Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Also from the 'lay POV',

No, that would be the willfully ignorant POV that you are expressing,
Keith. As in, trolling. :-(


Wrong again, muchacho - if I troll I usually include the word 'troll' in the
subject line, as well you know....

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Eiron 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 bull**** his way out of a tight spot, Poochie's trying to change
tack fast and is reduced to bare-faced lies now...???




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?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:43:01 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article 4a3f51c1.796538671@localhost, Don Pearce
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

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

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 ****. 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

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

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 !

Graham

due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

David Pitt wrote:

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".

But having looked at

http://www.russandrews.com/downloads...estPremRes.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.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:17:15 +0100, David Pitt
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.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

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.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Eeyore" wrote
in message ...


David Pitt wrote:

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".

But having looked at

http://www.russandrews.com/downloads...estPremRes.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.

Graham

Ahhhhh....... Researching this right now eh? Can you
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

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Pheel My Arsehole" 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

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


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.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

In article 4a400810.843208703@localhost, Don Pearce
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:43:01 +0100, 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. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

In article , Eeyore
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. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:45:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article 4a400810.843208703@localhost, Don Pearce
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:43:01 +0100, 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.


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

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

In article ,
Keith G 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 bull**** 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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


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.

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.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"TT" wrote in message
. au...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Pheel My Arsehole" 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



Wiser people than me ignore him and some people here *avoid him* because,
when it comes down to it on a 'technical front', he could eat them for
breakfast. (They know who they are. ;-)

On his more *lucid* days, needless to say....

Dear Jim...
 

"Jim Lesurf"


** Dear Jim,

you are one of the most totally ****ed in the head, retarded autistic
pukes alive in the UK

- and that is saying something - cos the whole stinking **** hole is just
crawling with them.

People like YOU constitute a serious public menace, for the sole reason
that you are so damn ****ing STUPID.

Not a damn thing you can do about THAT - of course.

But beware, there is plenty OTHERS can do about YOU !!!

The terminally stupid in society cause FAR FAR more trouble than all the
nutters and psychos put together.

Please please please, for the benfit of humanity

get very ill - very soon and ****ing die.




...... Phil

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Jim Lesurf"


** Dear Jim,

you are one of the most totally ****ed in the head, retarded autistic
pukes alive in the UK - and that is saying something - cos the whole
stinking **** hole is just crawling with them.

People like YOU constitute a serious public menace, for the sole reason
that you are so damn ****ing STUPID.

Not a damn thing you can do about THAT - of course.

But beware, there is plenty OTHERS can do about YOU !!!

The terminally stupid in society cause FAR FAR more trouble than all the
nutters and psychos put together.

Please please please, for the benfit of humanity

get very ill - very soon and ****ing die.





...... Phil

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Jim Lesurf"

** Dear Jim,

you are one of the most totally ****ed in the head, retarded autistic
pukes alive in the UK - and that is saying something - cos the whole
stinking **** hole is just crawling with them.

People like YOU constitute a serious public menace, for the sole reason
that you are so damn ****ing STUPID.

Not a damn thing you can do about THAT - of course.

But beware, there is plenty OTHERS can do about YOU !!!

The terminally stupid in society cause FAR FAR more trouble than all the
nutters and psychos put together.

Please please please, for the benfit of humanity

get very ill - very soon and ****ing die.




...... Phil

Dear Jim...
 

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:08:13 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf"


** Dear Jim,

you are one of the most totally ****ed in the head, retarded autistic
pukes alive in the UK

- and that is saying something - cos the whole stinking **** hole is just
crawling with them.

People like YOU constitute a serious public menace, for the sole reason
that you are so damn ****ing STUPID.

Not a damn thing you can do about THAT - of course.

But beware, there is plenty OTHERS can do about YOU !!!

The terminally stupid in society cause FAR FAR more trouble than all the
nutters and psychos put together.

Please please please, for the benfit of humanity

get very ill - very soon and ****ing die.




..... Phil



I love the "Dear Jim" at the start. If only he had finished with "lots
of love, Phil".

But I wonder about the antepenultimate paragraph. Is he at last
admitting that he is a nutter and a psycho?

d

Dear Jim...
 

"Don Pearce"


** This vile, ASD ****ed **** makes Jim look like a saint.


Look up " ASD "

Look up the real meaning of "****".

****ed = ruined or made worthless.

Don't just react to my carefully chosen words emotionally.





..... Phil

Dear Jim...
 

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:19:26 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"Don Pearce"


** This vile, ASD ****ed **** makes Jim look like a saint.


Look up " ASD "

Look up the real meaning of "****".

****ed = ruined or made worthless.

Don't just react to my carefully chosen words emotionally.





.... Phil


Poor Phil appears to have a deep-seated fear and loathing of both
female genitalia and sex itself. I wonder what caused that.

d

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


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.


OK, it goes like this, but first I had to substitute a speaker cable for a
mains lead as I couldn't easily experiment with mains leads (same
principles):

Current 'conventional wisdom' says a speaker (or any other) cable should be
able to carry the required current (and be long enough) and it generally
accepted that summat like a 79 strand copper wire of a certain gauge is
quite good enough. At any rate, most speaker cables that are available today
online and in the shops are around this mark; Snake Oil Merchants build on
this by adding in exotic and expensive materials and inevitably increasing
cable cross-sectional sizes.

I reduced an ordinary 'conventional' speaker cable to a single strand to see
what happened.

Nothing happened - as I suspected, it makes no difference to the sound that
I can detect, other than mess the image about - which I suspect could be
easily sorted by reducing the other speaker wire to a single strand also. It
is still working fine and sound levels have been pushed up to
'uncomfortable' a number of times.

The point is/was/would have been that, although a single strand of wire
isn't practicable (unless strong enough to survive), it makes a
'conventional' wire so *overkill* that an even more OTT 'snake oil cable'
wouldn't be considered for a moment by enough people to make the exercise
worthwhile or to grow the size RA seems. Or, to put it another way, snake
oil merchants get to sell more today because 'normal' speaker cables are so
much bigger than they used to be - even when using the 'powerhouse' amps of
the 70s!

IOW, it's 'conventional wisdom' that is actually driving the snake oil
merchants!

OK?

(****-all to do with *fuses* or any other irrelevant interpretation of what
I was doing....)

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


Wiser people than me ignore him and some people here *avoid him* because,
when it comes down to it on a 'technical front', he could eat them for
breakfast. (They know who they are. ;-)


I'll forgive you for thinking that since your own technical knowledge is
non-existant. Whilst he certainly knows his stuff, he is far from being the
great all-round expert he portrays himself as. The only person here who he
could "eat for breakfast" on the technical front is yourself.

David.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


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.

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...


Oh dear, **** reaches into his 'smartarse things to say on handy wipe-clean
cards box' and is waving 'Ohms Law' about!

If he had any *real outdoor knowledge* of the situation I described (and
have witnessed on a number of occasions) he would know that jump leads for
commercial vehilcles are long, heavy (very) and expensive (very) - nobody I
ever knew had more than the one set to choose from.

Twerpy Know Nothing For Real probably thinks the current kills the leads?

Wrong! It's when the guy on the starter button can't see/hear the guy
watching the leads - I'll leave it to you people to fill in the blank
parameter....





David.

--
*All generalizations are false.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


Wiser people than me ignore him and some people here *avoid him* because,
when it comes down to it on a 'technical front', he could eat them for
breakfast. (They know who they are. ;-)


I'll forgive you for thinking that since your own technical knowledge is
non-existant. Whilst he certainly knows his stuff, he is far from being
the great all-round expert he portrays himself as. The only person here
who he could "eat for breakfast" on the technical front is yourself.



No, I don't think so - read again: 'They know who they are'....

Btw, don't worry too much about my 'technical knowledge' (in any field) - I
make it sufficient for needs whatever/whenever the occasion and have never
yet failed to achieve what I set out to do....

(Includes dipping into the 'electronics bin' as and when I wanted, a while
back - no big deal.... ;-)

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...



OK, it goes like this, but first I had to substitute a speaker cable for a
mains lead as I couldn't easily experiment with mains leads (same
principles):

Current 'conventional wisdom' says a speaker (or any other) cable should
be able to carry the required current (and be long enough) and it
generally accepted that summat like a 79 strand copper wire of a certain
gauge is quite good enough.

"Conventional Wisdom" says that a speaker cable needs to be of largish
cross-sectional area in order to bring the resistance down to an acceptable
value. This is what determines the CSA that "Conventional Wisdom"
recommends, not the current-carrying capacity of the cable. This is based
on engineering.

Snake Oil Merchants build on this by adding in exotic and expensive
materials and inevitably increasing cable cross-sectional sizes.

I reduced an ordinary 'conventional' speaker cable to a single strand to
see what happened.

No you didn't, you simply just used one strand of your multi-stranded cable
to connect to the terminal. For most of the length of the cable you were
still using a cable with a large CSA.

Nothing happened - as I suspected, it makes no difference to the sound
that I can detect, other than mess the image about - which I suspect could
be easily sorted by reducing the other speaker wire to a single strand
also. It is still working fine and sound levels have been pushed up to
'uncomfortable' a number of times.

Now try it with a single 0.2mm strand the whole way from the amp to the
speaker, see if it still makes "no difference to the sound". That test might
mean something, yours doesn't.

The point is/was/would have been that, although a single strand of wire
isn't practicable (unless strong enough to survive), it makes a
'conventional' wire so *overkill* that an even more OTT 'snake oil cable'
wouldn't be considered for a moment by enough people to make the exercise
worthwhile or to grow the size RA seems. Or, to put it another way, snake
oil merchants get to sell more today because 'normal' speaker cables are
so much bigger than they used to be - even when using the 'powerhouse'
amps of the 70s!

IOW, it's 'conventional wisdom' that is actually driving the snake oil
merchants!

You simply misunderstand what 'conventional wisdom' is saying, and why.

OK?

(****-all to do with *fuses* or any other irrelevant interpretation of
what I was doing....)

Sorry, what you were doing was so pointless and meaningless that *any*
intepretation is as relevant as any other.

David.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G 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 bull**** 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.


Somebodey tell Poochie that a long, thin (but not too thin) wire would make
a passable clothes line for at least temporary use and a long enough (but
much thicker) wire might make a fairly handy tow rope, at a pinch.....

He ****ed up; he got it wrong; how much more wriggling and writhing do we
have to witness...??



--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:58:46 +0100, "David Looser"
wrote:

"Conventional Wisdom" says that a speaker cable needs to be of largish
cross-sectional area in order to bring the resistance down to an acceptable
value. This is what determines the CSA that "Conventional Wisdom"
recommends, not the current-carrying capacity of the cable. This is based
on engineering.

Can you remind us the difference between "low resistance" and
"current-carrying capability" please?

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

Keith G wrote:

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


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.


OK, it goes like this, but first I had to substitute a speaker cable for
a mains lead as I couldn't easily experiment with mains leads (same
principles):

Current 'conventional wisdom' says a speaker (or any other) cable should
be able to carry the required current (and be long enough) and it
generally accepted that summat like a 79 strand copper wire of a certain
gauge is quite good enough. At any rate, most speaker cables that are
available today online and in the shops are around this mark; Snake Oil
Merchants build on this by adding in exotic and expensive materials and
inevitably increasing cable cross-sectional sizes.

I reduced an ordinary 'conventional' speaker cable to a single strand to
see what happened.

Nothing happened - as I suspected, it makes no difference to the sound
that I can detect, other than mess the image about - which I suspect
could be easily sorted by reducing the other speaker wire to a single
strand also. It is still working fine and sound levels have been pushed
up to 'uncomfortable' a number of times.

The point is/was/would have been that, although a single strand of wire
isn't practicable (unless strong enough to survive), it makes a
'conventional' wire so *overkill* that an even more OTT 'snake oil
cable' wouldn't be considered for a moment by enough people to make the
exercise worthwhile or to grow the size RA seems. Or, to put it another
way, snake oil merchants get to sell more today because 'normal' speaker
cables are so much bigger than they used to be - even when using the
'powerhouse' amps of the 70s!

I think you've missed something in your analysis. You need to consider the cable length.
Conventional wisdom is that your speaker wires should be less than 5% of the impedance of the speakers,
and I don't see anything wrong with that. So I would be perfectly happy using a pair of 0.2mm diameter
wires,
but only up to a length of about 2 ft for normal speakers. (I haven't calculated the exact length.)
And for the ESLs, the cable length would be rather less than half the width of the speaker.
So in many cases, 79 strand cable is overkill, but not by as much as you think.

--
Eiron.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Current 'conventional wisdom' says a speaker (or any other) cable should
be able to carry the required current

Maybe your 'conventional wisdom' But it's wrong.

--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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...


Oh dear, **** reaches into his 'smartarse things to say on handy
wipe-clean cards box' and is waving 'Ohms Law' about!

If he had any *real outdoor knowledge* of the situation I described (and
have witnessed on a number of occasions) he would know that jump leads
for commercial vehilcles are long, heavy (very) and expensive (very) -
nobody I ever knew had more than the one set to choose from.

Twerpy Know Nothing For Real probably thinks the current kills the leads?

Wrong! It's when the guy on the starter button can't see/hear the guy
watching the leads - I'll leave it to you people to fill in the blank
parameter....

Pray tell.

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

In article 4a419cd7.881292296@localhost, Don Pearce
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:45:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf
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).

The method I tend to use is to measure the input impedance vs frequency of
a measured length. But I do this three times, changing the output load -
short, then open, then a standard value like 50 Ohms if the analyser is
feeding in using 50 Ohms. If the measurements are vector the results should
normally allow me to work out the complex impedance as a function of
frequency. ...and of course I'd tend to measure the output end as well as
the input if both are accessible.

Of course, I'd also check the analyser with standard/open/short loading and
use these to calibrate. Generally checking the loads I used above. All very
fiddly, but necessary IMHO if you want the results to be checkable. May be
my NPL experiences that influence me with questions like, "So how do we
know this is 50 Ohms, then?" ;-


Only then could I make a measurement free from the stupid VSWR leaps.

Here the VSWR mismatch seems to be 'the measurement'. :-)


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.

Ditto, as above.

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.

Yes, plus the termination load checks.

FWIW I'd probably also check with cable runs of the same type but different
length to see if the results where consistent.

In fact, I did use much the above methods for the measurements I did on
speaker cables that HFN published last month. (Alas, they did trunkate the
article, but I can put up a fuller version on the web in due course!)

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?

Not sure at this point, so have to make the familiar comment that "I need
to re-read the papers". I do need to do that a few times and think to
ensure I'm not missing things as yet.

But my current impression is that it is meant to be some sort of
'demonstration that the system works OK'. All it indicates to me, though,
is that the source and load had impedances similar to the BNC cable, and
that the BNC cable probably had modest losses. Not enough to determine if
any impedance mismatch effects with other cables were being accurately
measured.

However one of the things that intrigues me is the difference in overall
loss proportional to frequency between the BNC and all the others. Does
look like a measurement system effect to me at present.

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...

That might be a service worth selling to people. "Give us dosh to connect
to your mains and tell you that you should buy more expensive cables." :-)


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.

Probably the other guy with wild white hair. 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:58:46 +0100, "David Looser"
wrote:

"Conventional Wisdom" says that a speaker cable needs to be of largish
cross-sectional area in order to bring the resistance down to an
acceptable
value. This is what determines the CSA that "Conventional Wisdom"
recommends, not the current-carrying capacity of the cable. This is based
on engineering.

Can you remind us the difference between "low resistance" and
"current-carrying capability" please?

Certainly. Current-carrying capacity is based mainly on temperature rise. If
the temperature rises too much then a variety of undesired effects come into
play, ranging from degradation of the plastic of the insulation, via fire
risk (when cables are enclosed or close to combustible substances) to, at
the extreme, melting of the metal of the wire. You may notice that the
current carrying capacity of insulated wires is specified differently
according to how the wire is to be used, e.g., in free air, bundled with
other wires, enclosed in conduit etc.

In domestic audio use the temperature rise of a speaker cable will be
negligible unless of a resistance which is sufficiently high to: a/ waste a
lot of the audio power, and b/ seriously degrade the frequency response of
the system.

David.

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Eiron" wrote


I think you've missed something in your analysis. You need to consider the
cable length.
Conventional wisdom is that your speaker wires should be less than 5% of
the impedance of the speakers,
and I don't see anything wrong with that. So I would be perfectly happy
using a pair of 0.2mm diameter wires,
but only up to a length of about 2 ft for normal speakers. (I haven't
calculated the exact length.)
And for the ESLs, the cable length would be rather less than half the
width of the speaker.
So in many cases, 79 strand cable is overkill, but not by as much as you
think.


It was only a quick 'I wonder what if' and was never meant to be anything
more than that - I have no means (or interest) to *measure* anything here.
If it helps, substitute 'current common practice' for 'conventional wisdom'
where it will do the most good.

For speaker cables I have always been happy to use mains flex (extension
lead) and have recently dropped down even from that to '13 strand Fig 8 twin
speaker flex' from B&Q and find that perfectly satisfactory. Can't remember
what it costs for a 10m pack but it's a hell of a lot less than 'speaker
cable' from the local hifi shop!!

From now on I would be equally happy with 'lamp flex'..!!

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"David Looser" wrote


Certainly. Current-carrying capacity is based mainly on temperature rise.
If the temperature rises too much then a variety of undesired effects come
into play, ranging from degradation of the plastic of the insulation, via
fire risk (when cables are enclosed or close to combustible substances)
to, at the extreme, melting of the metal of the wire. You may notice that
the current carrying capacity of insulated wires is specified differently
according to how the wire is to be used, e.g., in free air, bundled with
other wires, enclosed in conduit etc.


Nicely put - now tell that to Pucci who can't work out why:

Wrong! It's when the guy on the starter button can't see/hear the guy
watching the leads - I'll leave it to you people to fill in the blank
parameter....

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:39:30 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Eiron" wrote


I think you've missed something in your analysis. You need to consider the
cable length.
Conventional wisdom is that your speaker wires should be less than 5% of
the impedance of the speakers,
and I don't see anything wrong with that. So I would be perfectly happy
using a pair of 0.2mm diameter wires,
but only up to a length of about 2 ft for normal speakers. (I haven't
calculated the exact length.)
And for the ESLs, the cable length would be rather less than half the
width of the speaker.
So in many cases, 79 strand cable is overkill, but not by as much as you
think.


It was only a quick 'I wonder what if' and was never meant to be anything
more than that - I have no means (or interest) to *measure* anything here.
If it helps, substitute 'current common practice' for 'conventional wisdom'
where it will do the most good.

For speaker cables I have always been happy to use mains flex (extension
lead) and have recently dropped down even from that to '13 strand Fig 8 twin
speaker flex' from B&Q and find that perfectly satisfactory. Can't remember
what it costs for a 10m pack but it's a hell of a lot less than 'speaker
cable' from the local hifi shop!!

From now on I would be equally happy with 'lamp flex'..!!



Look, here is how it goes.

For a speaker cable, there is a single, simple "figure of merit" that
tells you if it is ok, and that is the resistance. Two things
influence that, length and thickness - and of these two the thickness
is much the more important. If you double the length, you double the
resistance (a bad thing), but if you double the thickness, you divide
the resistance by four (because it depends on the area, not the
thickness). So thick is good. But thick enough is good enough.
Provided you end up with a resistance (for the full round trip) under
about half an ohm, that will be fine.

Now, what happens if the resistance is too high? Mostly nothing. You
set the volume control to where you like the sound, and that is that.
The fact that the volume control is a bit more clockwise than it might
have been doesn't matter - unless you are trying to be loud, that is.
Your amp will run into clipping and distortion at a much lower volume
if your speaker leads are too thin (and too long).

So in the house, with leads just a few feet long, lamp flex is fine.
If you want them out in the garden for the barbie, use something
thicker.

Finally your little test - meaningless, I'm afraid. That odd inch of
single strand added essentially no resistance to the whole cable
because it was so short.

d

Dear Jim...
 

"Don Pearce"


** This vile, ASD ****ed pommy **** makes Jim look like a saint.

Look up " ASD "

Look up the real meaning of "****".

****ed = ruined or made worthless.

Don't just react to my carefully chosen words emotionally.

Cos Jesus Christ I mean them.





..... Phil

** Dear Jim,
 

"Jim Lesurf"

** Dear Jim,

you are one of the most totally ****ed in the head, retarded autistic
pukes alive in the UK - and that is saying something - cos the whole
stinking **** hole is just crawling with them.

People like YOU constitute a serious public menace, for the sole reason
that you are so damn ****ing STUPID.

Not a damn thing you can do about THAT - of course.

But beware, there is plenty OTHERS can do about YOU !!!

The terminally stupid in society cause FAR FAR more trouble than all the
nutters and psychos put together.

Please please please, for the benfit of humanity

get very ill - very soon and ****ing die.

So well can all stop worrying about what

STUPID ****ING CRAP

you will decide self publish next.




...... Phil