I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#12,921
janneman said:
Mr. Whitlock indeed addresses the connection structures between various grounds and signal lines. A lot can be learned from his explanations. He does NOT discuss type of cable.
If you think his AES papers have anything to do with using RG6U or other cable, you have misread it grandiosly.

jd
Click to expand...
Specifically in the latest tutorials, cable structure and his own preferences were mentioned. Listen to the audio tutorial.
 
#12,922
rdf said:
The interconnect ground is effectively in parallel with the power cord grounds. Normally the latter star back to a single circuit/breaker outlet, explaining why the 'miles of wire to the power station' are irrelevant and where the potential for power cord interaction arises.
Click to expand...
The tutorial says different. The basic issue is that ground is not ground as we learn in the textbooks, rather it's a reference line. I have learned from the tutorial.
 
#12,923
soongsc said:
The tutorial says different. The basic issue is that ground is not ground as we learn in the textbooks, rather it's a reference line. I have learned from the tutorial.
Click to expand...

Nomenclature. Yes, I understand that. One learns that lesson quickly trying to silence 150' microphone runs on the 25th floor of newspaper building facing two 50 kWatt AM transmitters two miles away.
 
#12,929
I don't plan to give a whole lecture on this as Whitlock did. But it's a much more complicated issue than what meets the eye. And also dependent on how critical one is, in one's objective. In the real world, there is nothing that fits the ideal voltage transmission model; however, it is true that the closer you get to that model, the less significant impedance mismatching is. I don't think anyone has quantified this in the public media yet.
 
#12,930
soongsc said:
These two are from the latest (126th) convention.
Created by Camtasia Studio 6
Created by Camtasia Studio 6
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I thought. I actually attended these tutorials.
What I hate is that people here refer to these tutorials as if Mr Whitlock supports there notion of special, magical, transmisdsion line effects.
I find that dishonest to Mr Whilock, and to us, in the extreme.

The slides are clear, but the text is even clearer:

He clearly states, and backs it up with facts, that transmission line effects in audio are 'totally irrelevant', that they only start to occur at > 4000ft cables, and that anybody saying otherwise is 'full of it, up to here'.
But 'marketing loves it'

Can we at least remain intellectually honest?

jd
 

Attachments

  • cable.jpg
    cable.jpg
    167.1 KB · Views: 156
#12,931
janneman said:
Yeah that's what I thought. I actually attended these tutorials.
What I hate is that people here refer to these tutorials as if Mr Whitlock supports there notion of special, magical, transmisdsion line effects.
I find that dishonest to Mr Whilock, and to us, in the extreme.

The slides are clear, but the text is even clearer:

He clearly states, and backs it up with facts, that transmission line effects in audio are 'totally irrelevant', that they only start to occur at > 4000ft cables, and that anybody saying otherwise is 'full of it, up to here'.
But 'marketing loves it'

Can we at least remain intellectually honest?

jd
Click to expand...
What do you find dishonest? That I don't agree with the impedance matching issues he see irrelevant?

Concering the transmission line effects, I have not seen any data showing when it starts, so I'd be interested in going through whatever is publically available.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom