In article ,
Keith G 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 **** 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.*

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

In article ,
Eiron 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.

--
*Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.

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

Keith G wrote:

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
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....??

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.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Eiron 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 **** 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 ******** - 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....




--
*Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.

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

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
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....??

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.


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!!

"Eiron" 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...?? :-)

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..

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:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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

[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/...eshift/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/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Keith G 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 **** 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 '****ter'? Can't stand being ignored?

--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

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

"Eiron"

What's the length

'Bout an inch....

and thickness of your single strand of wire?

Real tiny - less than a mm?


Must read the thread more closely. Didn't see the photo.
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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Keith G
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