More audio tomfoolery
 

Not sure where to start with this. Audioquest:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02...thernet_cable/

On their web site, they do a 'Computer audio demystified' report:

http://www.audioquest.com/computer-audio/

page 24:

"More CPU processing power and more RAM make your music playback sound
better. Additionally, newer 64-bit operating systems like Windows 7 and
Mac OS X tend to offer better sound quality than older 32-bit operating
systems. Whether the hard drive you store your music on is internal or
external, the quality of the hard drive and how it’s connected to your
computer impacts your computer audio sound. Higher transfer speeds sound
better, so faster spinning hard drives sound better. A 7200RPM drive
offers better audio performance than a 5400RPM drive. Solid-state drives
with no spinning discs sound better still, but before purchasing a
solid-state drive check the specifications for speed and get the fastest
transfer speed you can afford."

And it goes on.

--
Cheers, Rob

More audio tomfoolery
 

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:35:44 +0100, RJH wrote:

Nice to see the Register being discriminating for once, all too often
its articles are garbage in garbage out. But it would be more to the
point to report the offenders to the ASA, as I have just reported
eBuyer.

And it goes on.

I'm sure it does, these scams always do, but the quote in the article
tells you quite a lot:

“The beating heart of the AudioQuest Diamond are the Solid 100% Silver
Perfect Surface conductors where raw silver is processed by drawing
through at a much slower speed than normal to create an ultra-smooth
surface area free of indents and grooves.”

Unlike gold, silver corrodes quite easily. That's why your family
silver needs constant cleaning by the ball of your butler's thumb
wrapped in a suitable cloth.

Er, did I need to put a smiley on that?
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

More audio tomfoolery
 

Does nobody actually check what is put out then?
The problem here I think is that the person writing it has taken the
possible quality idea, and assumed that because the quality you could get
could be much better, it in fact will be. Most mp3s are knackerd as soon as
they are made which is obvious to us of course, but are adaquate for some
purposes. it is also true that the speed of the computer improves the speed
that mp3 files are decoded, but this should not matter as all h you get is a
bit more latency as the sound is buffered in any case. Same thing for
retrieval speed of drives and networks etc, but the writer misses completely
that the die is cast by the way the file was made.
If however you are wanting to run a multi track recording studio using raw
digital streams all running at the same time you will need a fast maching
with the correct hardware, maybe a Scsci interfaced professional card.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"RJH" wrote in message
...
Not sure where to start with this. Audioquest:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02...thernet_cable/

On their web site, they do a 'Computer audio demystified' report:

http://www.audioquest.com/computer-audio/

page 24:

"More CPU processing power and more RAM make your music playback sound
better. Additionally, newer 64-bit operating systems like Windows 7 and
Mac OS X tend to offer better sound quality than older 32-bit operating
systems. Whether the hard drive you store your music on is internal or
external, the quality of the hard drive and how itâ?Ts connected to your
computer impacts your computer audio sound. Higher transfer speeds sound
better, so faster spinning hard drives sound better. A 7200RPM drive
offers better audio performance than a 5400RPM drive. Solid-state drives
with no spinning discs sound better still, but before purchasing a
solid-state drive check the specifications for speed and get the fastest
transfer speed you can afford."

And it goes on.

--
Cheers, Rob

More audio tomfoolery
 

In article , Java Jive
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:35:44 +0100, RJH wrote:

Nice to see the Register being discriminating for once, all too often
its articles are garbage in garbage out. But it would be more to the
point to report the offenders to the ASA, as I have just reported eBuyer.

I suspect the ASA wouldn't help. They rarely have a clue anyway, and I
suspect AQ would be:

1) American, so out of juristiction

2) Its a 'report' not and advert, so can probably contain any guff. CF also
the reports written for Uncle Russ in the past for the ASA.

I guess that I'll have to get around to writing some sensible pages on such
topics. Alas HFN haven't been that interested so I keep doing other things.
But it might help combat the 'Mountains Out Of Molehills' twaddle
dominating over more sensible aspects being understood.

I'm no expert on Windows or Macs but I suspect the entire quote could be
replaced by something like:

Provided you use a decent DAC/soundcard that clocks the samples regularly
and provides sufficient hardware bufferring to cope with a distracted
computer then the results may be affected by failing to ensure sufficient
bufferring and regular timing at other stages in the process. However in
most computer systems in recent years this should be easy enough to get
right given that a hifi enthusiast can be expected to be using a good
DAC/soundcard. You may need a clue about how to set up the OS, etc, though,
as outlined below...

A more likely source of degrading audio quality is the idiotic (for HiFi
uses) computer OS / application practices of 'mixing' and messing about
with the audio without your awareness. Setting up the system to *not* do
this may be more helpful than wasting time emoting about the choice of OS
or storage device. Alas, OS and software suppliers may make this harder
than it should be. Having to install a 'driver' may make it impossible to
sort out unless you're using a decent DAC/soundcard whose makers understand
these issues.

And it goes on.

I'm sure it does, these scams always do, but the quote in the article
tells you quite a lot:

The beating heart of the AudioQuest Diamond are the Solid 100% Silver
Perfect Surface conductors where raw silver is processed by drawing
through at a much slower speed than normal to create an ultra-smooth
surface area free of indents and grooves."

I wonder where the get 100% silver and how the keep it from *any*
contamination from the extrusion die onwards.

Unlike gold, silver corrodes quite easily. That's why your family
silver needs constant cleaning by the ball of your butler's thumb
wrapped in a suitable cloth.

Er, did I need to put a smiley on that?

What's the smiley for tearing out your hair in exasperation? I can't help
as I don't have that much left anyway! 8-]

IIRC Silver also has a particular tendency to corrode in contact with PTFE.
This combination is often touted and praised by vendors of costly cables.
But IIRC it was found years ago by defence workers that the way the silver
and ptfe were made and formed together into cable could cause the silver to
degrade. Where's Arnie when you want him? :-)

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

I'm under the impression silver tarnishes; that's to say, there's a layer of staining sitting on top of the surface of the silver, which is easily wiped away with lime juice.
I've been thinking copper corrodes; that's to say, there's a chemical reaction within the copper itself, which is destructive and similar to rust in iron.
Anybody have a more precise explanation? Just curious.

More audio tomfoolery
 

In article , John R Leddy
wrote:

Java Jive;94051 Wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:35:44 +0100, RJH wrote:
Unlike gold, silver corrodes quite easily. That's why your family
silver needs constant cleaning by the ball of your butler's thumb
wrapped in a suitable cloth.
I'm under the impression silver tarnishes; that's to say, there's a
layer of staining sitting on top of the surface of the silver, which is
easily wiped away with lime juice. I've been thinking copper corrodes;
that's to say, there's a chemical reaction within the copper itself,
which is destructive and similar to rust in iron. Anybody have a more
precise explanation? Just curious.

Both copper and sliver tarnish quickly when exposed to air, etc. However if
undisturbed the coating of tarnish does then to partly act as a barrier to
further tarnish. Only 'partly' though.

Most metals sold for general uses are impure or alloyed. So can suffer from
all kinds of degrading. Problem is that as the punter you often can't tell
what you're getting despite fancy labels.

So much for the way fancy cable makers can obsess about 'skin effect'.

All that said, I've never had problems with 'copper' *cables* deteriorating
in use, despite buying fairly basic types for which no fancy claims are
made or fancy prices charged. I've used much the same cables for over 30
years in some case.

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

More audio tomfoolery
 

In article ,
John R Leddy wrote:

Java Jive;94051 Wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:35:44 +0100, RJH wrote:
Unlike gold, silver corrodes quite easily. That's why your family
silver needs constant cleaning by the ball of your butler's thumb
wrapped in a suitable cloth.
I'm under the impression silver tarnishes; that's to say, there's a
layer of staining sitting on top of the surface of the silver, which is
easily wiped away with lime juice.
I've been thinking copper corrodes; that's to say, there's a chemical
reaction within the copper itself, which is destructive and similar to
rust in iron.
Anybody have a more precise explanation? Just curious.

As regards switch contacts, silver is certainly a better choice than
copper in terms of staying low resistance. But there may well be a better
'plating' than silver which is also cheaper than gold.

My old car has copper contacts on much of the switch gear. If it is
handling high current, seem to stay working. The same design switches
which are only controlling a relay so low current need frequent cleaning.
They are a design which is is easy to open up, and all the internal copper
parts are often green after a few years. ;-)

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

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

More audio tomfoolery
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , John R Leddy
wrote:

Java Jive;94051 Wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:35:44 +0100, RJH wrote:
Unlike gold, silver corrodes quite easily. That's why your family
silver needs constant cleaning by the ball of your butler's thumb
wrapped in a suitable cloth.
I'm under the impression silver tarnishes; that's to say, there's a
layer of staining sitting on top of the surface of the silver, which
is easily wiped away with lime juice. I've been thinking copper
corrodes; that's to say, there's a chemical reaction within the copper
itself, which is destructive and similar to rust in iron. Anybody have
a more precise explanation? Just curious.

As regards switch contacts, silver is certainly a better choice than
copper in terms of staying low resistance. But there may well be a
better 'plating' than silver which is also cheaper than gold.

IIRC There are a number of different treatings which can generate a 'hard'
(i.e. resistant to being scraped away) don't tarnish, etc. Even 'gold'
tends to be a series of layers of alloys, etc. By itelf, gold tends to wipe
off metal surfaces very easily. I think the coatings involve layers /
alloys using things like rhodium, tec.

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

More audio tomfoolery
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , John R Leddy
wrote:

Java Jive;94051 Wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:35:44 +0100, RJH wrote:
Unlike gold, silver corrodes quite easily. That's why your family
silver needs constant cleaning by the ball of your butler's thumb
wrapped in a suitable cloth.
I'm under the impression silver tarnishes; that's to say, there's a
layer of staining sitting on top of the surface of the silver, which
is easily wiped away with lime juice. I've been thinking copper
corrodes; that's to say, there's a chemical reaction within the copper
itself, which is destructive and similar to rust in iron. Anybody have
a more precise explanation? Just curious.

As regards switch contacts, silver is certainly a better choice than
copper in terms of staying low resistance. But there may well be a
better 'plating' than silver which is also cheaper than gold.

IIRC There are a number of different treatings which can generate a 'hard'
(i.e. resistant to being scraped away) don't tarnish, etc. Even 'gold'
tends to be a series of layers of alloys, etc. By itelf, gold tends to wipe
off metal surfaces very easily. I think the coatings involve layers /
alloys using things like rhodium, tec.

I recall on a particular project some years ago, a make of relay
that had been fine previously was suddenly giving great problems
- they appeared to be physically closing the contacts, but not
passing current.

After much head scratching the story emerged that the supplier's
moulds were wearing, but they didn't have time to replace them
and meet our large order schedule. Instead, to get the plastic
components down to size, they had been linished. After assembly
and test they were then individually bagged and shipped, and we
duly built them into our kit, tested as OK and delivered the
finished equipment.

The dust from linishing, trapped in the plastic bag, formed a
thin film over the contacts, and once they had opened under load
a few times (this was a 110 V dc system) the arcing was
sufficient to fuse a little of the material into an insulating
layer. Routine testing alone was sadly insufficient to trigger
this.

No butlers were required, but the simple solution was the service
engineer's thumb, which was sufficiently abrasive to clean the
contacts without damaging the material.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

When I played CDs it would've been inconceivable for me to connect my computer to my hi-fi system and use its disc player for CD replay. Instead, I purchased a dedicated CD player hi-fi component. Likewise, now I'm playing FLAC files I have a dedicated network audio player. I did have a go at using the wife's laptop as a network audio renderer into an external USB DAC. This was my first attempt at playing FLAC files through my stereo. I decided instantly I wouldn't be purchasing a dedicated laptop for the purpose, and proceeded to investigate network audio players.

I like the way Audioquest end their 2012 article with the statement, "The computer audio future is now." Talk about slow on the uptake! I'd been collecting and playing FLAC files on my computer for around about 10 years by then. I've never used MP3 myself, but I assume others have been replaying those types of files for even longer.

It's just plain weird to still read on the web today how network audio is somehow complicated requiring specialist attention. Call me a cynic, but I guess there must be money passing hands somewhere. I'm no computer expert but even I know it merely involves connecting a few components together, no different from any other piece of hi-fi equipment, and I'm an old codger to boot!

To me, it's not the cable which costs £7,000, it's becoming a member of an elite which costs £7,000. It would be completely impractical for everyone to own a country mansion and a Royce, but human nature being what it is, for the price of a small car you too could be a very special person. This striving for publicly acknowledged achievement in a pretty shallow, and somewhat ignorant, world is a godsend for those in marketing.

It really doesn't matter what the item is, simply bumping up the price until fewer and fewer people are willing, or possess the disposable income, to purchase whatever product is being promoted will always find those daft enough to be parted with their money. We all have our weaknesses, this case just happens to be preying on the insecurities of uncertainty, or if you prefer, ignorance.

You'd think education would be our saviour, but it doesn't take long reading around the web to realise pomp and ceremony are valued way above fact on all rungs of society's ladder. It's a bit scary really how something as vulgar as a £7,000 interconnect cable could possibly be perceived as possessing an authentic value, never mind the intellect which attempts to qualify a deserved personal ownership. Yuck! As I say, we all have our foibles, and none of us are immune from ourselves.