Re: Skin Me...
No problem, Frkan. 🙂
What exactly is the "problem" you're referring to?
Remember that this started out concerning a thin film of copper oxide on the conductor surface. I asked why this would be a problem and you said it would be a problem because electrons don't penetrate deep into the conductor. Which led to this little sidetrack.
So is the "problem" you're referring to the problem of a thin film of copper oxide on the conductor surface or is the "problem" you're referring to skin effect?
If you're referring to skin effect, how 'bout we finish up the previous context before moving on?
What is the problem of that thin film of copper oxide on the conductor's surface? Seeing as it effectively decreases the conductor's diameter, it would actually improve things (however microscopically small) with regard to skin effect, increasing the current density in the center of the conductor.
It's not a realization so much as a personal preference.
Not entirely sure I do understand why you mentioned it. You've been quite cryptic of late so I've given up trying to second guess.
Could do what as well? The only thing it does is please me. And compared to less labor intensive configurations, it pleases me more than the others. Certainly others may be more pleased with less labor intensive configurations. But I don't worry about what pleases others.
And if it weren't highly capacitive, it'd be highly inductive.
It's not as capacitive as you might think though. It's more capacitive than a twisted pair, but not as capacitive as a twisted quad.
In any case, I don't fret over objective specs. I only care how it sounds to me.
And one which for the moment works best for me.
Except that it wasn't simply a layman's description of skin effect.
I think you need to go back and re-read those articles. It wasn't about presenting what was already commonly known about skin effect to a broader audience. He claims to have discovered another phenomenon which isn't mentioned in the literature.
No, it wasn't there already. Again, go back and re-read those articles.
That's fine. I welcome any questioning of anything I say. Difference is, I don't get my panties all in a bunch because someone questions it.
I'd like to see it go somewhere in the direction of substantiating some of the objective claims made with regard to wire which I've so far yet to see any substantiation of. Which is not to say that they can't be substantiated. Just that I don't lend much credibility to marketing literature.
se
fdegrove said:
No problem, Frkan. 🙂
What exactly is the "problem" you're referring to?
Remember that this started out concerning a thin film of copper oxide on the conductor surface. I asked why this would be a problem and you said it would be a problem because electrons don't penetrate deep into the conductor. Which led to this little sidetrack.
So is the "problem" you're referring to the problem of a thin film of copper oxide on the conductor surface or is the "problem" you're referring to skin effect?
If you're referring to skin effect, how 'bout we finish up the previous context before moving on?
What is the problem of that thin film of copper oxide on the conductor's surface? Seeing as it effectively decreases the conductor's diameter, it would actually improve things (however microscopically small) with regard to skin effect, increasing the current density in the center of the conductor.
It's not a realization so much as a personal preference.
Not entirely sure I do understand why you mentioned it. You've been quite cryptic of late so I've given up trying to second guess.
Could do what as well? The only thing it does is please me. And compared to less labor intensive configurations, it pleases me more than the others. Certainly others may be more pleased with less labor intensive configurations. But I don't worry about what pleases others.
And if it weren't highly capacitive, it'd be highly inductive.
It's not as capacitive as you might think though. It's more capacitive than a twisted pair, but not as capacitive as a twisted quad.
In any case, I don't fret over objective specs. I only care how it sounds to me.
And one which for the moment works best for me.
Except that it wasn't simply a layman's description of skin effect.
I think you need to go back and re-read those articles. It wasn't about presenting what was already commonly known about skin effect to a broader audience. He claims to have discovered another phenomenon which isn't mentioned in the literature.
No, it wasn't there already. Again, go back and re-read those articles.
That's fine. I welcome any questioning of anything I say. Difference is, I don't get my panties all in a bunch because someone questions it.
I'd like to see it go somewhere in the direction of substantiating some of the objective claims made with regard to wire which I've so far yet to see any substantiation of. Which is not to say that they can't be substantiated. Just that I don't lend much credibility to marketing literature.
se
Re: Hollow Conductors...
Hey, I thought you said you'd never heard of Analysis Plus? But previously you made reference to "current bunching" and now "oval conductors." Both of which are straight out of the ads Analysis Plus used to run in all the mags with the little chalk blackboard illustrations. So who makes these oval conductors you're referring to? I'm sure Analysis Plus would be interested seeing as they've a patent on oval conductors.
se
fdegrove said:
Hey, I thought you said you'd never heard of Analysis Plus? But previously you made reference to "current bunching" and now "oval conductors." Both of which are straight out of the ads Analysis Plus used to run in all the mags with the little chalk blackboard illustrations. So who makes these oval conductors you're referring to? I'm sure Analysis Plus would be interested seeing as they've a patent on oval conductors.
se
Give It A Rust...
Hi,
Both are related..........
Go ahead.
Uh, oh...
Gees..what a statement that is.
Sorry Steve but that's the silliest statement of the century.
Probably because you don't have the foggiest idea of what it is that goes on.
Listen to your oxies for all I care and since your happy so am I.
I don't mind a bit of capacitance and since your using a fair amount of xformers it won't make all that much of a diff.
You prefer a limited, say 20/20 bandwidth so what the heck...
But...with regard to speaker cables? I'd prefer capacitance over inductance even when it blows apart some semi-conductor amps.
Compromises abound...
Wish I could...
May I recommend Tampax?😉
Hi,
Both are related..........
Go ahead.
Uh, oh...
Gees..what a statement that is.
Sorry Steve but that's the silliest statement of the century.
Probably because you don't have the foggiest idea of what it is that goes on.
Listen to your oxies for all I care and since your happy so am I.
I don't mind a bit of capacitance and since your using a fair amount of xformers it won't make all that much of a diff.
You prefer a limited, say 20/20 bandwidth so what the heck...
But...with regard to speaker cables? I'd prefer capacitance over inductance even when it blows apart some semi-conductor amps.
Compromises abound...
Wish I could...
May I recommend Tampax?😉
TAMPAX IT IS THEN..
Hi,
Honestly I haven't....you seem to though.
Oval or round hollow? And they want to patent that?
What's next? Ovary conductors?
And all along you claim that oxides don't have any impact on the sound, etc, etc.?
Current bunching is nothing new, neither is the concept of hollow conductors...
Let them be oval if they must...After all it's the shape of the curate's egg.
Cheers,
Hi,
Honestly I haven't....you seem to though.
Oval or round hollow? And they want to patent that?
What's next? Ovary conductors?
And all along you claim that oxides don't have any impact on the sound, etc, etc.?
Current bunching is nothing new, neither is the concept of hollow conductors...
Let them be oval if they must...After all it's the shape of the curate's egg.
Cheers,
Re: Give It A Rust...
How are they related? What exactly is the "problem"?
And what exactly makes it silly? Let's hear it.
So tell me, what goes on? Again, let's hear it.
Or have you run out of marketing literature to parrot?
That's funny. You certainly don't seem very happ.
What have transformers to do with anything?
Where do you get this 20/20 bandwidth crap from? What, your marketing literature has let you down and now you can only shoot in the dark hoping you might hit something? "Both are related." "Silliest statement of the century." "Don't have the foggiest idea of what's going on." I think your ammo clip is empty, Frank. All I hear is *click* *click* *click*.
C'mon. Reload and say something substantive.
Same here. Which is why my interconnects are quite short and my speaker cables are quite longer.
And it would be much easier for you to do if Hawksford had decided to publish his new discovery in a journal where it's a simple matter to obtain reprints. Have you checked with HFN to see if they still have any back issues left in stock? How 'bout your public library? Or perhaps you could EMail Malcolm and ask him to send you a copy.
se
fdegrove said:
How are they related? What exactly is the "problem"?
And what exactly makes it silly? Let's hear it.
So tell me, what goes on? Again, let's hear it.
Or have you run out of marketing literature to parrot?
That's funny. You certainly don't seem very happ.
What have transformers to do with anything?
Where do you get this 20/20 bandwidth crap from? What, your marketing literature has let you down and now you can only shoot in the dark hoping you might hit something? "Both are related." "Silliest statement of the century." "Don't have the foggiest idea of what's going on." I think your ammo clip is empty, Frank. All I hear is *click* *click* *click*.
C'mon. Reload and say something substantive.
Same here. Which is why my interconnects are quite short and my speaker cables are quite longer.
And it would be much easier for you to do if Hawksford had decided to publish his new discovery in a journal where it's a simple matter to obtain reprints. Have you checked with HFN to see if they still have any back issues left in stock? How 'bout your public library? Or perhaps you could EMail Malcolm and ask him to send you a copy.
se
SHORT CRAP OR LONG CRAP?
Hi,
Good.
At least one sensible thing....
Quack?
Or quack pro qouck?
🙄
Hi,
Good.
At least one sensible thing....
Quack?
Or quack pro qouck?
🙄
Re: TAMPAX IT IS THEN..
Nice dodge.
Frank, you said that oval conductors were fashionable. So how did you come to know they were fashionable? Who out there is making oval conductor interconnects and speaker cables so that you would be able to see that they are fashionable?
I've no idea what may or may not actually have actual audible effects. Which is why I don't make any claims regarding such things and why you clearly need to go back and re-read what I wrote.
You have made the claim that a copper oxide film on the conductor has a deliterious effect on the signal. So far I have yet to see any explanation as to exactly what this deliterious effect is. All you've done is spit out some buzzwords without any follow-up explanation as to how they relate to your claim.
But oval conductors are. And you specifically said that oval conductors were fashionable. Meaning that they are being used by significant number of people. And I'm still wondering how you came to know that oval conductors were fashionable yet never so much as heard of Analysis Plus.
se
fdegrove said:
Nice dodge.
Frank, you said that oval conductors were fashionable. So how did you come to know they were fashionable? Who out there is making oval conductor interconnects and speaker cables so that you would be able to see that they are fashionable?
I've no idea what may or may not actually have actual audible effects. Which is why I don't make any claims regarding such things and why you clearly need to go back and re-read what I wrote.
You have made the claim that a copper oxide film on the conductor has a deliterious effect on the signal. So far I have yet to see any explanation as to exactly what this deliterious effect is. All you've done is spit out some buzzwords without any follow-up explanation as to how they relate to your claim.
But oval conductors are. And you specifically said that oval conductors were fashionable. Meaning that they are being used by significant number of people. And I'm still wondering how you came to know that oval conductors were fashionable yet never so much as heard of Analysis Plus.
se
Quick Pro Qouck?
Hi,
And it was who mentioning that company in the first place?
You know, DSLs are pretty fast even in ol' fashioned Europe nowadays.
Not having too many an oxide on top may help broadband connections too...
My tam-tam is working pretty fast telling me to finish this corrida...
Sorry Steve...😎
Hi,
And it was who mentioning that company in the first place?
You know, DSLs are pretty fast even in ol' fashioned Europe nowadays.
Not having too many an oxide on top may help broadband connections too...
My tam-tam is working pretty fast telling me to finish this corrida...
Sorry Steve...😎
Re: Quick Pro Qouck?
That would be me.
Great. So how 'bout using it to come up with some specifics with regard to the effects of a thin film of copper oxide on copper wire as it relates to signal distortion, skin effect, etc.?
se
fdegrove said:
That would be me.
Great. So how 'bout using it to come up with some specifics with regard to the effects of a thin film of copper oxide on copper wire as it relates to signal distortion, skin effect, etc.?
se
Cards On The Table...
Steve,
Just so that we know what a little more about what kind of audio system that you are listening to, can you detail for us what your current system setup is, including power treatment, room details, music etc, etc.
This may help us to nail down why you are not hearing changes in interconnects, cables etc, and so that we may have a greater appreciation of your current listening level.
Thanks,
Eric.
Steve,
Just so that we know what a little more about what kind of audio system that you are listening to, can you detail for us what your current system setup is, including power treatment, room details, music etc, etc.
This may help us to nail down why you are not hearing changes in interconnects, cables etc, and so that we may have a greater appreciation of your current listening level.
Thanks,
Eric.
earlier, the argument was made that these higher end cables have more benefit with the highest of the high end equipment. i presume he is asking you if your setup is good enough to accurately depict the difference between cables. kinda like how 64kbps mp3s sound the same as anything else on 10 year old computer speakers, and yet anywhere else, the differences are pronounced.
Finally, someone who puts common sense before voodoo. No matter what the material or make of the cable, you must realize that there are only two factors that apply once the connection has been made.
1. Resistance
2. Capacitance, which can be corrected for
Resistance will only make a significant difference when used with bi or tri-amped systems where no passive crossover is used. When the speaker cable has a higher resistance, the amp's damping capability suffers and bass can sound flabby. No cable should be so capacitive that treble is attenuated so that can be crossed off the list. We're not even talking about video or radio frequencies here, this is audio. It's because of people who don't know what they're talking about, why Monster Cable and others can get away with such outrageous prices.
Ironically, with very high end audio products which use servo loops, cable quality matters the least.
1. Resistance
2. Capacitance, which can be corrected for
Resistance will only make a significant difference when used with bi or tri-amped systems where no passive crossover is used. When the speaker cable has a higher resistance, the amp's damping capability suffers and bass can sound flabby. No cable should be so capacitive that treble is attenuated so that can be crossed off the list. We're not even talking about video or radio frequencies here, this is audio. It's because of people who don't know what they're talking about, why Monster Cable and others can get away with such outrageous prices.
Ironically, with very high end audio products which use servo loops, cable quality matters the least.
Just Some Details, And Truths
So, do you hear differences between cables ?.
We know that your system is using your selfmade very fine transformer coupling boxes, but what else is in your system ?.
Politely,
Eric.
Steve, your whole tone in this lengthy discussion portrays you as not hearing differences between cables.Steve Eddy said:
So, do you hear differences between cables ?.
We know that your system is using your selfmade very fine transformer coupling boxes, but what else is in your system ?.
Politely,
Eric.
theChris said:
What he did was try and put words in my mouth even though he knows damn well that I have never uttered such words. Simple as that.
se
I Try Again...
So Steve, by inference to your last statement, are you saying that you DO hear differences between cables ?.
If so, what kinds of differences do you hear ?.
Eric.
So Steve, by inference to your last statement, are you saying that you DO hear differences between cables ?.
If so, what kinds of differences do you hear ?.
Eric.
Re: Just Some Details, And Truths
No, that's your delusion. What I said was in the context of physics. Not hearing differences. If I had intended to say anything with regard to hearing differences, I would have said so specifically.
I've already answered this question. Several times. Search the archives.
What relevance does that have to anything I've been talking about? Oh, and I've answered that question before. Search the archives.
se
mrfeedback said:
No, that's your delusion. What I said was in the context of physics. Not hearing differences. If I had intended to say anything with regard to hearing differences, I would have said so specifically.
I've already answered this question. Several times. Search the archives.
What relevance does that have to anything I've been talking about? Oh, and I've answered that question before. Search the archives.
se
Re: I Try Again...
I've gone through this line of questioning with you before. If you've forgotten the answers, search the archives. Once you've done that, you can explain to me what relevance this has to anything I've said in this thread.
se
mrfeedback said:
I've gone through this line of questioning with you before. If you've forgotten the answers, search the archives. Once you've done that, you can explain to me what relevance this has to anything I've said in this thread.
se
I AM Asking Politely.
There are too much archives for me to troll through just now.
Please refresh me, physics aside for now, are you hearing differences btween cables on your system or other systems, and if so what kinds of differences ?.
If you ARE hearing differences, then we can collectively try to determine the physics reasons.
Eric.
There are too much archives for me to troll through just now.
Please refresh me, physics aside for now, are you hearing differences btween cables on your system or other systems, and if so what kinds of differences ?.
If you ARE hearing differences, then we can collectively try to determine the physics reasons.
Eric.
Re: I AM Asking Politely.
You mean there IS a limit to your trolling?
*sigh* Yes. And I'm not a flyspec listener. I just go by whether the experience is more or less pleasurable for me and go with that which is the more pleasurable. I don't make any attempt to break things down into little pieces and analyze each individual piece. So I'm afraid I can't provide you with specific "kinds of differences."
No, we can't. I've no interest in doing the double blind testing that would be required to first establish whether the differences I perceive are due to actual audible differences. I go with what pleases me and could care less if that pleasure is due to physics, psychology or some combination of the two.
se
mrfeedback said:
You mean there IS a limit to your trolling?
*sigh* Yes. And I'm not a flyspec listener. I just go by whether the experience is more or less pleasurable for me and go with that which is the more pleasurable. I don't make any attempt to break things down into little pieces and analyze each individual piece. So I'm afraid I can't provide you with specific "kinds of differences."
No, we can't. I've no interest in doing the double blind testing that would be required to first establish whether the differences I perceive are due to actual audible differences. I go with what pleases me and could care less if that pleasure is due to physics, psychology or some combination of the two.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.