Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

In article , Keith G
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.

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! :-)

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 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:14:26 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article 4a3f51c1.796538671@localhost, Don Pearce
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

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Keith Git"


Ever figured out what that horrible burning smell that follows you about all
the time is ???

****WIT !!!!



...... Phil

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

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

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

In article 4a438b4d.811270640@localhost,
Don Pearce 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? ;-)

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

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

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

In article ,
Keith G 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

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

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article 4a438b4d.811270640@localhost,
Don Pearce 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....



--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

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

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a3dec21.704992218@localhost...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:03:51 +0100, 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

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...eshift/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! ;-)

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"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. :-(

Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G 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....?? ;-)



--
*There's no place like www.home.com *

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