I didn't have much exposure to the Exposure brand when it first came out as I read the wrong magazines and TBH they looked too dull and boring for me, but reflected the someone daft hair shirt outlook of british audio in the late 80s. Seems they are still clinging on with new products. Exposure Electronics XM5 integrated amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com
Now I understand that they are going for a 'compact' look, but getting dangerously hot after 15 minutes on the 1/3 power test does suggest an underengineered thermal solution. Manufacturers response 'We've had no complaints about over heating'! Oh and another complaint about how dare they compare it with more expensive equipment
.
Are we really in a world where this is acceptable in an $1800 product?
Now I understand that they are going for a 'compact' look, but getting dangerously hot after 15 minutes on the 1/3 power test does suggest an underengineered thermal solution. Manufacturers response 'We've had no complaints about over heating'! Oh and another complaint about how dare they compare it with more expensive equipment
.Are we really in a world where this is acceptable in an $1800 product?
Let's not insult the acetylsalicylic acid! That's a really useful medicine.
In my country there's a guy offering youtube reviews and has also a Facebook page with thousands of members listening to his reviews about speakers and cables sold in a big on line store.He's advertising cables of hundreds ip to thousands of euros this way. He's a high caliber programmer in his real life , no electronics knowledge at all. And i asked once what audio system is he using for reviews...He used a 200 dollars amplifier and 200 dollars speakers, both as new , VAT applied. I had nothing against the price so i just found the schematic of that amp.It was a very simple amp, highly unstable with very low damping factor and a little undersized for the very low spl speakers used by him.
So ...of course he could hear any cables difference with that Short Wave oscillator
There was a series of amplifiers that achieved DF from 600 to 15000 with the aid of two more sense cables paralleled to the output power cables .I had one of them and not only that you couldn't hear any difference among cables when using all four cables, but even with no sense cables the higher DF native factor gave complete neutrality and made ordinary speakers sound very different than they did on other high quality amplifiers with much lower DF. People say that DF higher than 100 are useless, but i dare to defy them as i already heard the difference.
Good amplifiers don't care about cables and speakers.They are simply immune .
They had 25psec resolution in 1963. Audio guys have a knack of ignoring the rest of the EE world. The earliest cable vendors IIRC played with large variations in L or C per foot and I don't remember voodoo claims coming until a little later.
Last edited:
I take a little amount of aspirin each day, in the intent to to thin my blood after the placement of stents in an artery.
But like cables, it heals the effects, not the causes.
We can draw parallels between hi-fi and western medicine. ;-)
Which is why I though you would get a chuckle out of it.
I was trying to start a discussion about the reality of wire and cables.
First a wire is a single conductor, a cable is a collection of wires. They can just be bundled, twisted, paired, twisted paired, coaxial or some other sorting method.
Starting with a wire and the calculated inductance, we could misapply this to a long wire antenna. At 1.3 uH per meter for an AM Band (1 MHZ) quarter wavelength antenna of 75M an inductance of about 100 uH would be expected. That would yield more than 600 ohms of inductive reactance. So if one tried to use circuit theory, it would seem such an antenna would have loss going into a 300 ohm input.
In the classic oatmeal box crystal radio the tuning element was an adjustable coil. The hidden inherent capacitance was part of the tuning circuit. So that load would be a parallel LC circuit loaded by a nonlinear galena lead diode and 3,000 ohms or more of the headset.
Field theory of course would give a better explanation.
The point is that circuit theory is not always the most applicable method. Nor is the math used to originally correct the transatlantic telegraph cable always appropriate.
As to the perceptual limits of a loudspeaker cable...
10M x 650e-9 H x 20,000 x 2 x 3.1415926 = .8168 Ohms or a 1 dB loss, often considered the perceptual limit.
I would expect the DC resistance of a decent loudspeaker cable to be a tenth of that.
So my expectation is that 10M of cable inductance is not an issue. However add in capacitance and you may reach what some claim is the threshold of phase shift perception limits. A claim I have not been able to verify.
Now how many here have a loudspeaker cable run of more than 10M?
Scott, I know it is *your thing*, but I do not totally agree.
Audio is not rocket science, it is, by essence, an illusionist work.
If the technical part is , indeed, based on the laws of physics, the success of the illusion is based on the characteristics and flaws of human perception.
How to be surprised, in a game based on cheating, to find ... cheaters? And an audience that takes illusions for reality ?
The good illusionist must master both the laws of optics and the characteristics of human perception.
Last edited:
It's not western medicine .
The aspirin was empirically used by gypsies since hundreds of years ago as they made a tea out of Willow tree bark which has the acid in a milder concentration than the modern pills... By the way...if you take too much aspirin you might need the use of natural haemostatic plants extract or teas: Capsella bursa-pastoris-alcohol - Wikipedia extract and tea oak bark tea lady's mantle tea
Sorry for of topic, but i think that the subject it doesn't really matter here
Last edited:
I think you are right about timing, however there was probably no consequence between these two. I think that the rise of Alchemy in audio was responsible for both.
This all about this endless and strange controversy between pure objectivists and pure subjectivists. Each ones are missing half of the picture.Thanks Prof. T., I was just about to say "and vice versa".
The problem is to find the best balance.
Thanks Prof. T., I was just about to say "and vice versa".
I was referring to the concept of "discovering". For instance it was not possible in 1970 to discover that amplifiers had full power bandwidth and slew rate limitations.
BTW I though jn, DF96, I, and others discussed the cable stuff at length back in BT part 2. There were even sims and models posted around the convergence of the lumped and T-line way of looking at it.
AS always, the "discovering" is based on observation AND a properly conducted scientific reflection.
I would add that it seems to me that purely scientific and technological research has led, in recent years, to progress in audio that is deeper and more reproducible than the subjective subjection that is indiscriminate, led by blind trial and error.
This does not detract from the need to taste the dish and add a pinch of salt ;-)
Last edited:
Rest assure I was not biting back at all, just enjoying the controversy.
It's true in the early 70's, I built some SS amps from Motorola or other people's application notes; it wasn't hard at all, but I kept my tube gears. Then came Matti Otala, John Curl, et al...
PS. Prof. T., stop beating me to the answers!
I apologize ;-)PS. Prof. T., stop beating me to the answers!
I'm just trying to figure out if I'm in the ignore list of Scott ;-)
I once made a typo on his name, which I'm sorry, which seems to have degraded our virtual relationships.
What controversy? When someone claims they have a speaker cable with no characteristic impedance it's not a matter for an objective vs subjective discussion. If someone prefers an amplifier with some second harmonic of a certain phase the objectivist simply says that an amplifier should not do that, the subjectivist does not care.
If any, I swear to you that I acquired it at my expense.
(Thanks, I'm touched)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.