allow anyone to invalidate your own knowingness or perception. Just 'cause they can't hear or sense it themselves dones't mean you can't !"
from Appendix 1 "Basic Philosophies" from the "TubePreamp CookBook"
I would say : try and listen before saying anything, and don't involve maths first. That's always what I do 😉 It takes time, but is very rewarding.
I perfectly respect another's point of view and enjoy reading them all here. And still open to new cable designs, maybe we can learn and hear something better and better 🙂
What if you could build with a few bucks for yourself something better sounding than any the cable mentors on the market ? I think it is the challenge !!! and 100% diy spirit !!!
Best,
nAr
Experiments I talk about are not new. They are just summed up in Allen Wright's "Super Cables CookBook" ...
I also tried to experiment on the "recipies" Allen teaches in the book, like www etfe interconnects, thin speaker cables, foils, low mass connectors, etc. I assume they are perfectly true from what I can hear.
Subjective results from cables should be the only musical point we should aim too in the end, regardless of different technologies and/or maths involved. I can't believe that my own perception should be invalidated by maths 😀
"And never never allow anyone to invalidate your own knowingness or perception. Just 'cause they can't hear or sense it themselves dones't mean you can't !"
from Appendix 1 "Basic Philosophies" from the "TubePreamp CookBook"
I would say : try and listen before saying anything, and don't involve maths first. That's always what I do 😉 It takes time, but is very rewarding.
I perfectly respect another's point of view and enjoy reading them all here. And still open to new cable designs, maybe we can learn and hear something better and better 🙂
What if you could build with a few bucks for yourself something better sounding than any the cable mentors on the market ? I think it is the challenge !!! and 100% diy spirit !!!
Best,
nAr
No-one would disagree with that, but until you can demonstrate that you (or anyone else) can actually hear the difference between this and a conventional cable, people will be skeptical. Throw in some pseudo-science and the skepticism rises to outright cynicism.
If you're having fun, have fun and don't let anyone stop you.
I can. I'm better at maths than listening; an equation is not fooled as easily as my ears. You may be opposite to this, so each to their own.nar said:
There is more to the 'maths' of wire design than the simple rules-of-thumb used by engineers, typically.
Nar, trust your ears, if they tell you there is a difference, then there probably is one. Justifying it later, mathematically, can come later. That is what we hi end designers do.
I have been very successful with this approach. It has nothing to do with advertising or 'story', just what you hear in YOUR system. (usually if it works very well in your system, it will also work very well in many other systems, but not all, for various reasons).
I have been very successful with this approach. It has nothing to do with advertising or 'story', just what you hear in YOUR system. (usually if it works very well in your system, it will also work very well in many other systems, but not all, for various reasons).
A coaxial cable by design, provides a common centroid between the internal current of the core, and the external return current of the shield. When they are equal but opposite, there is no external magnetic field on the outside of the coax. Another consequence, is that external time varying magnetic flux will not be able to cause a difference in voltage between the core and the shield. edit: this is of course a generalization, it can fall apart in a high gradient magnetic field when the flux loop integral at the inner edge of the braid is different than the core. Typically, a coax bent around a transformer edge could cause this if the core is driven into saturation such that it loses containment.
The calculations were the velocity of a planar wave propagating normal and into a planar copper surface. It was not the velocity of signal along the transmission line, but the speed at which a planar wave will propagate through a conductive medium.
No, you are not. See my last two sentences above.
Cheers, jn
Last edited:
Concur. Sometimes, the "rules of thumb" and the approximations are insufficient to accurately describe the system.
Cheers, jn
IOW, the wave which is orthogonal to the signal direction.😀
If a wire has to be "designed," throw out the electronics driving it.
Oh, a wise guy, eh??nyuk nyuk... I thought I said that...😕
While I certainly do agree with that statement, a very large percentage of the systems out there use unbalanced I/O. As such, the system becomes horridly dependent on the cable LRC as well as geometry in ways not understood by the bulk of the equipment designers or users.
Cheers, jn
If I recall properly, I've seen prop velocity differences on the order of 250 ps vs frequency. Actual prop velocity is roughly a foot per nanosecond.
When the load matches the line, the signal "event" is over once the signal has propagated the length for the first time. When the load is terribly mismatched to the line, it can take many transits for the load to end up at the final value "requested" by the source.
Cheers, jn
True. Best to find out when they are valid, when you have to use the full theory, and when you don't need any theory at all because its just a short bit of wire.john curl said:
True. A real variable but that is almost always there is the mismatch, and the impedances are practically never matched in unbalanced mode in the audio world. That would require throwing out a lot of gain. Desirable thing when designing audio gain stages is to get just the gain value needed, as unneeded gain leads just to more noise and distortion, which isn't very desirable.
Best,
nAr
Actually, the settling is a simple function of the wire's LRC, length, and line to load mismatch. The gain of the boxes doesn't factor in. We are talking about a simple exponentially decaying response, with a time constant that is in the microsecond to tens of microsecond arena. In general audio work, I don't see it going above 5 or so.
In point of fact, the OP's cable design is probably one of the faster settling time cables when the amp input is 10 Kohms. But making it with such a wire spacing can certainly make it a bit more susceptible to near field coupling, and certainly more susceptible to ground loop current based IR drop on the reference wire being used to connect chassis grounds.
Cheers, jn
Last edited:
There just might be real audible differences between these cables and good unbalanced interconnects!
With such a small return conductor the noise level will be higher. With no shielding interference could be a problem.
I think that "audiophiles" sometimes enjoy some background noise or interference or even oscillation as it makes that unit sound different and sounding different is very important to them.
Sometimes they do ... sometimes they don't !
I think that the first post design is worth a try and perfectly makes sense in a diy setup. Treated wih care, e.g. low impedance source and 10k to 47k input stage, and no mains cable in proximity, I wouldn't see why it would not sound good 😎
I expect it to sound better than any multi-strand (no litz) designs, in fact.
I use 30 AWG www, 3 wires braid everyday as interconnects, and even on the path "cartridge output to the RIAA preamp", there is no added noise, hum or RF.
The cart is an Ortofon MC3turbo@4mV output and the RIAA is a Pearl II; 47K/100pF input impedance. The design is Allen's Braided Finewire, with the 3rd www wired 100R series to ground at emitter end.
I also use silver 2 ribbon interconnects between the CD player and the UGS preamp. there is no shield, at there is no noise at all ...
Audiophile just doesn't rime with idiophile or at least I hope so 🙄
Some different solutions give audible differences.
As an [off topic] I will soon be trying the ribbon speaker cable @ 30 x 0,07 mm copper ...
It will be highly capacitive, but luckily the Aleph_J's are well designed not to oscilate and survive. And it will have no inductive character at all !!!
As the mono blocs are in the speakers vicinity, I can cope with only 1 meter cable for each channel.
Surprisingly, changing from Monacor basic multistrand big section to 0,6mm OFC copper, silver plated, pfte insulated, double runs, even on 1m length gave incredible audible differences. I can't put it only on the cross section difference, copper purity or silver plating.
There have to be something else, which I will perhaps sonically validate when plugging the ribbon speaker cable and listening ... Or maybe not ... 😀 [/off topic]
Best,
nAr
Exaggeration. All cables of finite size will have some inductance.nar said:
It is hyperbolic claims like this from cable fans which make the rest of us smile. Assuming none of the cables were faulty, and the amp was not on the verge of instability, any difference would be subtle. How is it that these "incredible" differences seem to melt away into the noise when the identity of the cable is hidden?nar said:
Perhaps. But its character will be mainly capacitive, that's what I meant. 2 flat ribbons against each other will not give a chance to be highly (or even measurably) inductive 🙂
Hyperbolic claim ? No. Any subtle improvement is a HUGE step ahead. The differences in the sound can be precisely described, felt and heard, even in blind test.
Like the one we had at Staccato, between the nAr silver interconnect prototype with silver bullet plugs, the stacato Strad-audio interconnect model (very nice sounding !!!) and another tenor of the market, more "rubenesque".
Differences were clearly audible, same material, same musical extract, same level (untouched).
Don't be fooled by my old signature, it is ancient times' souvenir ...
I play the cello for a living and started at 7. To me those differences in tonal character are clearly audible. Even if I can't prove mathematically what I feel. Sorry 😛
Best,
nAr
Last edited:
We obviously use words in very different ways, but audio is just my hobby so I am free to describe a subtle change as a minor step ahead.nar said: