Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
Jim Lesurf
came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ
Andrews and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be
taken by Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his
products are "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
But having looked at
http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/CableTestPremRes.pdf
[above file size 700K]
I can't say I agree with that belief simply on the basis of what the above
contains. But that may in part be because I've examined a past set of
measurements by Ben Duncan and come to rather different conclusions to the
ones he and a co-author asserted about them at the time.[1] I would
therefore like to know all the measurement systems/proceedure details that
are sadly omitted from the above.
I thought others here might be interested to read the above pdf and
consider it for themself.
I am curious to know if the reactions of others agree with my own. In
particular, if others can spot 'The dog that did not bark in the night'.
:-)
Enjoy,
Jim
[1] See
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Don Pearce
wrote:
>I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it. I
>came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ
>Andrews and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be
>taken by Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his
>products are "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
>
>But having looked at
>
>http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/CableTestPremRes.pdf
>
>[above file size 700K]
>
>I can't say I agree with that belief simply on the basis of what the above
>contains. But that may in part be because I've examined a past set of
>measurements by Ben Duncan and come to rather different conclusions to the
>ones he and a co-author asserted about them at the time.[1] I would
>therefore like to know all the measurement systems/proceedure details that
>are sadly omitted from the above.
>
>I thought others here might be interested to read the above pdf and
>consider it for themself.
>
>I am curious to know if the reactions of others agree with my own. In
>particular, if others can spot 'The dog that did not bark in the night'.
>:-)
>
>Enjoy,
>
>Jim
>
>[1] See
>http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html
Interesting. The big problem here is that they were measuring the
wrong thing. They should have been measuring effects at speaker
terminals, not on power rails. My intuition tells me that the audible
difference between 80 and 90 dB of attenuation at the power rails is
going to be close to zero. After all, you must add to that the CMRR,
which is already going to be the right side of 100dB, so effectively
we are talking the difference between -180 and -190. Both of these are
altogether huge compared to what is actually needed.
Add to that the idea that 1000V spikes are common enough occurrences
that they impinge on your day to day listening, (rather than being a
"bugger me, what was that?" moment as half the fuses in the house
blow), and require dealing with for listening pleasure.
Of course, if this were a single ended valve amp with no intrinsic
power supply rejection, there might be a case to be made.
d
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it. I
>came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ
>Andrews and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be
>taken by Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his
>products are "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
>
>But having looked at
>
>http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/CableTestPremRes.pdf
>
>[above file size 700K]
>
>I can't say I agree with that belief simply on the basis of what the above
>contains. But that may in part be because I've examined a past set of
>measurements by Ben Duncan and come to rather different conclusions to the
>ones he and a co-author asserted about them at the time.[1] I would
>therefore like to know all the measurement systems/proceedure details that
>are sadly omitted from the above.
>
>I thought others here might be interested to read the above pdf and
>consider it for themself.
>
>I am curious to know if the reactions of others agree with my own. In
>particular, if others can spot 'The dog that did not bark in the night'.
From the preamble:
"...we set about conducting a series of robust
scientific tests to back up the claims we have always made
for our products� abilities."
He doesn't know the difference between science and theology. Do we
really need to read further?
Don Pearce
I just looked at the last bit - the measurements. I know the Cyrus II
very well (I have one), and its distortion characteristic is the same
as every other amplifier on the planet - it rises at high frequency.
According to his measurement it falls. That is actually a quite
embarrassing article.
Peer review will either be revealing or not. If his peers are anything
like him in ability, it will presumably pass.
d
Jim Lesurf
Yes, the preamble, etc, do indicate that the tests may have been done on a
different basis to the scientific approach. The aim seems to have been,
"find some results that support what we think is the case". Whereas a
scientific experiment would have been, "Devise a test whose outcome will
distinguish between our idea being correct, or it being unreliable".
However I do think it is worth reading further for two reasons.
One is that ceasing to read, and not bothering to think about what they
report would abdicate from being able to comment on the actual results.
The second is that considering what they report does perhaps show some
other things. e.g. 'the dog' I referred to. As with the older case I used
as a footnote, sometimes published results give clues to what may have been
problems with the measurement process, or at least make clear that -
without more info which is presently witheld - the results can't be shown
to establish the conclusions they (and Paul Messenger) presume. They may
arise for other fairly simple reasons.
FWIW I have emailed the contact they give, asking for more info. But I have
no idea as yet if I will get a useful response. Until then, I can only have
doubts about the 'measured results' since data can only be understood when
you know all the relevant details of how it was obtained. The present pdf
simply doesn't give the required details.
WRT to 'the dog' I can ask two questions of people. Can you explain why the
cables that are claimed to be 'better' exhibit the frequency dependence
that they graphs show? Then ask, why does the 'BNC' cable not also show
this? The answers may tell us something interesting about the measurement
setup used... and the unspecified assumptions those reporting the
measurements may have made. :-)
If unsure, consider the setup error which was made in the previous case
which I used as a footnote. ;->
Slainte,
Jim
Laurence Payne
there's some nutters out there!" and reminding ourselves that
Stereophile is merely amusing audio pornography?
David Pitt
> I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it. I
> came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ Andrews
> and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be taken by
> Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his products are
> "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
>
> But having looked at
>
> http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/CableTestPremRes.pdf
There appear to be two components to this, do the Russ Andrews mains lead
attenuate mains bourn noise and does mains bourn noise have any effect on
Hi-Fi systems.
It may have been demonstrated that the fancy cables can show some RF
attenuation but it is not demonstrated that this has any effect on sound
quality, that remains just a belief, "RFI is a major pollutant and we
believe that it is one of the major reasons why Hi-Fi systems do not perform
at their best".
This is hardly peer reviewed science. In my view it is just more Hi-Fi
magazine style guffology but I cannot prove that, it is just my belief based
on the evidence of my unreliable ears, also not peer reviewed.
Are either Paul Messenger or Ben Duncan trustworthy sources?
> Enjoy,
--
David Pitt
Don Pearce
wrote:
>Are either Paul Messenger or Ben Duncan trustworthy sources?
I believe it was Ben Duncan, years ago, who attempted to show that
speaker cables changed their delay characteristics with current. He
set up an experiment to demonstrate this, measuring frequency response
and delay with different currents - they did indeed change.
Unfortunately, the way he changed the current was by changing the load
on the end of the cable. It was of course this that changed the
measured delay - perfectly in line with established theory.
So no, Ben Duncan is not a reliable or trustworthy source.
d
Phil Allison
>
> From the preamble:
> "...we set about conducting a series of robust
> scientific tests to back up the claims we have always made
> for our products' abilities."
>
> He doesn't know the difference between science and theology. Do we
> really need to read further?
** Nope.
Your quote above reminds me of a line spoken in numerous B grade Western
movies:
A fat ugly guy, with a rope noose ready in his hand to lynch some poor
unfortunate stranger, explains to the lone doubter that:
" Of course he will get a fair trail -
* THEN * we lynch him ..... "
Ben Duncan has been openly batting for the dark side of audio sanity for
decades - so he has zero credibility.
Phil Hanson and Red Sheep Communications was unknown to me so I looked up
his web site:
Looks a lot like a one man, advertising scam, agent for hire.
No surprises there.
Anyone know where the nooses are kept round here ???
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"Jim Lesurf"
>
>I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it.
** For God's sake - WHY ?????
> I came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ
> Andrews and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be
> taken by Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his
> products are "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
** Blah, blah, blah ........
Jim badly needs to catch up with the long published works of two of
America's most prolific modern philosphers - I refer of course to Messrs
Cheech and Chong.
In relation to sighting doubtful brown objects directly in one's path while
walking abroad, they discovered the following maxim:
" If it looks like dog shit, smells like dog shit, feels like dog shit,
tastes like dog shit. Must be dog shit. Good thing we didn't step in it! ".
Poor, dumb Jim has it all over his shoes.
..... Phil
Rob
> I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it. I
> came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ
> Andrews and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be
> taken by Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his
> products are "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
>
> But having looked at
>
> http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/CableTestPremRes.pdf
>
> [above file size 700K]
>
> I can't say I agree with that belief simply on the basis of what the above
> contains. But that may in part be because I've examined a past set of
> measurements by Ben Duncan and come to rather different conclusions to the
> ones he and a co-author asserted about them at the time.[1] I would
> therefore like to know all the measurement systems/proceedure details that
> are sadly omitted from the above.
>
> I thought others here might be interested to read the above pdf and
> consider it for themself.
>
It's difficult for me to tell. Everything Ben Duncan claims on his web
site is not substantiated or qualified (international reputation,
unique, expanding, holistic, world class and so on) and his
qualifications appear worthless in the sense I think I could get them by
filling out a form and paying. Following the link to his publications
leads me to a shop. Searching the shop for his name brings up electronic
things to buy and a series of collections of articles.
He may well be a jolly good bloke but I simply wouldn't trust anything
he has to say from the impression I get from his web site. Maybe poor
self-publicity is a characteristic of scientific types, present company
excepted :-)
So, from a lay point of view, it means very little to me. I wouldn't buy
anything off the back of it, put it that way. Or at least I'd hope I
wouldn't . . .
Rob
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Indeed. Hence the footnote URL I gave in my first posting.
> So no, Ben Duncan is not a reliable or trustworthy source.
I would approach this slightly differently. Are the *measurements* a
reliable source for the conclusions asserted in the pdf? My concern isn't
with the personalities, nor with the way any of us can make a simple
mistake.
Slainte,
Jim
Jim Lesurf
Well, my own view is slightly different. :-)
I do find Stereophile of interest. I tend to have my doubts about many of
the 'subjective comments'. But their full reviews are usually accompanied
by a fair amount of measurement results. In general I find those to be
relevant and they show every sign of being does with care. I have learned
about a number of interesting details from them. Having done measurements
myself I can appreciate the time and effort that goes into the results they
publish.
And I also feel it isn't wise to simply walk away from reports like the
Russ Andrews pdf. The problem is that then leaves such reports untested to
be used by people making claims to sell their products. That does not seem
fair to me on purchasers who may have no technical knowledge that would
allow them to judge the 'evidence' being presented. Nor fair to the ASA
whom - I assume - are clueless about engineering or physics, let alone
metrology.
In addition, sometimes the 'evidence' may well tell us interesting things,
abeit not always what the authors intended or assumed. 8-]
And as an 'academic' I don't feel it is right to dismiss things out of hand
simply because they seem dubious to me. I can be wrong just as easily as
anyone else, and I'd prefer to learn, and when appropriate, correct my own
mistakes as well as those of others! ;->
The problem here for me is that the relevant details seem to be promised
for some months hence, after review by an unspecified 'peer'. Without those
details the current pdf is no more than an asserted interpretation of a set
of data produced by an undetailed process.
However if I get a useful response from the contact it may be possible to
know more about this.
Keith G
"Rob" <patchoul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j1p%l.45499$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
:-)
Also from the 'lay POV', I would like to say that the trouble with these
'snake oil bashing' sessions is that they are never cut and dried conclusive
and it always falls back to individual, subjective decisions about what
'works' and what doesn't, once you get past the obvious 'the light is on,
the light is off' stage when making comparisons. It was probably over 50
years ago now, I said here that the only two things that matter when it
comes to 'hifi tweaks' are a) you are positive you can hear an improvement
or, at least, think you are and b) you can afford to buy them without
starving the kids!
OK, that's power leads all nicely sorted and we all know where we stand on
them, don't we? As it's easier to make my point with them, let's do speaker
cables now....
Take a squint at this:
http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Strand.jpg
Right now I am listening to perfectly fine ('normal') sound from the radio
on a *single strand* of copper wire - all the way up to heap plenty loud and
down again! (Pucci's milkman isn't due here for ages so I asked Swim to
comment on the sound without telling her what I was up to and, like me, she
found nothing out of the ordinary!) In this situation, I wonder what
'science' would support the 'conventional wisdom' of using more than the one
strand of wire - provided of course it don't break!
Or 'oxygen free copper' wire....??
Or silver-plated copper wires....??
Hollow copper tubing?
Solid silver wire???
Gold wires...???
Wet string...???
??
Answers on a postcard....
:-)
Dave Plowman (News)
> Right now I am listening to perfectly fine ('normal') sound from the
> radio on a *single strand* of copper wire - all the way up to heap
> plenty loud and down again! (Pucci's milkman isn't due here for ages so
> I asked Swim to comment on the sound without telling her what I was up
> to and, like me, she found nothing out of the ordinary!) In this
> situation, I wonder what 'science' would support the 'conventional
> wisdom' of using more than the one strand of wire - provided of course
> it don't break!
Thanks for proving yet again you don't understand things technical.
Obviously never noticed that a fuse wire is tiny compared to the cable it
protects. And that fuses use short bits of wire...
--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jim Lesurf
> OK, that's power leads all nicely sorted and we all know where we stand
> on them, don't we?
Nope, "we" don't - if your "we" includes me . That was the point of my
posting. Sorry if you don't understand that. The problem is that the pdf
makes assertions but gives what it presents to be 'evidence' without also
providing the details "we" would need to decide if the asserted conclusions
are really demonstrated by the pretty graphs, or not.
Slainte,
Jim
Jim Lesurf
> Also from the 'lay POV', I would like to say that the trouble with these
> 'snake oil bashing' sessions is that they are never cut and dried
> conclusive
Afraid you have missed the point of my posting(s). They are not what you
assert. They are to bring scientifically critical thinking to assessing a
document which is presented by its authors/publishers to provide a
'scientific' basis for their claims.
The point of objective measurements is that they are of assessable accuracy
or not, and are relevant to a given idea or not. The outcome results either
can be used to support (or falsify) a scientific view or not. These
can all be determined by the scientific method which the authors
say they are using to support their claims.
Done correctly, none of that is a matter of personal opinion. Hence such
measurement and conclusions can, indeed, be 'cut and dried and conclusive'
but only *if* done correctly and appropriately.
Slainte,
Jim
Keith G
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:506ee7c...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <h1lbps$2bjn$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Strand.jpg
>
>> Right now I am listening to perfectly fine ('normal') sound from the
>> radio on a *single strand* of copper wire - all the way up to heap
>> plenty loud and down again! (Pucci's milkman isn't due here for ages so
>> I asked Swim to comment on the sound without telling her what I was up
>> to and, like me, she found nothing out of the ordinary!) In this
>> situation, I wonder what 'science' would support the 'conventional
>> wisdom' of using more than the one strand of wire - provided of course
>> it don't break!
>
> Thanks for proving yet again you don't understand things technical.
> Obviously never noticed that a fuse wire is tiny compared to the cable it
> protects. And that fuses use short bits of wire...
Somebody obviously more *technical* than I needs to tell this twat how fuses
actually work - he seems to think it's a 'size thing'...!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:200AIndustrialFuse.jpg
http://www.global-b2b-network.com/b2b/3/19/385/239775/fuse_cutout.html
>
> --
> *Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*
Yeah, riiight.....
Keith G
"Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:506ef08...@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <h1lbps$2bjn$1...@energise.enta.net>, Keith G
> <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Also from the 'lay POV', I would like to say that the trouble with these
>> 'snake oil bashing' sessions is that they are never cut and dried
>> conclusive
>
> Afraid you have missed the point of my posting(s). They are not what you
> assert. They are to bring scientifically critical thinking to assessing a
> document which is presented by its authors/publishers to provide a
> 'scientific' basis for their claims.
Yep - allus ends up as a 'snake oil bashing' session however it starts! :-)
>
> The point of objective measurements is that they are of assessable
> accuracy
> or not,
Yep. Often make the same point myself, but that's because I come from a
'place' where people traditionally add an eighth of an inch to the actual
measurement, anyway!!
;-)
and are relevant to a given idea or not. The outcome results either
> can be used to support (or falsify) a scientific view or not. These
> can all be determined by the scientific method which the authors
> say they are using to support their claims.
Sure.
>
> Done correctly, none of that is a matter of personal opinion. Hence such
> measurement and conclusions can, indeed, be 'cut and dried and conclusive'
> but only *if* done correctly and appropriately.
I would agree entirely but in reality it doesn't matter how the measurements
come out, it still comes down to the subjective in the end - people won't
believe what they don't want to hear or see, but are only too willing to
believe what they want to. Hence the Russ Andrews machine exists in the
first place!
Reminds me of the story of the filmshow of a *mock-up* of the
Monitor/Merrimac battle (Hampton Roads) that travelled America for years and
which employed obvious wooden models and dummy charges to such great effect
that people apparently cheered and generally behaved as though they were
witnessing the real thing!
Keith G
> In article <h1lbps$2bjn$1...@energise.enta.net>, Keith G
> <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> OK, that's power leads all nicely sorted and we all know where we stand
>> on them, don't we?
>
> Nope, "we" don't - if your "we" includes me . That was the point of my
> posting. Sorry if you don't understand that.
Relax, it was only a 'device' to enable me to jump from mains leads to
speaker cables to better make the point that, with or without the 'science'
(ie measurements et al) to support or deny it, there exists an overriding,
*conventional wisdom* that will usually allow people to act independently of
any evidence provided by such science.
In the case of speaker wires, that is manifested in all sorts of tricky
stuff like various magic numbers of wire strands (79 is a popular one),
increasing wire cross-sections, extremely exotic and expensive materials
employed &c. My point with the single strand of wire (which has been going
strong all day and is still) is that whatever the measurements might show,
when the single strand is compared with a normal 'fullsize' speaker wire,
*nobody* is going to choose it as the preferable route to take even if, like
me, they couldn't detect any change in the sound whatsoever - deleterious or
otherwise!
IOW, 'conventional wisdom' will rule the outcome...
(Different, of course, if they do perceive a difference in the sound &c.
&c.)
The problem is that the pdf
> makes assertions but gives what it presents to be 'evidence' without also
> providing the details "we" would need to decide if the asserted
> conclusions
> are really demonstrated by the pretty graphs, or not.
>
Yep - no problem with any of that! Par for the course with this sort of
thing, really....
Eiron
>
> "Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:506ef16...@audiomisc.co.uk...
>> In article <h1lbps$2bjn$1...@energise.enta.net>, Keith G
>> <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> OK, that's power leads all nicely sorted and we all know where we stand
>>> on them, don't we?
>>
>> Nope, "we" don't - if your "we" includes me . That was the point of my
>> posting. Sorry if you don't understand that.
>
>
> Relax, it was only a 'device' to enable me to jump from mains leads to
> speaker cables to better make the point that, with or without the
> 'science' (ie measurements et al) to support or deny it, there exists an
> overriding, *conventional wisdom* that will usually allow people to act
> independently of any evidence provided by such science.
>
> In the case of speaker wires, that is manifested in all sorts of tricky
> stuff like various magic numbers of wire strands (79 is a popular one),
> increasing wire cross-sections, extremely exotic and expensive materials
> employed &c. My point with the single strand of wire (which has been
> going strong all day and is still) is that whatever the measurements
> might show, when the single strand is compared with a normal 'fullsize'
> speaker wire, *nobody* is going to choose it as the preferable route to
> take even if, like me, they couldn't detect any change in the sound
> whatsoever - deleterious or otherwise!
What's the length and thickness of your single strand of wire?
--
Eiron.
Keith G
"Eiron" <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a7a71F...@mid.individual.net...
> Keith G wrote:
>> In the case of speaker wires, that is manifested in all sorts of tricky
>> stuff like various magic numbers of wire strands (79 is a popular one),
>> increasing wire cross-sections, extremely exotic and expensive materials
>> employed &c. My point with the single strand of wire (which has been
>> going strong all day and is still) is that whatever the measurements
>> might show, when the single strand is compared with a normal 'fullsize'
>> speaker wire, *nobody* is going to choose it as the preferable route to
>> take even if, like me, they couldn't detect any change in the sound
>> whatsoever - deleterious or otherwise!
>
> What's the length
'Bout an inch....
and thickness of your single strand of wire?
Real tiny - less than a mm?
**suspicion**
Why do you ask....??
Dave Plowman (News)
By the pic such as it would melt very quickly with a decent amp into
decent speakers at a reasonable level. Just like a fuse.
--
*Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
Dave Plowman (News)
Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> > Thanks for proving yet again you don't understand things technical.
> > Obviously never noticed that a fuse wire is tiny compared to the cable
> > it protects. And that fuses use short bits of wire...
> Somebody obviously more *technical* than I needs to tell this twat how
> fuses actually work - he seems to think it's a 'size thing'...!!
Don't need to learn Kitty - unlike you.
Try your 'one strand' trick into decent loudspeakers using a decent amp at
high level and you'll find out for yourself...
--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*
Eiron
Must read the thread more closely. Didn't see the photo.
You've added at least 10 milliohms to one speaker cable.
That must have ruined the soundstage.
--
Eiron.
Keith G
> In article <7a7a71F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> What's the length and thickness of your single strand of wire?
>
> By the pic such as it would melt very quickly with a decent amp into
> decent speakers at a reasonable level. Just like a fuse.
What a number of 'selective vision' types here don't seem to realise is that
*trained chimps* like this twat think nothing of 'opening their mouths' and
outpouring their (his/Pucci's) own uninformed and highly *inaccurate*
personal prejudices and bigotry.
Does Pucci know what amp is being used in this experiment? - No.
Does Pucci know what speakers are being used? - No!
Does Pucci know what levels the sound has been increased to? - No!
Doesn't stop his silly yap about 'fuses', does it?
(I wonder if he has ever tried to jump-start a lorry or a tractor? - Nah, I
doubt it! ;-)
Me? I try stuff out for myself and refrain from comment until I have
seen/heard the results - 'Science', as implied by the crapola in the .pdf
Jim posted, flies straight over my heard as of being neither here nor there!
'Voodoo', in fact, until I can prove it or have it *reliably* demonstrated
otherwise!
If anyone gives a bollocks - the 'single strand' setup has been running
non-stop all afternoon and had been raised to beyond normal listening
('reasonable') levels at various times and it is still operating
'perfectly'.
...and in case anyone doubts my abilities (*technical* or otherwise) to
overdrive a 'hifi' setup, I believe I posted here that I had driven a new
Sony AV amp into stony, silent 'Protection' mode a couple of times, a few
days ago - playing the Master & Commander movie!!
....which uses the recorded sound of modern, 105mm field pieces for the
sound of the ship's guns - a superb/shattering 'cinema experience', but a
highly *inaccurate* sound as anyone with experience of 'black powder'
weaponry would know! And, yes I have - plenty, before you ask....
Keith G
Elrond, you should post more often - you are much smarter that the
self-proclaimed *technical experts* here!
You are also not wrong - whilst the 'sound quality' appeared to be
unchanged, the 'soundstage' (central image) in *mono* - selected on the
Technics tuner* - went completely to pot! (Wide mono!)
It was less noticeable in 'stereo' but both Swim and I thought the 'image'
had slewed somewhat left of centre!!
Keith G
"Eiron" <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Must read the thread more closely. Didn't see the photo.
That photo was taken with an auto *nothing*/manual *everything* digital
camera and 40 year old lens setup - not too shabby for a 'non technical'
type, I would'ha said...??
(No...?? :-)
Brian Gaff
real world tests, I mean not terminating things an testing things in
isolation..
I'm not saying that there will be no effect of these counter measures, but I
do feel that in any given installation there is a heap of wire used for all
sorts of interconnects, all of which probably act as very good aerials.
In the end, I can see him selling a specially built audio room with filtered
mains and steel walls with earth spikes at each corner. Then there is the
acoustic treatment inside, yes, could be a very expensive product delivered
on a low loader.
There is a serious side to all this though, of course. If those making
equipment that creates crap could see their way to stop them making said
crap, and if designers of audio gear did realistic test and just added a
few pence to the cost to make their immunity better, none of this would be
required at all.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:506ec89...@audiomisc.co.uk...
>I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it. I
> came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ
> Andrews and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be
> taken by Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his
> products are "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
>
> But having looked at
>
> http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/CableTestPremRes.pdf
>
> [above file size 700K]
>
> I can't say I agree with that belief simply on the basis of what the above
> contains. But that may in part be because I've examined a past set of
> measurements by Ben Duncan and come to rather different conclusions to the
> ones he and a co-author asserted about them at the time.[1] I would
> therefore like to know all the measurement systems/proceedure details that
> are sadly omitted from the above.
>
> I thought others here might be interested to read the above pdf and
> consider it for themself.
>
> I am curious to know if the reactions of others agree with my own. In
> particular, if others can spot 'The dog that did not bark in the night'.
> :-)
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Jim
>
> [1] See
> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html
Dave Plowman (News)
Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> > By the pic such as it would melt very quickly with a decent amp into
> > decent speakers at a reasonable level. Just like a fuse.
> What a number of 'selective vision' types here don't seem to realise is
> that *trained chimps* like this twat think nothing of 'opening their
> mouths' and outpouring their (his/Pucci's) own uninformed and highly
> *inaccurate* personal prejudices and bigotry
[snip]
Kitty - get a life. And read up on very basic electrical stuff. It's not
rocket science.
Oh - what ever happened to your 'shitter'? Can't stand being ignored?
--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.
Phil Allison
"Eiron"
>
>>> What's the length
>>
>> 'Bout an inch....
>>
>> and thickness of your single strand of wire?
>>
>> Real tiny - less than a mm?
>>
>
> You've added at least 10 milliohms to one speaker cable.
** Not even that much.
Say the strand is 0.5mm dia and 25 mm long copper.
Works out at only 2.2 milliohms.
Take over 20 amps to make it glow and melt.
..... Phil
Rob
> In article <h1lbps$2bjn$1...@energise.enta.net>, Keith G
> <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Also from the 'lay POV', I would like to say that the trouble with these
>> 'snake oil bashing' sessions is that they are never cut and dried
>> conclusive
>
> Afraid you have missed the point of my posting(s). They are not what you
> assert. They are to bring scientifically critical thinking to assessing a
> document which is presented by its authors/publishers to provide a
> 'scientific' basis for their claims.
>
Well, yes, and that's fine of course. As a few have pointed out, you are
using up a fair amount of energy before you've questioned the source
(Ben Duncan). Not rocket science, but not a bad place to start on your
critical thought?
Rob
Rob
Nice photo!
> Right now I am listening to perfectly fine ('normal') sound from the
> radio on a *single strand* of copper wire - all the way up to heap
> plenty loud and down again! (Pucci's milkman isn't due here for ages so
> I asked Swim to comment on the sound without telling her what I was up
> to and, like me, she found nothing out of the ordinary!) In this
> situation, I wonder what 'science' would support the 'conventional
> wisdom' of using more than the one strand of wire - provided of course
> it don't break!
>
Dunno :-)
Eiron
The photo looks like an inch of 0.2mm diameter wire from a 79 strand 2.5mm^2 cable.
I think it would blow at less than 20 amps but the voice coil would probably blow first.
--
Eiron.
John Phillips
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it. I
>> came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ Andrews
>> and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be taken by
>> Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his products are
>> "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
>>
>> But having looked at
>>
>> http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/CableTestPremRes.pdf
>
> attenuate mains bourn noise and does mains bourn noise have any effect on
> Hi-Fi systems.
>
> It may have been demonstrated that the fancy cables can show some RF
> attenuation but it is not demonstrated that this has any effect on sound
> quality, that remains just a belief, "RFI is a major pollutant and we
> believe that it is one of the major reasons why Hi-Fi systems do not perform
> at their best".
Exactly.
I think the paper probably does show that under some circumstances the
Russ Andrews power cords do attenuate interference, and that under some
circumstances RFI can probably be induced to increase the distortion from
a particular amplifier. To me these are not very novel matters.
We are left with the questions of: (i) exactly what are those
circumstances in detail; (ii) whether they are relevant to real life;
and (iii) whether any effects are audible in practice. These seem more
important to me but the paper fails to address them.
However setting my academic curiosity aside I wouldn't think twice before
taking the amount such power cords cost and spending it instead on buying
some music.
I think I have my priorities right.
--
John Phillips
Jim Lesurf
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Well, of course I cannot 'see' the graphs, but they do seem to not be
> using real world tests, I mean not terminating things an testing
> things in isolation..
That is one of the key points which the pdf does not deal with.
More generally, it says nothing about the termination and coupling at
either end of the lengths being compared. Let alone what these might be in
normal use situations.
WRT dogs in the night I can point out two things which strike me about the
graphs of poage 7 of the pdf.
A) That all the mains cables seem to show a common fall in level with
frequency at a rate of around 3dB per 100Mhz.
B) That all the mains cables show variations with frequency that indicate
the presence in the system of a pair of mismatch connectioned spaced 1 or 2
metres apart. (Hard to be precise about the distance as we have no clue as
to the propagation velocities.)
(A) looks like a common mode problem with the measurement system as it
seems doubtful that this variety of cables all show such a similar fall
with frequency.
(B) seems to indicate the the only noticable difference is that the
'PowerKord' cables have a worse match to the source and load than do the
ordinary cables.
Alas, nothing in the pdf tells us if that has any relevance in real use. No
mention is made of what the authors regard as the 'typical' mains socket
source impedance at RF, nor that of a 'typical' PSU. So for all we know, in
real use, the normal cables might reject more RF than the 'PowerKord'
examples if they happened to be a poorer match. The results depend on the
source and load used, and whose values are not specified or justified for
the context.
Hopefully, further details will allow us to assess the measured results.
Slainte,
Jim
Jim Lesurf
The PDF gives a contact. I think I said in an earlier posting that I have
emailed that person asking various questions, and requesting more details.
Since they gave a contact I assumed that was the person they wanted any
questions to be sent to.
BTW I have just this minute had an email in reply from the contact.
That has supplied some more documentation. Not yet had a chance to
look at it, though.
Slainte
Don Pearce
wrote:
This is all true, but of course all filters (of the non-absorptive
type) work by selective, controlled mismatch. But when that filter is
just a piece of cable, we have a situation where the attenuation is
not only unpredictable, but could quite easily result in an increase
in level when the impedance of the cable is somewhere intermediate
between the source and load impedances. In other words, all you can
say about cables used in this way is that the levels of RF will be
different at the two ends.
The overall slope of the cables (3dB per 100MHz) is about what I would
expect for a cable not designed for the transmission of RF. The
insulation will be pretty lossy, and the unshielded design will allow
a certain amount of radiation,
As to common/differential mode - who knows? Duncan doesn't describe
the experimental setup or the measurement protocol.
d
Dave Plowman (News)
Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The photo looks like an inch of 0.2mm diameter wire from a 79 strand
> 2.5mm^2 cable. I think it would blow at less than 20 amps but the voice
> coil would probably blow first.
0.2mm diameter is rated at 5 amps in open fuse terms.
Think Jim Lesurf did lots of research into speaker fusing when he was at
Armstrong.
--
*Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? *
Jim Lesurf
> In article <KnG%l.45736$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Rob
> BTW I have just this minute had an email in reply from the contact.
> That has supplied some more documentation. Not yet had a chance to
> look at it, though.
The contact supplied a document. This doesn't itself answer my questions.
But it did direct me to
http://www.russandrews.com/src/researchpaper09/article-research-papers-researchpaper09.htm
So I have downloaded the relevant 'papers' from their and will study them.
I'll be interested to see what reactions others may have if they care to do
the same.
Slainte,
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On 22 Jun, no...@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
>> In article <KnG%l.45736$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Rob
>
>> BTW I have just this minute had an email in reply from the contact.
>> That has supplied some more documentation. Not yet had a chance to
>> look at it, though.
>
>The contact supplied a document. This doesn't itself answer my questions.
>But it did direct me to
>
>http://www.russandrews.com/src/researchpaper09/article-research-papers-researchpaper09.htm
>
>So I have downloaded the relevant 'papers' from their and will study them.
>I'll be interested to see what reactions others may have if they care to do
>the same.
>
>Slainte,
>
>Jim
I haven't started reading yet, but I presume that all the equipment in
his entire recording and reproduction chain used the woven power
cables, otherwise the experiment must fail for lack of audible effect.
d
Keith G
> Keith G wrote:
>> OK, that's power leads all nicely sorted and we all know where we stand
>> on them, don't we? As it's easier to make my point with them, let's do
>> speaker cables now....
>>
>> Take a squint at this:
>>
>> http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Strand.jpg
>>
>
> Nice photo!
Thanks - nowt special, just a fairly satisfying grab in an awkward
situation.
All manual settings as follows, if you are interested:
Shutter - 1/60 sec.
Aperture - f16
Onboard flash - GN13
WB - Flash
ISO - 100
Focus - about 6 inches (Micro-Nikkor)
>
>> Right now I am listening to perfectly fine ('normal') sound from the
>> radio on a *single strand* of copper wire - all the way up to heap plenty
>> loud and down again! (Pucci's milkman isn't due here for ages so I asked
>> Swim to comment on the sound without telling her what I was up to and,
>> like me, she found nothing out of the ordinary!) In this situation, I
>> wonder what 'science' would support the 'conventional wisdom' of using
>> more than the one strand of wire - provided of course it don't break!
>>
>
> Dunno :-)
Me neither, but no wires at all would be the best solution - especially on
an AV setup!! :-)
Keith G
The actual *facts* of the matter are that, no matter what the *figures* may
or may not be, the single strand is still working perfectly well and will
obviously sustain enough current to provide a 'heap plenty loud' (too loud)
sound as I said earlier - not as Pucci prated:
"By the pic such as it would melt very quickly with a decent amp into decent
speakers at a reasonable level. Just like a fuse."
IOW, yet another blistering example of where a little simple experimentation
will demonstrate that most (if not all) clowns who consider themselves
*experts* are usually anything but....
;-)
Keith G
> In article <h1m0sp$flv$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>> > By the pic such as it would melt very quickly with a decent amp into
>> > decent speakers at a reasonable level. Just like a fuse.
>
>
>> What a number of 'selective vision' types here don't seem to realise is
>> that *trained chimps* like this twat think nothing of 'opening their
>> mouths' and outpouring their (his/Pucci's) own uninformed and highly
>> *inaccurate* personal prejudices and bigotry
>
> [snip]
>
> Kitty - get a life. And read up on very basic electrical stuff. It's not
> rocket science.
>
> Oh - what ever happened to your 'shitter'? Can't stand being ignored?
Interesting post this one - probably (almost certainly) without realising
it, Pucci reveals all his fears and anxieties in one, quick go!
LOL!
Keith G
> In article <7a8v44F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The photo looks like an inch of 0.2mm diameter wire from a 79 strand
>> 2.5mm^2 cable. I think it would blow at less than 20 amps but the voice
>> coil would probably blow first.
>
> 0.2mm diameter is rated at 5 amps in open fuse terms.
>
> Think Jim Lesurf did lots of research into speaker fusing when he was at
> Armstrong.
There have been a number of people who have done interesting research into
this sort of pack bonding/reassurance/submission behaviour with gerbils....
Phil Allison
"Keith G"
> The actual *facts* of the matter are that, no matter what the *figures*
> may or may not be, the single strand is still working perfectly well and
> will obviously sustain enough current to provide a 'heap plenty loud' (too
> loud) sound ....
** No one ever said otherwise.
A 5 amp fuse fitted in series with a 8 ohm speaker is not be likely to
*ever* blow in a domestic system.
Change the speaker to 4 ohms and it may well blow at some time.
Change the speakers to Quad ESL63s ( et alia ) and it will blow for SURE -
if the internal voltage clamping circuitry ever activates.
Some of us KNOW a few things about fuses.
FUCKWIT !!
...... Phil
Keith G
"Phil My Anushole" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7a9a38F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Keith G"
>
>> The actual *facts* of the matter are that, no matter what the *figures*
>> may or may not be, the single strand is still working perfectly well and
>> will obviously sustain enough current to provide a 'heap plenty loud'
>> (too loud) sound ....
>
> ** No one ever said otherwise.
>
> A 5 amp fuse fitted in series with a 8 ohm speaker is not be likely to
> *ever* blow in a domestic system.
No one ever said otherwise.
>
> Change the speaker to 4 ohms and it may well blow at some time.
No one ever said otherwise.
>
> Change the speakers to Quad ESL63s ( et alia ) and it will blow for
> URE - if the internal voltage clamping circuitry ever activates.
No one ever said otherwise.
Where does this silly crap end - swap the amp for an arc-welder and it'll
burn the wire out or summat?
>
> Some of us KNOW a few things about fuses.
Don't be a stupid cunt....
>
> FUCKWIT !!
>
OK, have it yer own way - be a stupid cunt then....
LOL!!
Dave Plowman (News)
Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> The actual *facts* of the matter are that, no matter what the *figures*
> may or may not be, the single strand is still working perfectly well
> and will obviously sustain enough current to provide a 'heap plenty
> loud' (too loud) sound as I said earlier - not as Pucci prated:
> "By the pic such as it would melt very quickly with a decent amp into
> decent speakers at a reasonable level. Just like a fuse."
> IOW, yet another blistering example of where a little simple
> experimentation will demonstrate that most (if not all) clowns who
> consider themselves *experts* are usually anything but....
Only a egotist like you Kitty would assume *your* amp and speakers would
fit *my* definition of decent.
--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*
Phil Allison
"Keith Git "
>>
>>> The actual *facts* of the matter are that, no matter what the *figures*
>>> may or may not be, the single strand is still working perfectly well and
>>> will obviously sustain enough current to provide a 'heap plenty loud'
>>> (too loud) sound ....
>>
>> ** No one ever said otherwise.
>>
>> A 5 amp fuse fitted in series with a 8 ohm speaker is not be likely to
>> *ever* blow in a domestic system.
>>
>> Change the speaker to 4 ohms and it may well blow at some time.
>
> No one ever said otherwise.
** Fraid you did above - FUCKHEAD !!
>> Change the speakers to Quad ESL63s ( et alia ) and it will blow for
>> RE - if the internal voltage clamping circuitry ever activates.
>
>
> No one ever said otherwise.
** Fraid you did above - FUCKHEAD !!
Whether a single strand of copper wire survives in use DEPENDS on what
impedance and type of speaker it is feeding plus the power capacity of the
amplifier.
Some of us KNOW a few things about fuses.
You PIG IGNORANT CUNTHEAD !!!!!!!!!!
..... Phil
Keith G
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote
> Doesn't stop his silly yap about 'fuses', does it?
>
> (I wonder if he has ever tried to jump-start a lorry or a tractor? - Nah,
> I doubt it! ;-)
It's becoming quite obvious *none* of these twats have ever tried to jump
start either one....
....and seen the wires flash to red hot in a heartbeat!
Now, what was that crap about 'fuses are tiny compared to the cables they
protect'....???
Dave Plowman (News)
Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> > Think Jim Lesurf did lots of research into speaker fusing when he was
> > at Armstrong.
> There have been a number of people who have done interesting research
> into this sort of pack bonding/reassurance/submission behaviour with
> gerbils....
Why do you read this group when you've obviously no interest in audio
matters?
--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *
Dave Plowman (News)
Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> Now, what was that crap about 'fuses are tiny compared to the cables
> they protect'....???
Kitty - go and do some basic reading about protecting wiring - or even
just look at a fuse. Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *
Keith G
"Phil My Anus" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7a9aruF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Keith Git "
>
>>>
>>>> The actual *facts* of the matter are that, no matter what the *figures*
>>>> may or may not be, the single strand is still working perfectly well
>>>> and will obviously sustain enough current to provide a 'heap plenty
>>>> loud' (too loud) sound ....
>>>
>>> ** No one ever said otherwise.
>>>
>>> A 5 amp fuse fitted in series with a 8 ohm speaker is not be likely to
>>> *ever* blow in a domestic system.
>>>
>>> Change the speaker to 4 ohms and it may well blow at some time.
>>
>> No one ever said otherwise.
>
>
> ** Fraid you did above - FUCKHEAD !!
Fraid I didn't - FUCKHEAD - read it again.....
>
>
>>> Change the speakers to Quad ESL63s ( et alia ) and it will blow for
>>> E - if the internal voltage clamping circuitry ever activates.
>>
>>
>> No one ever said otherwise.
>
>
> ** Fraid you did above - FUCKHEAD !!
Fraid I didn't - FUCKHEAD - read it again.....
>
> Whether a single strand of copper wire survives in use DEPENDS on what
> impedance and type of speaker it is feeding plus the power capacity of the
> amplifier.
Stoopid fucking retard - do you think you and Pucci are the only ones who
know that? I run a couple of valve amps here - I've probably blown more
fuses than you've had sane days...
....not to mention the sub-station in sarf London I knocked out when I was
young and working on the 'buildins'....
>
> Some of us KNOW a few things about fuses.
Think you do, more like...
<snip the best bit of his post>
Dave Plowman (News)
> jump start either one....
> ....and seen the wires flash to red hot in a heartbeat!
So let's add in your lack of knowledge about cable sizes to that of fuses.
--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton
Keith G
> In article <h1nsi3$nnr$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>> Now, what was that crap about 'fuses are tiny compared to the cables
>> they protect'....???
>
>
> Kitty - go and do some basic reading about protecting wiring - or even
> just look at a fuse. Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Can't decide if this clown's deliberately evading the point or it's flying
way over his head, as usual....
Explanation (if anyone cares): I reduce a wire to a single strand to
demonstrate the 'science vs, conventional wisdom' predicament that was
prompted (to me) by the OP and monkeyboi sees it a 'fuse' and hasn't stopped
going on about fuses ever since!
Desperate to get me to *talk* to him, I suspect! ;-)
Keith G
> In article <h1nqrf$kko$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>> The actual *facts* of the matter are that, no matter what the *figures*
>> may or may not be, the single strand is still working perfectly well
>> and will obviously sustain enough current to provide a 'heap plenty
>> loud' (too loud) sound as I said earlier - not as Pucci prated:
>
>> "By the pic such as it would melt very quickly with a decent amp into
>> decent speakers at a reasonable level. Just like a fuse."
>
>> IOW, yet another blistering example of where a little simple
>> experimentation will demonstrate that most (if not all) clowns who
>> consider themselves *experts* are usually anything but....
>
> Only a egotist like you Kitty would assume *your* amp and speakers would
> fit *my* definition of decent.
More arrogant yap from one who *guesses* - he presumes (because he doesn't
know) that my amp and speaker would not fit his twisted little definition.
(Like it matters...!!??)
Phil Allison
"Keith Git = a TOTALLY PSYCHOTIC CUNT "
>>
>>> The actual *facts* of the matter are that, no matter what the *figures*
>>> may or may not be, the single strand is still working perfectly well and
>>> will obviously sustain enough current to provide a 'heap plenty loud'
>>> (too loud) sound ....
>>
>> ** No one ever said otherwise.
>>
>> A 5 amp fuse fitted in series with a 8 ohm speaker is not be likely to
>> *ever* blow in a domestic system.
>>
>> Change the speaker to 4 ohms and it may well blow at some time.
>
> No one ever said otherwise.
** Fraid you did above - FUCKHEAD !!
>> Change the speakers to Quad ESL63s ( et alia ) and it will blow for
>> E - if the internal voltage clamping circuitry ever activates.
>
>
> No one ever said otherwise.
** Fraid you did above - FUCKHEAD !!
Whether a single strand of copper wire survives in use DEPENDS on what
impedance and type of speaker it is feeding plus the power capacity of the
amplifier.
Some of us KNOW a few things about fuses.
BTW:
Ever figured out what that horrible burning smell that follows you about all
the time is ???
FUCKWIT !!!!
..... Phil
Keith G
> In article <h1nrn9$m98$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Think Jim Lesurf did lots of research into speaker fusing when he was
>> > at Armstrong.
>
>
>> There have been a number of people who have done interesting research
>> into this sort of pack bonding/reassurance/submission behaviour with
>> gerbils....
>
> Why do you read this group when you've obviously no interest in audio
> matters?
What he means is: "Why do you read this group when you've obviously no
interest in my microphone cable coiling career to date?"
What I want to know is why this prat posts here in a general (enthusiasts)
ng and, from what I can see of it, studiously avoids showing his pointy
little head in the 'pro' and 'tech' groups...??
Too scared, I suspect and wants to be the 'big fish in a near empty little
pond'....
Keith G
"Phil Anushole" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7a9ccsF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Keith Git = a TOTALLY PSYCHOTIC CUNT "
One does what one can! ;-)
<snip garbage>
> Ever figured out what that horrible burning smell that follows you about
> all the time is ???
Yes - Lambert & Butler....
:-)
Phil Allison
>
>>> The actual *facts* of the matter are that, no matter what the *figures*
>>> may or may not be, the single strand is still working perfectly well and
>>> will obviously sustain enough current to provide a 'heap plenty loud'
>>> (too loud) sound ....
>>
>> ** No one ever said otherwise.
>>
>> A 5 amp fuse fitted in series with a 8 ohm speaker is not be likely to
>> *ever* blow in a domestic system.
>>
>> Change the speaker to 4 ohms and it may well blow at some time.
>
> No one ever said otherwise.
** Fraid you did above - FUCKHEAD !!
>> Change the speakers to Quad ESL63s ( et alia ) and it will blow for E -
>> if the internal voltage clamping circuitry ever activates.
>
>
> No one ever said otherwise.
** Fraid you did above - FUCKHEAD !!
Whether a single strand of copper wire survives in use DEPENDS on what
impedance and type of speaker it is feeding plus the power capacity of the
amplifier.
Some of us KNOW a few things about fuses.
BTW:
Ever figured out what that horrible burning smell that follows you about all
the time is ???
FUCKWIT !!!!
..... Phil
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
[snip]
> This is all true, but of course all filters (of the non-absorptive type)
> work by selective, controlled mismatch.
Or by circulation or redirection. :-)
> But when that filter is just a piece of cable, we have a situation where
> the attenuation is not only unpredictable, but could quite easily result
> in an increase in level when the impedance of the cable is somewhere
> intermediate between the source and load impedances. In other words, all
> you can say about cables used in this way is that the levels of RF will
> be different at the two ends.
Yes. Thus the need to determine if the conditions of test are appropriate
for normal use situations. The curio for me is that the conditions chosen
show very small levels of (B) for the standard cables. I'd expect that if
the standard cables happened to be almost matched, which is for me a dog
that did not bark. Is that normal, accident, or what?...
Keith G
"Pheel My Arsehole" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote
A whole lot of rubbish which I snipped unread.
Bored now....
Don Pearce
wrote:
>In article <4a3f51c1.796538671@localhost>, Don Pearce <sp...@spam.com>
>wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> This is all true, but of course all filters (of the non-absorptive type)
>> work by selective, controlled mismatch.
>
>Or by circulation or redirection. :-)
>
Ah, but a circulator does need a load, or it just bounces right back
out again.
>> But when that filter is just a piece of cable, we have a situation where
>> the attenuation is not only unpredictable, but could quite easily result
>> in an increase in level when the impedance of the cable is somewhere
>> intermediate between the source and load impedances. In other words, all
>> you can say about cables used in this way is that the levels of RF will
>> be different at the two ends.
>
>Yes. Thus the need to determine if the conditions of test are appropriate
>for normal use situations. The curio for me is that the conditions chosen
>show very small levels of (B) for the standard cables. I'd expect that if
>the standard cables happened to be almost matched, which is for me a dog
>that did not bark. Is that normal, accident, or what?...
>
Also unexplained it what is happening to the spare earth conductor in
the cable. A better way to run this would surely have been to connect
the test set ground to the cable ground, then use a balun to feed the
L and N from the BNC live.
When I say better, I'm being slightly sarcastic, because the results
would have been no more meaningful.
d
Phil Allison
"Keith Git"
Dave Plowman (News)
Would the results be more meaningful if the test gear used Russ Andrew's
mains leads? ;-)
--
*Succeed, in spite of management *
Dave Plowman (News)
Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> What I want to know is why this prat posts here in a general
> (enthusiasts) ng and, from what I can see of it, studiously avoids
> showing his pointy little head in the 'pro' and 'tech' groups...??
I did take rec.audio.pro for some time - but the posting volume was just
too high. With it heavily biased to the 'gig' and recording studio side.
> Too scared, I suspect and wants to be the 'big fish in a near empty
> little pond'....
From the one who tried to make this his blog, that's rich.
--
*There's no place like www.home.com *
Dave Plowman (News)
Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> > Kitty - go and do some basic reading about protecting wiring - or even
> > just look at a fuse. Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
> Can't decide if this clown's deliberately evading the point or it's
> flying way over his head, as usual....
> Explanation (if anyone cares): I reduce a wire to a single strand to
> demonstrate the 'science vs, conventional wisdom' predicament that was
> prompted (to me) by the OP and monkeyboi sees it a 'fuse' and hasn't
> stopped going on about fuses ever since!
Kitty, you'd certainly have known what a fuse is and how it works if you'd
been using decent speakers and amp at a goodly level...
> Desperate to get me to *talk* to him, I suspect! ;-)
Only if I were some kind of machochist.
--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist
Jim Lesurf
<k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:506f599...@davenoise.co.uk...
> > In article <7a8v44F...@mid.individual.net>, Eiron
> > <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> The photo looks like an inch of 0.2mm diameter wire from a 79 strand
> >> 2.5mm^2 cable. I think it would blow at less than 20 amps but the
> >> voice coil would probably blow first.
> >
> > 0.2mm diameter is rated at 5 amps in open fuse terms.
> >
> > Think Jim Lesurf did lots of research into speaker fusing when he was
> > at Armstrong.
> There have been a number of people who have done interesting research
> into this sort of pack bonding/reassurance/submission behaviour with
> gerbils....
FWIW The work I did was partly on dynamic effects if anyone was daft enough
to put a fuse into the speaker lead, but mainly on the behaviour during
pulses, etc, when in the dc rails. I quite swiftly decided it was 'unwise'
to have a fuse in the actual speaker lead. But this was about 30 years ago,
so I have no recollection of any the detailed results now! :-)
Arny Krueger
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4a3dec21.704992218@localhost...
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:03:51 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it. I
>>came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ
>>Andrews and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be
>>taken by Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his
>>products are "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
>>
>>But having looked at
>>
>>http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/CableTestPremRes.pdf
>>http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/cableshift/cp.html
> Interesting. The big problem here is that they were measuring the
> wrong thing.
Excellent point.
> They should have been measuring effects at speaker
> terminals, not on power rails.
Notably, power rails before regulation.
I'll take that as a tacit admission that the regulator made a big
difference, even a bigger difference.
Actually I don't need to get any admissions from them at all, making a big
difference is what regulators do!
> My intuition tells me that the audible
> difference between 80 and 90 dB of attenuation at the power rails is
> going to be close to zero.
Exactly. Furthermore, the fact that their product only made a 10 dB
difference is a clear denounciation of their product.
> After all, you must add to that the CMRR,
> which is already going to be the right side of 100dB, so effectively
> we are talking the difference between -180 and -190. Both of these are
> altogether huge compared to what is actually needed.
Also note that the stimulus they were using was a 500 volt peak spike. Ever
see such a thing on a real world power line? Well, maybe once in a blue
moon.
> Add to that the idea that 1000V spikes are common enough occurrences
> that they impinge on your day to day listening, (rather than being a
> "bugger me, what was that?" moment as half the fuses in the house
> blow), and require dealing with for listening pleasure.
Agreed.
> Of course, if this were a single ended valve amp with no intrinsic
> power supply rejection, there might be a case to be made.
Of course they make no admissions that one has to have a stupidly designed
amp for there to be any possible audible benefit at all, except when the
moon is blue! ;-)
Arny Krueger
"Keith G" <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h1lbps$2bjn$1...@energise.enta.net...
> Also from the 'lay POV',
No, that would be the willfully ignorant POV that you are expressing, Keith.
As in, trolling. :-(
Keith G
> In article <h1ntrr$q3p$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Kitty - go and do some basic reading about protecting wiring - or even
>> > just look at a fuse. Before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
>
>
>> Can't decide if this clown's deliberately evading the point or it's
>> flying way over his head, as usual....
>
>> Explanation (if anyone cares): I reduce a wire to a single strand to
>> demonstrate the 'science vs, conventional wisdom' predicament that was
>> prompted (to me) by the OP and monkeyboi sees it a 'fuse' and hasn't
>> stopped going on about fuses ever since!
>
> Kitty, you'd certainly have known what a fuse is and how it works if you'd
> been using decent speakers and amp at a goodly level...
>
>> Desperate to get me to *talk* to him, I suspect! ;-)
>
> Only if I were some kind of machochist.
He says this and yet he can't leave my posts alone!! :-)
Says it all, don't it....??
LOL!
Keith G
> In article <4a438b4d.811270640@localhost>,
> Don Pearce <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>> >Yes. Thus the need to determine if the conditions of test are
>> >appropriate for normal use situations. The curio for me is that the
>> >conditions chosen show very small levels of (B) for the standard
>> >cables. I'd expect that if the standard cables happened to be almost
>> >matched, which is for me a dog that did not bark. Is that normal,
>> >accident, or what?...
>> >
>> Also unexplained it what is happening to the spare earth conductor in
>> the cable. A better way to run this would surely have been to connect
>> the test set ground to the cable ground, then use a balun to feed the
>> L and N from the BNC live.
>
>> When I say better, I'm being slightly sarcastic, because the results
>> would have been no more meaningful.
>
> Would the results be more meaningful if the test gear used Russ Andrew's
> mains leads? ;-)
Ay oop, more *rubbing up* behaviour - Pucci must be feeling insecure....
Keith G
> In article <h1nuh9$r83$1...@energise.enta.net>,
> Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>> What I want to know is why this prat posts here in a general
>> (enthusiasts) ng and, from what I can see of it, studiously avoids
>> showing his pointy little head in the 'pro' and 'tech' groups...??
>
> I did take rec.audio.pro for some time - but the posting volume was just
> too high. With it heavily biased to the 'gig' and recording studio side.
>
>> Too scared, I suspect and wants to be the 'big fish in a near empty
>> little pond'....
>
> From the one who tried to make this his blog, that's rich.
Pucci sees anyone posting his idea of *non approved* topics on this group as
an encroachment into and overshadowing his *memoirs* and accuses them (me)
of blogging, unless it's the people he usually sucks up to - and we all know
who they are, don't we....?? ;-)
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
>
> >
> >A) That all the mains cables seem to show a common fall in level with
> >frequency at a rate of around 3dB per 100Mhz.
> >
> >B) That all the mains cables show variations with frequency that
> >indicate the presence in the system of a pair of mismatch connectioned
> >spaced 1 or 2 metres apart. (Hard to be precise about the distance as
> >we have no clue as to the propagation velocities.)
> The overall slope of the cables (3dB per 100MHz) is about what I would
> expect for a cable not designed for the transmission of RF. The
> insulation will be pretty lossy, and the unshielded design will allow a
> certain amount of radiation,
One of the reasons I doubt the above is the cause of (A) here is (B). If
you look at the graphs in the pdf I initially mentioned you can see that
the peak-minimim difference of the 'PowerKord' examples doesn't vanish at
HF.
Yet if the single pass cable losses were as high as 10dB, I'd expect the
peak-minimum ripples to essentially dissapear. The 'round trip' reflection
return would be be 20dB below the input, so would hardly contribute to
causing frequency variations in the total output level.
So my feeling is that the systematic fall - essentially common to all the
cables - is an instrumental/measurement effect outwith the cables under
test.
I also have the feeling that your explanation would not explain the extent
of the reduction, nor why all the cables seem to show it to much the same
extent. For example, if - as seems likely - the fancy cables have a lower
impedance then the field has a different E/H ratio. The dielectric will
affect the E-field losses, not the H-field. Again it seems a curiously odd
coincidence if that balanced perfectly at all frequencies with, say,
resistive conduction losses. Making all the losses for the peaks against
frequency come out much the same for all frequencies seems an odd
coincidence to me.
However I need to re-read the detailed papers a few times and think about
them. My feeling, though is that all the results in the initial pdf show is
that the cables have different Zc values. The relevant measurements seem to
have been done with no mains supply or loading PSU. Just with what seem to
be claimed to be 50Ohm terminations.
David Looser
> In article <7a8v44F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The photo looks like an inch of 0.2mm diameter wire from a 79 strand
>> 2.5mm^2 cable. I think it would blow at less than 20 amps but the voice
>> coil would probably blow first.
>
> 0.2mm diameter is rated at 5 amps in open fuse terms.
>
And the chance of a 5A fuse in the speaker lead blowing under any
conceivable domestic listening situation is as close to zero as makes very
little difference.
David.
Rob
> On 22 Jun, no...@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
>> In article <KnG%l.45736$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Rob
>
>> BTW I have just this minute had an email in reply from the contact.
>> That has supplied some more documentation. Not yet had a chance to
>> look at it, though.
>
> The contact supplied a document. This doesn't itself answer my questions.
> But it did direct me to
>
> http://www.russandrews.com/src/researchpaper09/article-research-papers-researchpaper09.htm
>
> So I have downloaded the relevant 'papers' from their and will study them.
> I'll be interested to see what reactions others may have if they care to do
> the same.
>
That's all very thorough Jim. All I'm saying is that it's a bit like me
poring over David Icke's manifesto in the search for a decent political
or social theory.
Rob
Eiron
I beg to differ. Although amps tend to have fuses in the power rails rather than the output,
if you took even a modest power amp with 4 ohm speakers and added a 5amp fuse to the speaker lead,
then asked your teenager not to play his dreadful modern music too loud while you are away....
And if you forget to turn the power off to your power amp while unplugging the input....
Who designed RCA plugs so that the ground disconnects before the signal?
--
Eiron.
Dave Plowman (News)
It really depends on the speakers. amps and level you use. I was merely
trying to explain to Kitty that a short length of single strand wire might
well not make any audible difference under some circumstances. But might
well under others.
If a 5 amp fuse wouldn't ever blow I doubt few decent speakers could be
damaged through overdriving. But they can do and are.
--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"
David Looser
news:7aa1b7F...@mid.individual.net...
Fuses take quite a long time to blow, depending on how much the current
exceeds the rating. Music, even "dreadful modern music" has an rms value
well below that of a sinewave, and a 5A sinewave into a 4 ohm load is 100W.
So I go with the earlier comment that the speakers would be wrecked long
before the a 5A fuse got round to protecting them.
David.
David Looser
>
> If a 5 amp fuse wouldn't ever blow I doubt few decent speakers could be
> damaged through overdriving. But they can do and are.
>
> --
fuses?, they are pretty useless except for gross overloads. Short the mains
out and the fuse will blow, put a 50% overload on the ring and they probably
won't, not in any meaningful time scale anyway. That's one of the reasons
for the change to circuit-breakers.
David.
Dave Plowman (News)
David Looser <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Fuses take quite a long time to blow, depending on how much the current
> exceeds the rating. Music, even "dreadful modern music" has an rms value
> well below that of a sinewave, and a 5A sinewave into a 4 ohm load is
> 100W. So I go with the earlier comment that the speakers would be
> wrecked long before the a 5A fuse got round to protecting them.
Fuses aren't a good way of protecting speakers. After all if they are both
copper wire so if the same sort of gauge it will just depend on the
cooling and lengths, basically.
--
*Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?
Keith G
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7aa2u2F...@mid.individual.net...
Ignore Poochie, he's just bullshitting (or trying to) his way out of a hole
he dug for himself when he saw I had reduced a speaker connection down to a
single strand and he went into *fuse spasm*....
The single strand is nothing to do with fuses (what's the whole wire then -
a *higher rated fuse*?) - it was merely to illustrate the point that I
believe 'conventional wisdom' actually promotes and encourages 'snake oil'
(referenced in the OP) by doing something rather unconventional....
Keith G
> In article <7a9v90F...@mid.individual.net>,
> David Looser <david....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:506f599...@davenoise.co.uk...
>> > In article <7a8v44F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> > Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The photo looks like an inch of 0.2mm diameter wire from a 79 strand
>> >> 2.5mm^2 cable. I think it would blow at less than 20 amps but the
>> >> voice coil would probably blow first.
>> >
>> > 0.2mm diameter is rated at 5 amps in open fuse terms.
>> >
>
>> And the chance of a 5A fuse in the speaker lead blowing under any
>> conceivable domestic listening situation is as close to zero as makes
>> very little difference.
>
> It really depends on the speakers. amps and level you use. I was merely
> trying to explain to Kitty that a short length of single strand wire might
> well not make any audible difference under some circumstances. But might
> well under others.
Ooh dear - after getting his knickers all twisted up about 'fuses' and
trying to bullshit his way out of a tight spot, Poochie's trying to change
tack fast and is reduced to bare-faced lies now...???
Keith G
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:-4GdnZoYsrhTNKLX...@giganews.com...
Wrong again, muchacho - if I troll I usually include the word 'troll' in the
subject line, as well you know....
Don Pearce
wrote:
>In article <4a3f51c1.796538671@localhost>, Don Pearce <sp...@spam.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >A) That all the mains cables seem to show a common fall in level with
>> >frequency at a rate of around 3dB per 100Mhz.
>> >
>> >B) That all the mains cables show variations with frequency that
>> >indicate the presence in the system of a pair of mismatch connectioned
>> >spaced 1 or 2 metres apart. (Hard to be precise about the distance as
>> >we have no clue as to the propagation velocities.)
>
>
>> The overall slope of the cables (3dB per 100MHz) is about what I would
>> expect for a cable not designed for the transmission of RF. The
>> insulation will be pretty lossy, and the unshielded design will allow a
>> certain amount of radiation,
>
>One of the reasons I doubt the above is the cause of (A) here is (B). If
>you look at the graphs in the pdf I initially mentioned you can see that
>the peak-minimim difference of the 'PowerKord' examples doesn't vanish at
>HF.
>
Quite right - I hadn't noticed.
>Yet if the single pass cable losses were as high as 10dB, I'd expect the
>peak-minimum ripples to essentially dissapear. The 'round trip' reflection
>return would be be 20dB below the input, so would hardly contribute to
>causing frequency variations in the total output level.
>
>So my feeling is that the systematic fall - essentially common to all the
>cables - is an instrumental/measurement effect outwith the cables under
>test.
>
True. Maybe something to do with the fixtures.
>I also have the feeling that your explanation would not explain the extent
>of the reduction, nor why all the cables seem to show it to much the same
>extent. For example, if - as seems likely - the fancy cables have a lower
>impedance then the field has a different E/H ratio. The dielectric will
>affect the E-field losses, not the H-field. Again it seems a curiously odd
>coincidence if that balanced perfectly at all frequencies with, say,
>resistive conduction losses. Making all the losses for the peaks against
>frequency come out much the same for all frequencies seems an odd
>coincidence to me.
>
Puzzling indeed. I think perhaps the loss has more to do with
radiation than absorption.
>However I need to re-read the detailed papers a few times and think about
>them. My feeling, though is that all the results in the initial pdf show is
>that the cables have different Zc values. The relevant measurements seem to
>have been done with no mains supply or loading PSU. Just with what seem to
>be claimed to be 50Ohm terminations.
>
My thoughts exactly. The source impedance should be whatever you get
from a few miles of twin coupled to a transformer, a few thousand
light bulbs, a bunch of motors, many TVs and loads of fluorescents.
That shouldn't be too hard to model ;-)
As for the load. That will vary from minor conduction on peaks when
the audio is quiet, to extended conduction up the leading edges when
it is loud. And of course the conducting phase will be dumping
straight into a big capacitor. I can see why they went for 50 ohms,
even if it is nonsense.
d
Eeyore
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it. I
> came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ
> Andrews and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be
> taken by Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his
> products are "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
Russ Andrews should be hung drawn and quartered for peddling shit. Apparently
he doesn't even know CDs DON'T rotate at constant speed and is / was trying to
sell a device that kept the rotational speed accurate ( more so than the
internal xtal ). As for his 'mains purifiers', I opened up an �800 or so model
only to find the LNE input directly connected to the outlets merely with a few
caps littered around.
Graham
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address
Eeyore
Arny Krueger wrote:
> Also note that the stimulus they were using was a 500 volt peak spike. Ever
> see such a thing on a real world power line? Well, maybe once in a blue
> moon.
I suppose they haven't heard of Varistors !
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
> Does this really deserve any further attention than chuckling "yes,
> there's some nutters out there!" and reminding ourselves that
> Stereophile is merely amusing audio pornography?
And a certain Editor should be hanging his head in shame for peddling
anti-science.
Graham
--
Eeyore
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <jn4s355lvj19kqdps...@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
> <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote:
> > Does this really deserve any further attention than chuckling "yes,
> > there's some nutters out there!" and reminding ourselves that
> > Stereophile is merely amusing audio pornography?
>
> Well, my own view is slightly different. :-)
>
> I do find Stereophile of interest. I tend to have my doubts about many of
> the 'subjective comments'.
You can stop right there.
One's hearing changes from hour to hour, according to mood, exposure to varying
SPLs, background noise, use of narcotics etc.
Subjective comments may be interesting but are next to worthless. FWIW, I've
consistently found that equipment that actually measures well and uses good
modern design principles is in the long term the most satisfying.
Eeyore
David Pitt wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I got my latest copy of 'Stereophile' yesterday and started to read it. I
> > came across comments by Paul Messenger about some work that Russ Andrews
> > and Ben Duncan have recently put onto the web. This seems to be taken by
> > Paul Messenger as showing that Russ's claims re some of his products are
> > "now supported by proper scientific analysis".
> >
> > But having looked at
> >
> > http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/CableTestPremRes.pdf
>
> There appear to be two components to this, do the Russ Andrews mains lead
> attenuate mains bourn noise
NO ! Quite impossible at the basic science / physics level.
> and does mains bourn noise have any effect on Hi-Fi systems.
Depends on the type of noise and how well the equipment and PSU in particular is
made. As it happens this is an area I'm reseaching right now for professional
use. Yes, some devices ( but not leads ) can fix problems, I discovered this 20
yrs ago, but they have a scientific basis, not audiophoolery.
Eeyore
Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:17:15 +0100, David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Are either Paul Messenger or Ben Duncan trustworthy sources?
>
> I believe it was Ben Duncan, years ago, who attempted to show that
> speaker cables changed their delay characteristics with current. He
> set up an experiment to demonstrate this, measuring frequency response
> and delay with different currents - they did indeed change.
> Unfortunately, the way he changed the current was by changing the load
> on the end of the cable. It was of course this that changed the
> measured delay - perfectly in line with established theory.
>
> So no, Ben Duncan is not a reliable or trustworthy source.
Typical Charlatan.
Eeyore
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> My concern isn't with the personalities, nor with the way any of us can make
> a simple
> mistake.
I think you mean deliberate mistake or deception. I could elaborate.
TT
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@notcoldmail.com> wrote
in message news:4A4032D4...@notcoldmail.com...
explain one point to me (in layman terms please) what
relevance RFI in the MHz range (what the graphs are measured
in) will actually do (audibly) to your average well
constructed hi-fi gear? While you're at it, any relevance
to EMI entering the cables while all bunched up behind the
hi-fi/AV rack?
Cheers TT
TT
>
> "Pheel My Arsehole" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote
> A whole lot of rubbish which I snipped unread.
>
> Bored now....
>
BTW when Philthy repeats or just cuts 'n' pastes you know
you have done him cold ;-)
Keep up the good work :-)
Cheers TT
David Looser
>
>
> The single strand is nothing to do with fuses (what's the whole wire
> then - a *higher rated fuse*?) - it was merely to illustrate the point
> that I believe 'conventional wisdom' actually promotes and encourages
> 'snake oil' (referenced in the OP) by doing something rather
> unconventional....
>
I wondered what on earth you thought your "single strand of wire"
demonstrated; and your "explanation" above does little to clarify the point.
Quite *how* you think that " 'conventional wisdom' actually promotes and
encourages 'snake oil" is a mystery that is unlikely ever to be solved.
David.
Jim Lesurf
<rabbitsfriend...@notcoldmail.com> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > My concern isn't with the personalities, nor with the way any of us
> > can make a simple mistake.
> I think you mean deliberate mistake or deception. I could elaborate.
No. I am unable to say that there is any deliberate or knowing deception.
It is one thing to decide if the measurements do support their claims or
not. And to decide if the results are due to inappropriate measurements
techniques or other technical errors, or not. I, and others, can form a
view on that by applying normal scientific and engineering methods to the
published information.
It is something else to decide that they *know* their claims are false and
that the evidence is deliberately and consciously bogus. I can't say that
from reading the presented evidence. People believe all kinds of things
which seem like rubbish to me, and to err is human.
So my concern here is as I stated above, and that others should be able to
correctly assess the evidence, not the personalities. If someone else has
evidence of deliberate deception, then they should present it to the ASA or
others who may be relevant. I have no such evidence.
Of course, you can 'elaborate' if you so choose, but I could not possibly
comment. :-)
Jim Lesurf
wrote:[snip]
> >So my feeling is that the systematic fall - essentially common to all
> >the cables - is an instrumental/measurement effect outwith the cables
> >under test.
> >
> True. Maybe something to do with the fixtures.
Indeed. That is what I am wondering about. I am also wondering why the
results seem to show such a *lack* of mismatch to the '50 Ohm' source and
load. This seems quite an odd coincidence, but may just be because most
normal cables aren't that different to 50 Ohms-ish.
> >I also have the feeling that your explanation would not explain the
> >extent of the reduction, nor why all the cables seem to show it to much
> >the same extent. For example, if - as seems likely - the fancy cables
> >have a lower impedance then the field has a different E/H ratio. The
> >dielectric will affect the E-field losses, not the H-field. Again it
> >seems a curiously odd coincidence if that balanced perfectly at all
> >frequencies with, say, resistive conduction losses. Making all the
> >losses for the peaks against frequency come out much the same for all
> >frequencies seems an odd coincidence to me.
> >
> Puzzling indeed. I think perhaps the loss has more to do with radiation
> than absorption.
Again, curious that all cables show it to much the same extent. I need to
read the full papers again, but I am curious about two issues. One is the
construction of the units used to couple source and load. The other is how
the system was actually calibrated. Simple getting a decent response with a
50 Ohm co-ax isn't 'calibration'. I also am wondering how the levelling was
actually done, and how the effects of that were calibrated.
> >However I need to re-read the detailed papers a few times and think
> >about them. My feeling, though is that all the results in the initial
> >pdf show is that the cables have different Zc values. The relevant
> >measurements seem to have been done with no mains supply or loading
> >PSU. Just with what seem to be claimed to be 50Ohm terminations.
> >
> My thoughts exactly. The source impedance should be whatever you get
> from a few miles of twin coupled to a transformer, a few thousand light
> bulbs, a bunch of motors, many TVs and loads of fluorescents. That
> shouldn't be too hard to model ;-)
...but possible to measure. :-)
The sensible thing would be to have made up a mains-safe highpass rf
connection and then use the 50Ohm (?) analyser to measure the reflection
coefficient of a few typical domestic mains sockets. From this you can then
at least infer values for the typical/likely source impedance they present
at RF.
> As for the load. That will vary from minor conduction on peaks when the
> audio is quiet, to extended conduction up the leading edges when it is
> loud. And of course the conducting phase will be dumping straight into a
> big capacitor. I can see why they went for 50 ohms, even if it is
> nonsense.
I can understand the wish to make measurements as easy and simple as
possible. Particularly when time is money. However the snag is to avoid
making them so 'simple' that they cease to be relevant to the real-world
situation which you want to use the 'results' to describe. :-)
Don Pearce
wrote:
If I were trying to analyse the response of a random, unknown piece of
cable, the first thing I would do is find out its impedance by a
simple jX test on an eighth wave piece hanging off a network analyser.
The fixture would then be designed to transform the 50 ohms to that
impedance (at both ends). Only then could I make a measurement free
from the stupid VSWR leaps. Actually, these days I suppose the
impedance transformation could be done in software after the event,
but that is by the by.
As for calibration, I would want to de-embed the fixtures by making up
open, short and load calibration pieces that plugged in where the
actual cable went. Tricky, I know, but for results up to a few hundred
megs I would be reasonably happy with the results.
For the "through" calibration I would make sure the mains lead had
male and female versions of the same connector both ends, and simply
plug the fixtures together - that would make for an insertable
calibration, which is always the safest.
Thinking about this, I can find no earthly reason for that BNC curve
to be presented. Do you have any idea what purpose it serves?
>> >However I need to re-read the detailed papers a few times and think
>> >about them. My feeling, though is that all the results in the initial
>> >pdf show is that the cables have different Zc values. The relevant
>> >measurements seem to have been done with no mains supply or loading
>> >PSU. Just with what seem to be claimed to be 50Ohm terminations.
>> >
>> My thoughts exactly. The source impedance should be whatever you get
>> from a few miles of twin coupled to a transformer, a few thousand light
>> bulbs, a bunch of motors, many TVs and loads of fluorescents. That
>> shouldn't be too hard to model ;-)
>
>...but possible to measure. :-)
>
Perhaps they could go to every potential customers house and measure
it, then produce a curve of probable improvement...
>The sensible thing would be to have made up a mains-safe highpass rf
>connection and then use the 50Ohm (?) analyser to measure the reflection
>coefficient of a few typical domestic mains sockets. From this you can then
>at least infer values for the typical/likely source impedance they present
>at RF.
>
>> As for the load. That will vary from minor conduction on peaks when the
>> audio is quiet, to extended conduction up the leading edges when it is
>> loud. And of course the conducting phase will be dumping straight into a
>> big capacitor. I can see why they went for 50 ohms, even if it is
>> nonsense.
>
>I can understand the wish to make measurements as easy and simple as
>possible. Particularly when time is money. However the snag is to avoid
>making them so 'simple' that they cease to be relevant to the real-world
>situation which you want to use the 'results' to describe. :-)
>
Who was it who said that in science everything should be described as
simply as possible - but no simpler.
d
Dave Plowman (News)
Keith G <k...@moirac.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
> > It really depends on the speakers. amps and level you use. I was
> > merely trying to explain to Kitty that a short length of single strand
> > wire might well not make any audible difference under some
> > circumstances. But might well under others.
> Ooh dear - after getting his knickers all twisted up about 'fuses' and
> trying to bullshit his way out of a tight spot, Poochie's trying to
> change tack fast and is reduced to bare-faced lies now...???
Jesus you're thick. A short length of thin wire in a run of thicker is
*exactly* what a fuse is. And makes no difference to the performance of
that circuit until certain parameters are exceeded.
--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *
Dave Plowman (News)
Kitty is forever trying to re-invent the wheel. Dunno why he thought
adding a very small series resistance to a speaker circuit would make
things sound different. But judging by the jump leads melting story, he
needs to re-invent Ohms law too...
> David.
--
*All generalizations are false.