BZZZT!
Skin depth @100KHz in copper is 200um. PCB 1oz. copper is 35um thick, 6 times smaller than the skin depth.
24 OT political and divisive posts from the last 48 hours have been deleted.
You all know and are aware of the No Politics rule that this site has.
well, some people in high-end use a lot thicker than .5-1oz copper and then there are actual wires and cables, too.
Dont limit this to just a one case condition nor try to find the exception.
Copper oxide diode formation is a problem at any frequency.
THx-RNMarsh
what is copper oxide thickness?
Last edited:
Litz can help in some cases, but not always needed. Star-quad was/is an innovation over TP for some uses. There is no universal interconnection wire for all purposes.
Last edited:
Silver/PTFE combination can be bothersome if used in an inappropriate construction; looking at the numbers it is only a small difference between silver and copper (even worse) and IIRC pvc isn't so much better either.
But, there are remedies; solid silver/copper conductor in a quite rigid tube made of PTFE, able to freely moving in it, is of course not a good idea wrt triboelectric effects.
I've to asked the same question that I directed to Scott Wurcer, which way the "No, wrong" emerged as it seems to be a question of consciousness.
Usually there must be a lot going wrong until real information "disappears" but it is a multidimensional evaluation and so if suddenly an information kind of "sticks out" it often is a good indicator that something indeed has changed.
And of course if you are aware of this "new" piece of information it is nearly impossible to "unhear" it when going back to the old configuration.
Scott Wurcer draw conclusions to "sighted listening" and "bad auditory memory" , but both are questionable, as the underlying effects of brain/auditory sense made it quite difficult to decide it.
As said above it's also possible that you noticed a real effect (that brougth another "piece of information" to your attention) - which would lead to the conclusion that the memory was in fact quite accurate - and that the method of rolling back to check isn't the right one to find it out.
Or for an inappropriate application: Not good for analog audio, but sometimes useful for short digital interconnections between boards.
One of the most surreal phrases I have ever read in the style of "all amps sound the same".
You should try again, now that he knows how you are: rofl:
I went back to the old configuration, played again the LP and the assumed “missing detail “ was there.
I have no problem adopting Scott’s closing phrase for my case: “Sighted listening and aural memory are hopelessly unreliable.” 🙂
George
I think, if it is "hopelessley unreliable" is a different question; I was more interested to learn why you think that it follows from the events that you (both in a similar way) described.
No need to listen to details unless doing work that requires it.
For example, mixing records requires it.
Audio equipment can be designed using an AP only, e.g. Self books. Not truly blameless though, as the listening details reveal.
Could it be that you never noticed it before, and now (knowing it is there) you will hear it on all equipment?
I think it has to do with Hans remark (listening to details vs listening to music).
When listening through a new hardware configuration this mode switching most probably happens unconsciously.
But I have noticed the effect of the switch when I compare different versions of the same musical piece- which I do often- with different directors and singers, say performance A and performance B.
After listening to A, I listen to B. Then I go back to A and it happens that I notice details I hadn’t noticed the first time.
George
When listening through a new hardware configuration this mode switching most probably happens unconsciously.
But I have noticed the effect of the switch when I compare different versions of the same musical piece- which I do often- with different directors and singers, say performance A and performance B.
After listening to A, I listen to B. Then I go back to A and it happens that I notice details I hadn’t noticed the first time.
George
Assuming a minimal level of overall quality, probably.
We couldn't make records, otherwise.
We don't discover anything on a record that is not already there.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.