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