Hi John,
What is the mechanism for directionality in a wire? Not a terminated one, just wire? Then, what are the causes for this? Finally, why can't the effect vary throughout the wire length?
I would think that if "you" can produce a wire with some random directionality, it should be repeatable. If this effect is truly random, then it would seem that you couldn't count on anything being fixed. Perhaps it's the total sum with cancellation. Whichever direction happens to be the greater of the two, that piece is labeled as such. That being the case, is there a reasonable assumption that this should give rise to distortion and possibly noise? Is there some component of resistance that could be reduced if this effect could be eliminated?
-Chris
What is the mechanism for directionality in a wire? Not a terminated one, just wire? Then, what are the causes for this? Finally, why can't the effect vary throughout the wire length?
I would think that if "you" can produce a wire with some random directionality, it should be repeatable. If this effect is truly random, then it would seem that you couldn't count on anything being fixed. Perhaps it's the total sum with cancellation. Whichever direction happens to be the greater of the two, that piece is labeled as such. That being the case, is there a reasonable assumption that this should give rise to distortion and possibly noise? Is there some component of resistance that could be reduced if this effect could be eliminated?
-Chris
Please Scott, I don't make cables. I just listen to them. Do your own measurements, but until you do, or listen SERIOUSLY for the effect, please don't bother me with the problem.
This reminds of of when I was working in a univerity resaerch lab and one og the guys in our workshop was working on the ~fA preamp for a in-house-built scanning tunnellling electon microscope.
The chemists had a really neat etching technique for making the scanning electrode - with a pointed tip an atom or a few wide.
I don't know why they were not overly fussed about the electrodes "directivity".
The chemists had a really neat etching technique for making the scanning electrode - with a pointed tip an atom or a few wide.
I don't know why they were not overly fussed about the electrodes "directivity".
Hi Glen,
The answer to that question is dead easy.
They carefully stacked each atom the way they wanted it to be. They tend to fall over when there are so few of them when stacked wrong.
Hi John,
Can you give me an answer, or a guess to my questions? I am trying to figure out what the thought process is here. I am being serious. Give me something to go on please.
-Chris
The answer to that question is dead easy.
They carefully stacked each atom the way they wanted it to be. They tend to fall over when there are so few of them when stacked wrong.
Hi John,
Can you give me an answer, or a guess to my questions? I am trying to figure out what the thought process is here. I am being serious. Give me something to go on please.
-Chris
My queries about cable directionality to those who make cables, gave me the response that the direction the wire is formed is important for some reason. As it is often forced through a die, this might put some sort of asymmetrical layering of the crystal structure. I don't know if it is the reason, but it seems to me to be a reasonable hypothesis.
For the record, I would ask the moderators to once again get SE off my ankle.
While it is true that I once said that the primary reason for complementary differential fet input was because it gave 2 independent drive sources, it is not the ONLY reason. The other reason is the inherent linearity of the stage during near overdrive. It is better, for the most part, than a single differential stage. This is what PMA found in his measurements put here a few weeks ago. However, this second reason is MINOR for Parasound designs and MAJOR for the 'Blowtorch' design. Can anyone reason why this is so?
For the record, I would ask the moderators to once again get SE off my ankle.
While it is true that I once said that the primary reason for complementary differential fet input was because it gave 2 independent drive sources, it is not the ONLY reason. The other reason is the inherent linearity of the stage during near overdrive. It is better, for the most part, than a single differential stage. This is what PMA found in his measurements put here a few weeks ago. However, this second reason is MINOR for Parasound designs and MAJOR for the 'Blowtorch' design. Can anyone reason why this is so?
john curl said:
Really interesting, I don't recall this one. Could someone point me to the message with those measurements?
It runs near the rails ?
Lower than normal rails ?
More gain than normal for less stages ?
So much degeneration it can't swing very close to the rails ?
Lower than normal rails ?
More gain than normal for less stages ?
So much degeneration it can't swing very close to the rails ?
..............I don't know guys but maybe the moderators need to close this thread and start an advanced topology thread as well as a cable directionality thread.
The usefulness of this thread seems to have run it's course. 🙄
Jam
The usefulness of this thread seems to have run it's course. 🙄
Jam
Hi John,
Thank you. It would seem then that directionality should be predictable at the manufacturing level. Someone has to fix all those recording studios now. Imagine if the snakes were made by looping the wire back and forth. They could be marked "send" and "receive".
Now, since I have been away for a long time, can anyone point out that experiment done by Pavel?
Just for the record, I find a single fet diff pair sounds better to my ears. I have taken great pains to match transistors in complimentary diff pairs together. Still don't like the sound this makes. It seems a little "grainy" if that makes any sense to you. It's also a huge pain in the behind to match all four transistors together. This does improve the sound by a fair amount though, easy to hear. The same goes for matching a single diff pair, but much easier and the yield is far higher.
-Chris
Edit: Hi Jam. My thinking has been along those lines too. Just my personal thoughts on that matter. It should be up to John I guess.
Thank you. It would seem then that directionality should be predictable at the manufacturing level. Someone has to fix all those recording studios now. Imagine if the snakes were made by looping the wire back and forth. They could be marked "send" and "receive".
Now, since I have been away for a long time, can anyone point out that experiment done by Pavel?
Just for the record, I find a single fet diff pair sounds better to my ears. I have taken great pains to match transistors in complimentary diff pairs together. Still don't like the sound this makes. It seems a little "grainy" if that makes any sense to you. It's also a huge pain in the behind to match all four transistors together. This does improve the sound by a fair amount though, easy to hear. The same goes for matching a single diff pair, but much easier and the yield is far higher.
-Chris
Edit: Hi Jam. My thinking has been along those lines too. Just my personal thoughts on that matter. It should be up to John I guess.
john curl said:
Does it?
It seems to presume that the wire is drawn in a particular direction. But it's not. To do that, they'd have to respool it each time they ran it through the die. Very inefficient. So what they do is alternate drawing it through one way, and then back the other way.
Drawing does effect the crystal structure though. That's why it hardens each time it's drawn. But they can't have it hardening too much or else it will soon break on them. So they anneal it along the way which takes all the "kinks" out of the crystal structure and softens the wire.
However if we assume that there's a directionality to wire for whatever reason, it seems it would be rather easy to address it by making up leg of a cable with an equal complement of wires of opposing directions. Then you would have a cable with no net directionality.
Say, that would also make it double complementary, wouldn't it? 😀
Ok.
se
Jam, start your own thread.
This thread has some good information and entertainment. I am waiting for the output of the preamp.😀
This thread has some good information and entertainment. I am waiting for the output of the preamp.😀
Steve Eddy said:
Where "kinks" are also known as dislocations in some circles.
Was anyone aware that screw dislocations have a higher resistivity per unit volume than edge dislocations. Theoretically speaking.
Personally, I've spent the last year trying to measure the resistivity of a single dislocation as its nucleated. I've got some new samples and I think its going to happen this week.
Up late again Mike.!
You are missing some valuable beauty sleep.
I forgot about the entertainment part, maybe that is in itself worth keeping it around......😀 .
Maybe you should start a Blowtorch II thread.............😎
Jam
You are missing some valuable beauty sleep.
I forgot about the entertainment part, maybe that is in itself worth keeping it around......😀 .
Maybe you should start a Blowtorch II thread.............😎
Jam
Jam is mad at me, because I slammed the phone down on him. He was telling me how to run my business, and he can't help but stir up things, when he doesn't get his way. I regret that I had to hang up on him, I don't like it done to me, and some of the best designers in the business have done it to me, when I got a little too overbearing with them. I hope they have forgiven me by now. I hope the best for Jam as well, but he is not working in my interest at the moment, for some reason.
Hi John,
That is all stuff that should remain between yourself and Jam.
As far as new threads are concerned, that is a very good suggestion. The cable stuff should go there and then there are other topics this thread has strayed into. It's all really too messy for mods to split nicely, so give some thought to putting those other discussions in other areas. Just a suggestion.
-Chris
That is all stuff that should remain between yourself and Jam.
As far as new threads are concerned, that is a very good suggestion. The cable stuff should go there and then there are other topics this thread has strayed into. It's all really too messy for mods to split nicely, so give some thought to putting those other discussions in other areas. Just a suggestion.
-Chris
Dear John,
I am not mad at you........... quite the contrary.
I believe Anatech is correct in what he says.
Regards,
Jam
I am not mad at you........... quite the contrary.
I believe Anatech is correct in what he says.
Regards,
Jam
I agree, discussions of tubes, transformers, n channel only, Bybee purifiers, AND wires should be located elsewhere. Then PMA, Chas and I, as well as all who are really interested, can introduce new circuit concepts and talk of subtle interactions between components. Help me achieve this, if you can.
Shallbehealed, your work sounds interesting. I have been trying to get a reasonable understanding of this stuff for about 10 years. At the moment I am going through: 'Electrons in Solids' By Richard H. Bube.
One thing that fascinates me is movement of 'high angle grain boundries in pure polycrystalline copper (99.999%Cu)' ref. 6.4.1 'Electron Microscopy of Interfaces in Metals and Alloys' which implies a 'break-in' mechanism. I am always open to new input in this area.
One thing that fascinates me is movement of 'high angle grain boundries in pure polycrystalline copper (99.999%Cu)' ref. 6.4.1 'Electron Microscopy of Interfaces in Metals and Alloys' which implies a 'break-in' mechanism. I am always open to new input in this area.
john curl said:
A degenerated BJT front end can actually have better linearity, but
it's a balance between the degen and current. You have to run a fair
amount of current.
One advantage of high gm complimentary jfets is zero tempco point.
When biasing jfet compliments to 0 volts GS, you are very near zero
tempco. Thermal modulation is a real source of distortion that slips
by the usual THD radar.
cheers
Terry
- Status
- Not open for further replies.