AND....
Hi,
So, where did your expertise come from then?
Surely a few months in a hi-fi/high-end shop doesn't turn anyone into an expert?
As someone with shop expertise, do you hear the sonic signature of an YBA amp/preamp, VTL goodies and their respective cables, for example?
Do you hear the metallic colourations of AE speakers?
If you don't then we can as well close the topic, can't we?
Sorry but I can hear them from a distance and as T.L. says; there's more to a cable than just LCR.
Cheers, 😉
Hi,
So, where did your expertise come from then?
Surely a few months in a hi-fi/high-end shop doesn't turn anyone into an expert?
As someone with shop expertise, do you hear the sonic signature of an YBA amp/preamp, VTL goodies and their respective cables, for example?
Do you hear the metallic colourations of AE speakers?
If you don't then we can as well close the topic, can't we?
Sorry but I can hear them from a distance and as T.L. says; there's more to a cable than just LCR.
Cheers, 😉
Re: AND....
I am failing to see how your addition to this thread is at all constructive or worthwhile.
The guy said he worked for a few months in a store - where, one might presume, he at least had the opportunity to sample more systems than you do in your particular home, eh? - and for this you ridicule him?
It seems to me that his original post was very even-handed and made the proper concessions to his personal subjective experience. All of the people who have chimed in along the way saying, basically, "you must have tin ears if you can't hear such-and-such" are being pompous, plain and simple.
But I am just dying to know what other physical properties any passive electronic component could have besides good ol' L, C, and R.
Answer it and I guarantee a Nobel prize nomination will be forthcoming.
🙄
fdegrove said:
I am failing to see how your addition to this thread is at all constructive or worthwhile.
The guy said he worked for a few months in a store - where, one might presume, he at least had the opportunity to sample more systems than you do in your particular home, eh? - and for this you ridicule him?
It seems to me that his original post was very even-handed and made the proper concessions to his personal subjective experience. All of the people who have chimed in along the way saying, basically, "you must have tin ears if you can't hear such-and-such" are being pompous, plain and simple.
But I am just dying to know what other physical properties any passive electronic component could have besides good ol' L, C, and R.
Answer it and I guarantee a Nobel prize nomination will be forthcoming.
🙄
Re: Re: AND....
Uh... you are aware that a diode is a passive electronic component, yes? 🙂
se
jeffreyj said:
Uh... you are aware that a diode is a passive electronic component, yes? 🙂
se
Re: Re: Re: AND....
Weeeeelllll, not exactly.
It can be argued both ways, so I'll give you that, but no, diodes are not passive devices. Why? For several reasons, but foremost would be their non-linear transfer function. A close second would be their transducing ability (photoelectric effect).
Surely you would not consider a silicon solar cell a passive device, right? Yet it is merely a PN junction... a diode.
Steve Eddy said:
Weeeeelllll, not exactly.
It can be argued both ways, so I'll give you that, but no, diodes are not passive devices. Why? For several reasons, but foremost would be their non-linear transfer function. A close second would be their transducing ability (photoelectric effect).
Surely you would not consider a silicon solar cell a passive device, right? Yet it is merely a PN junction... a diode.
Even if L, C, and R are the only properties a wire can have (let's just assume that is true for my post), I think you must imagine it might be possible for those things to have an effect in a "real" setting that is difficult to quantify with only a set of 3 numbers. Keep in mind that under operating conditions, a speaker cable is passing variable amounts of voltage, varying amounts of current, and that audio is essentially AC... the frequency is also changing all the time. While L,C, and R are easy things to measure in a wire on a test bench, you can imagine that they may have subtle but real effects on the sound they are carrying given the nature of that very sound... I don't find it hard to believe that a minute difference in capacitance between two cables would cause a detectable (to my ears) result in the sound it is carrying when you remember that in any given musical passage, it's easily possible the wire is transfering electrons in varying directions, with varying voltages, currents, and changing the direction of flow at varying rates. As simple a component as wire is, it is certainly not one without effect.
My qualifications? Nothing too special. I'm not a PHD or Masters grad in EE, although I do have a Bachelor's degree in engineering. I have been a practicing recording engineer for many years, but I know that doesn't qualify me either; many of my fellow engineers love their NS10's, which to me sound like absolute crap. So my only qualification is the set of ears I was given when I was born. I don't have to know WHY the cables makea difference, but the double blind listening test I described a few pages back convinced me that 10 times out of 10, I could determine which cable I was listening to. That's good enough for me.
My qualifications? Nothing too special. I'm not a PHD or Masters grad in EE, although I do have a Bachelor's degree in engineering. I have been a practicing recording engineer for many years, but I know that doesn't qualify me either; many of my fellow engineers love their NS10's, which to me sound like absolute crap. So my only qualification is the set of ears I was given when I was born. I don't have to know WHY the cables makea difference, but the double blind listening test I described a few pages back convinced me that 10 times out of 10, I could determine which cable I was listening to. That's good enough for me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: AND....
What has their nonlinear transfer function to do with their being an active or passive device? A transformer has a nonlinear transfer function too. Are you going to argue that a transformer is an active device?
Because like a transistor, a silicon solar cell requires external power to function properly. A plain vanilla diode does not.
So, if you won't accept a diode, how 'bout a transformer or cored inductor?
se
jeffreyj said:
What has their nonlinear transfer function to do with their being an active or passive device? A transformer has a nonlinear transfer function too. Are you going to argue that a transformer is an active device?
Because like a transistor, a silicon solar cell requires external power to function properly. A plain vanilla diode does not.
So, if you won't accept a diode, how 'bout a transformer or cored inductor?
se
Arguing over whether or not a diode should be called a passive or active component (purely a matter of convention) is beside the point. The important thing is that it is almost impossible to make any device out of metallic conductors and dielectric insulators that cannot be described electrically as a combination of L, C, and R components at audio frequencies. Corroded contacts and junctions between unlike metals are the only places where non-LCR effects are likely to exist. Microphonic effects are possible, but if they exist enough to make an audible difference, they are also easily measurable. Measurement equipment with >130dB dynamic range is certainly available, capable of easily discerning effects far below the -70dB noise floor on an LP (and the noise floor in your listening room).
phonon: my point exactly!
Steve Eddy: calculating out whether a CD can deliver 90.3dB or 96dB of dynamic range just wasn't enough sport for one day, eh?
And didn't I qualify my argument that a diode wasn't properly in the realm of passive devices by stating that, "it can be argued both ways"??
Actually, I don't feel all that strongly about it one way or the other.
(cored inductor? saturation, perhaps, was where you were going with that one?)
If you want to get ultra nitpicky, which I suspect you do, old carbon composition resistors would not qualify as passive by my own definition as they exhibit a voltage dependency to their resistance: hmmm... sounds a lot like certain ion-doped junctions, doesn't it?
Hell, when you get right down to it, nothing is truly a passive component.
Now excuse me, I must get back to counting these angels I've got dancing on this pin here...
Steve Eddy: calculating out whether a CD can deliver 90.3dB or 96dB of dynamic range just wasn't enough sport for one day, eh?
And didn't I qualify my argument that a diode wasn't properly in the realm of passive devices by stating that, "it can be argued both ways"??
Actually, I don't feel all that strongly about it one way or the other.
(cored inductor? saturation, perhaps, was where you were going with that one?)
If you want to get ultra nitpicky, which I suspect you do, old carbon composition resistors would not qualify as passive by my own definition as they exhibit a voltage dependency to their resistance: hmmm... sounds a lot like certain ion-doped junctions, doesn't it?
Hell, when you get right down to it, nothing is truly a passive component.
Now excuse me, I must get back to counting these angels I've got dancing on this pin here...
jeffreyj said:
Yeah, I saw you dance around that one.
More like hysteresis.
Sounds like more dancing.
Well then there ya go.
How 'bout counting the number of passive devices whose behavior isn't described by simple LCR parameters?
se
L, C and R Can Matter.
Has anybody here actually tried measuring the loop L, C and R of say lamp cord, monster cable or coax ?.
I have, and their respective L, Cand R values are indeed different.
When connected between a given amplifier and given speakers, the sonic resultant is audibly different.
The degree of difference is dependant mostly on the amplifier used.
High NFB designs exhibit the most difference due to relatively strong load dependency, whilst designs like the Leach amplifier with dual NFB paths exhibits much less load dependency and consequently less audibility of sonic changes due to differing cables.
Cables are only one part of a system, but they can be important to the final resultant sound of a system.
I do not see why all of you continue to argue this point - probably mostly because of lack of appreciation of the points given above.
Eric.
Has anybody here actually tried measuring the loop L, C and R of say lamp cord, monster cable or coax ?.
I have, and their respective L, Cand R values are indeed different.
When connected between a given amplifier and given speakers, the sonic resultant is audibly different.
The degree of difference is dependant mostly on the amplifier used.
High NFB designs exhibit the most difference due to relatively strong load dependency, whilst designs like the Leach amplifier with dual NFB paths exhibits much less load dependency and consequently less audibility of sonic changes due to differing cables.
Cables are only one part of a system, but they can be important to the final resultant sound of a system.
I do not see why all of you continue to argue this point - probably mostly because of lack of appreciation of the points given above.
Eric.
Re: L, C and R Can Matter.
He's not saying that L, C and R cannot be different. What he's saying is that there's nothing about a cable that can't be described by L, C and R. Then he makes the challenge to show ANY passive device that cannot be described by L, C and R, and when I do, suddenly everything's an active device.
se
mrfeedback said:
He's not saying that L, C and R cannot be different. What he's saying is that there's nothing about a cable that can't be described by L, C and R. Then he makes the challenge to show ANY passive device that cannot be described by L, C and R, and when I do, suddenly everything's an active device.
se
The reference to diodes in this context was diversionary and not properly relevant in this discussion.
Dielectric absorbtion is a parameter apart from L, C and R that is a further influence, and I deliberately left this out of my previous post.
Modulation of a device charactistics according to current or voltage (eg a carbon composition resistor) constitutes a non linear device, but not an active one in the sense of a semiconductor device.
Sure, secondary modulation effects occur in semiconductor devices and these indeed may be altered by the electrical characteristics of a cable, and give rise to further sonic effects, but this not the essence of this discussion.
L, C, R and DA are the important parameters in a cable, and their influence in a system is easily explained.
The results of DBLT is another subject, and as practiced are too imprecise to rely on.
Those who cling to DBLT negative results are following a flawed process.
Those who state that they do hear differences according to cable types are very likely correct, and expectation or imagination may be factor for some (mostly inexperienced) listeners, but that does not apply to all listeners.
The fact that the electrical values of a cable can affect the behaviour of a system is beyond dispute, and the degree of and audibility of these influences is both system, programme and listener dependant.
Those who are saying that they do not hear differences need to take a closer look as to why, and those who do hear differences need to take a closer look at why their system is exhibiting overly strong differences.
On a very detailed non load dependant system the sonic differences are less according to cable type, and on a non detailed system the sonic differences are less according to cable type.
On a very detailed, highly load dependent system, sonic differences due to cable types can stick out like dog's proverbials.
It is not possible to make sweeping generalisations regarding the sonic influence of cable types due to the reasons given above.
Eric.
Dielectric absorbtion is a parameter apart from L, C and R that is a further influence, and I deliberately left this out of my previous post.
Modulation of a device charactistics according to current or voltage (eg a carbon composition resistor) constitutes a non linear device, but not an active one in the sense of a semiconductor device.
Sure, secondary modulation effects occur in semiconductor devices and these indeed may be altered by the electrical characteristics of a cable, and give rise to further sonic effects, but this not the essence of this discussion.
L, C, R and DA are the important parameters in a cable, and their influence in a system is easily explained.
The results of DBLT is another subject, and as practiced are too imprecise to rely on.
Those who cling to DBLT negative results are following a flawed process.
Those who state that they do hear differences according to cable types are very likely correct, and expectation or imagination may be factor for some (mostly inexperienced) listeners, but that does not apply to all listeners.
The fact that the electrical values of a cable can affect the behaviour of a system is beyond dispute, and the degree of and audibility of these influences is both system, programme and listener dependant.
Those who are saying that they do not hear differences need to take a closer look as to why, and those who do hear differences need to take a closer look at why their system is exhibiting overly strong differences.
On a very detailed non load dependant system the sonic differences are less according to cable type, and on a non detailed system the sonic differences are less according to cable type.
On a very detailed, highly load dependent system, sonic differences due to cable types can stick out like dog's proverbials.
It is not possible to make sweeping generalisations regarding the sonic influence of cable types due to the reasons given above.
Eric.
Excuse me for my lack of language skills, but please try to explain "...a dogs proverbials" in the following
>>On a very detailed, highly load dependent system, sonic differences due to cable types can stick out like dog's proverbials<<
I'm convinced that it makes sense... just not to me
Jens
>>On a very detailed, highly load dependent system, sonic differences due to cable types can stick out like dog's proverbials<<
I'm convinced that it makes sense... just not to me
Jens
Re: L, C and R Can Matter.
Koinichwa,
No-one ever claimed that cables operated outside the normal principle of physics, only that these principles are not neccesarily fully understood which may or may not impact on our understanding of what happens in cables (and any number of other things).
Lets see. First of all G and DA, which are not covered by "ideal" L, C & R. Then we have potentials for contact voltage where non-similar metals are joined, oxide layers at joins and other areas, which depending upon the type of oxide may be near non-conducting, semiconducting or conducting. That's for starters. Hardly Nobelprice material, more like what you learn after you passed EEE101 (if indeed one did pass EE101)....
Yes. Often cables show different basic electrical parameters. In my Cable Articles on TNT-Audio I refer to these (L/C/R) as "first order" effects while such items as DA and G (G is more than JUST LC inverse) are considered "second order" with such issues as metallurgy and resonances generally classed "third order", though the borders are not very clear and distinct, in certain situations "first order" effects can be relegated in terms of audbility to "second order" while "third order" effects are promoted to first.
The subject is just too bloody complex. If we could have least decently designed and specified interfaces between gear we could bin the majority of the effects all the way up to first order and can the whole cable topic as in fact cables would mostly behave as expected - namely without material influence.
The main root WHY cables make differences in Audio gear are down to incompetently defined Interfaces and the influence of international electrical safety regulations on mains powered equipment.
Okay, I'm being harsh, when the original unbalanced, high impedance line connection for low level signals and the voltage interface for speakers where defined as "market" standards (the same way MS Windoze compatibility is a de-facto standard) we where talking about 78's and AM Radio, mono of course.
So if you had 60db dynamic range (three decades) and 100Hz-10KHz bandwidth (two decades) you where okay. In this day and age we use still the same connection standard for 120db dynamic range (six decades) and DC/20Hz - 40/80KHz (almost four decades in bandwidth).
Ask any real Engineer who works with precision measurements and/or RF IF going from three decades dynamic range and two decades bandwidth to six decades dynamic range and four decades bandwidth CAN result in previously perfectly adequate interfaces starting to cause MAJOR troubles....
And that is in fact the situation we have. Compared to the RCA style Interconnection I find correctly implemented, transformercoupled "studio" style balanced intercconections much more robust with regards to being influenced by cable quality, not that you can not hear differences, but their impact is greatly diminished....
Seconded.
Sayonara
Koinichwa,
IanHarvey said:
No-one ever claimed that cables operated outside the normal principle of physics, only that these principles are not neccesarily fully understood which may or may not impact on our understanding of what happens in cables (and any number of other things).
jeffreyj said:
Lets see. First of all G and DA, which are not covered by "ideal" L, C & R. Then we have potentials for contact voltage where non-similar metals are joined, oxide layers at joins and other areas, which depending upon the type of oxide may be near non-conducting, semiconducting or conducting. That's for starters. Hardly Nobelprice material, more like what you learn after you passed EEE101 (if indeed one did pass EE101)....
mrfeedback said:
Yes. Often cables show different basic electrical parameters. In my Cable Articles on TNT-Audio I refer to these (L/C/R) as "first order" effects while such items as DA and G (G is more than JUST LC inverse) are considered "second order" with such issues as metallurgy and resonances generally classed "third order", though the borders are not very clear and distinct, in certain situations "first order" effects can be relegated in terms of audbility to "second order" while "third order" effects are promoted to first.
The subject is just too bloody complex. If we could have least decently designed and specified interfaces between gear we could bin the majority of the effects all the way up to first order and can the whole cable topic as in fact cables would mostly behave as expected - namely without material influence.
The main root WHY cables make differences in Audio gear are down to incompetently defined Interfaces and the influence of international electrical safety regulations on mains powered equipment.
Okay, I'm being harsh, when the original unbalanced, high impedance line connection for low level signals and the voltage interface for speakers where defined as "market" standards (the same way MS Windoze compatibility is a de-facto standard) we where talking about 78's and AM Radio, mono of course.
So if you had 60db dynamic range (three decades) and 100Hz-10KHz bandwidth (two decades) you where okay. In this day and age we use still the same connection standard for 120db dynamic range (six decades) and DC/20Hz - 40/80KHz (almost four decades in bandwidth).
Ask any real Engineer who works with precision measurements and/or RF IF going from three decades dynamic range and two decades bandwidth to six decades dynamic range and four decades bandwidth CAN result in previously perfectly adequate interfaces starting to cause MAJOR troubles....
And that is in fact the situation we have. Compared to the RCA style Interconnection I find correctly implemented, transformercoupled "studio" style balanced intercconections much more robust with regards to being influenced by cable quality, not that you can not hear differences, but their impact is greatly diminished....
mrfeedback said:
Seconded.
Sayonara
Koinichiwa,
It is a particular British Ideom. If you want to say something is "very good" it is common to refer to it as "The Dogs Bollocks" (technically speaking the Dogs Testicles, or more generally the Dogs Genitalia), a way of saying rude words in civilised company is to replace the offensive word (like: ****, ****, bollocks, **** etc...) is replaced by "proverbial".
As to why the British should have such a preoccupation abouts Dog's Testicles to make into a superlative certainly exceeds my understanding though....
Sayonara
Jennice said:
It is a particular British Ideom. If you want to say something is "very good" it is common to refer to it as "The Dogs Bollocks" (technically speaking the Dogs Testicles, or more generally the Dogs Genitalia), a way of saying rude words in civilised company is to replace the offensive word (like: ****, ****, bollocks, **** etc...) is replaced by "proverbial".
As to why the British should have such a preoccupation abouts Dog's Testicles to make into a superlative certainly exceeds my understanding though....
Sayonara
Steve Eddy: Despite your exceptional rudeness in making your argument, I agree that my tongue-in-cheek contention about L, C, and R being the only properties to worry about w/r/t passives was incomplete. Add a voltage source to the group and now you can model all sorts of pathologies, including hysteresis in permeable materials. You tell me if I've still forgotten anything, because obviously I am so dim that I'll not enlighten myself alone.
mrfeedback: Yes, we are way off topic, but Dielectric Absorption is successfully modeled in spice by adding a series RC with a time constant of seconds to minutes in parallel with the original capacitor. No need to go beyond L, C, and R for that one.
Farther afield, the only additional effect I could think of w/r/t cables was the thermocouple formed whenever two dissimilar metals are joined - i.e., a voltage source. I would think this could be easily dismissed because unless the two halves of a cable pair were constructed in radically different manner (number of metal changes, connection joints, etc.), the voltage thus produced would be common mode and therefore virtually nulled out of existence. Even still, at the very worst we'd be talking about a few millivolts DC offset.
I really am amazed at how unfriendly some members of this forum can be, and it is a shame that the worst offenders are some of the ones that happen to possess deep knowledge. Instead of being a asset to the community, though, that knowledge is used mostly as a weapon. What a shame...
mrfeedback: Yes, we are way off topic, but Dielectric Absorption is successfully modeled in spice by adding a series RC with a time constant of seconds to minutes in parallel with the original capacitor. No need to go beyond L, C, and R for that one.
Farther afield, the only additional effect I could think of w/r/t cables was the thermocouple formed whenever two dissimilar metals are joined - i.e., a voltage source. I would think this could be easily dismissed because unless the two halves of a cable pair were constructed in radically different manner (number of metal changes, connection joints, etc.), the voltage thus produced would be common mode and therefore virtually nulled out of existence. Even still, at the very worst we'd be talking about a few millivolts DC offset.
I really am amazed at how unfriendly some members of this forum can be, and it is a shame that the worst offenders are some of the ones that happen to possess deep knowledge. Instead of being a asset to the community, though, that knowledge is used mostly as a weapon. What a shame...
Missing things during simplification.
Well, electrolytic capacitors have nonlinearities which give measurable distortion under some circumstances. Douglas Self's site has a nice plot of these, and he's no believer in voodoo.
Here's two examples where an LCR model of cable is too simplistic:
i) A 10m long piece of cable is a quarter-wavelength at 7.5Mhz. This is just the sort of frequency that ill-behaved output transistors might oscillate at. Alternatively, if you're the sort of weirdo who insists on multi-Mhz bandwidth power amplifiers, you may find yourself radiating a significant amount of signal-related RF at these frequencies. Changing simply the length of the cable will affect the behaviour of the system in both these circumstances.
ii) Suppose a system has an earth loop between CD player and amplifier. The error voltage this induces at the amplifier input depends (amongst other things) on the relative impedances of each ground wire, and also on the area of the loop - in other words simply the position of the cables makes a difference.
In other words, there can be real (audible, measurable, and model-able) differences between cables which aren't simply attributable to L,C and R. If you just deny that these differences can exist, you'll never investigate the differences properly, and never learn anything - in the examples given here, the importance of amplifier stability, RF rejection and proper earthing.
The whole game here is about the cockups which can occur when putting theory into practice.
Cheers
IH
jeffreyj said:
Well, electrolytic capacitors have nonlinearities which give measurable distortion under some circumstances. Douglas Self's site has a nice plot of these, and he's no believer in voodoo.
Here's two examples where an LCR model of cable is too simplistic:
i) A 10m long piece of cable is a quarter-wavelength at 7.5Mhz. This is just the sort of frequency that ill-behaved output transistors might oscillate at. Alternatively, if you're the sort of weirdo who insists on multi-Mhz bandwidth power amplifiers, you may find yourself radiating a significant amount of signal-related RF at these frequencies. Changing simply the length of the cable will affect the behaviour of the system in both these circumstances.
ii) Suppose a system has an earth loop between CD player and amplifier. The error voltage this induces at the amplifier input depends (amongst other things) on the relative impedances of each ground wire, and also on the area of the loop - in other words simply the position of the cables makes a difference.
In other words, there can be real (audible, measurable, and model-able) differences between cables which aren't simply attributable to L,C and R. If you just deny that these differences can exist, you'll never investigate the differences properly, and never learn anything - in the examples given here, the importance of amplifier stability, RF rejection and proper earthing.
The whole game here is about the cockups which can occur when putting theory into practice.
Cheers
IH
Re: Missing things during simplification.
I think I have lost this argument. Alas. OK. I timidly admit that if your amplifier oscillates at 7.5Mhz or thereabouts, that this oscillatory behaviour can be influenced (a bit) by the cable characteristics, and that the change in oscillatory behaviour can influence the way the amp sounds. Really, it hurts.
Jan Didden
IanHarvey said:
I think I have lost this argument. Alas. OK. I timidly admit that if your amplifier oscillates at 7.5Mhz or thereabouts, that this oscillatory behaviour can be influenced (a bit) by the cable characteristics, and that the change in oscillatory behaviour can influence the way the amp sounds. Really, it hurts.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.