|
|
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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 |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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 [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 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 |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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 [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? |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:28:31 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote: 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 [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? 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 |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
In article , Laurence Payne
wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:03:51 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote: 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? 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 -- 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 :-)
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 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 |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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. d |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
"Laurence Payne"
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: www.redsheep.co.uk 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 |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
In article 4a3e17c2.716159265@localhost, 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. 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 -- 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 :-)
"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 ****, smells like dog ****, feels like dog ****, tastes like dog ****. Must be dog ****. Good thing we didn't step in it! ". Poor, dumb Jim has it all over his shoes. ...... Phil |
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". 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. 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 |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
"Rob" wrote in message om... 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 [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 . . . :-) 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.... :-) |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
In article ,
Keith G 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... -- *Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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. 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 -- 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 , Keith G
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. 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 -- 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 :-)
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G 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 **** how fuses actually work - he seems to think it's a 'size thing'...!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...strialFuse.jpg http://www.global-b2b-network.com/b2...se_cutout.html -- *Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me* Yeah, riiight..... Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... 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. 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! |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G 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.... |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
Keith G wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G 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. |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
"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....?? |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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. |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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. |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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. |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
"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. |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
"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!! |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
"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...?? :-) |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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. |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
"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 |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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 |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message om... 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 [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 . . . :-) 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 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 :-) |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
In article , Brian Gaff
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 -- 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 :-)
Phil Allison wrote:
"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. 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. |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
In article , Rob
wrote: 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? 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 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 2009-06-21, 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 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 |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:51:15 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote: In article , Brian Gaff 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 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 |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
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. -- *Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Russ Andrews and Ben Duncan :-)
On 22 Jun, wrote:
In article , 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/resea...rchpaper09.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 -- 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 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. :-) 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?... 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 12:05:39 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote: On 22 Jun, wrote: In article , 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/resea...rchpaper09.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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk