A hifi bargain...

[keithr]

On 23/07/2014 2:54 PM, Trevor wrote:

"asdf" <asdf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lqm0l2$lt9$1@speranza.aioe.org...
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
We gave up on the idea when we realised neither of us was capable of
keeping
a straight face for long enough to sell it to anyone.

This is the reason behind the invention of salesmen.

Exactly, and if you hire salesmen with no understanding of electronics, you
simply need to make them believe the bullshit, and they will have no problem
keeping a straight face!
A highly (pseudo) technical "white paper" on the benefits (which they will
not understand) is a good way to "inform" them and their customers.

Trevor.

What is the difference between a HiFi salesman and a used car salesman?
- the used car salesman knows when he is lying.

 

[keithr]

On 23/07/2014 11:37 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 23/07/2014 11:07 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 10:33 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:18 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 10:11 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 7:35 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 9:20 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 6:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 22/07/2014 8:52 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
message
news:c360rmFacn1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2014 11:23 AM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:9s3rs9lkn8dc8is4ke1jbkqlthe4leu9sd@4ax.com...
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/

Bybee Holographic AC Adapter
RRP: $2,795.00
Now $2,295.00.

The next logical progression from "directional" cables.

"Whileever there're stupid people with money, there'll be smart
people
to take it from them."

A couple of decades ago, a friend and I contemplated ordering a
special
run of twin-core "AC flex" (you know the type, used to connect
lights &
switches in 99.999% of Australian households) in black. The
plan
was to
sell it to audiophiles for $100/metre as "super-high-grade
lossless
pure
copper ultra-transparent" speaker cable.

**Many speaker cables are configured and sold similarly. Many,
but
certainly not all. There is nothing special about most speaker
cables,
apart from the pretty cosmetics.


We gave up on the idea when we realised neither of us was
capable of
keeping a straight face for long enough to sell it to anyone. I
can
guarantee though that it would've performed better than any of
the
$300-$500/metre crap being flogged commercially.


**You can make no such guarantee. Like many who look from the
outside,
your simplistic approach can be tested and dismissed quite
quickly.

I make these observations as (a) an electronics engineer and
(b) a
former employee of a rather high end audio wholesale/retail
group.

**Then do the math on my cited examples. As an electronic
engineer,
you
should be well aware that 'figure 8' type cables present the
highest
possible inductance figures and thus are unsuited to a number of
applications.


Don't believe me? Dust off your calculator and factor in a long
speaker cable run (say, 20 Metres) for these speakers:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Kappa9&image=090801082656_kappa9.jpg











And:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg











The typical resistance and inductance of the cables you suggest
are
approximately 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.9 uH.Metre respectively.

OTOH, a top-of-the-line speaker cable, like the Goertz MI-1
possesses
figures of 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.012 uH/Metre respectively.

Run the numbers. You'll realise that SOME systems require
different
geometry speaker cables than standard 'figure 8' types. Low
inductance
figures can be pivotal to good performance. In most such
cases, I
suggest using RG213/U, which offers sunstantially lower
inductance
than regular cables, but at a rational price. Not as good as
Goertz
though.

You're quite right that there will be a difference, but the
question
arises, will in general use this difference be perceptible to the
unbiased human ear (i.e., will blind tests consistently show that
"bells
'n' whistles" speaker cable is better than regular
electrical/RF/network
cable or cheaper generic speaker cable)?

**The difference will be measureable (within the limits of
accepted
audibility). Therefore, there will be an audible difference to
some
listeners.


Except in a double blind trial.


**Nonsense. I am suprised that I need to walk anyone through the
maths
in an electronics group, but, perhap, I should not be surprised.
Anyway,
here goes:

In the second speaker cited, there is an impedance dip at
approximately
15kHz of around 0.55 Ohms.

The inductive reactance of 10 Metres of 'figure 8' speaker cable
(almost
any variant) is:

0.9 X 10^-6 X 10 = 9 X 10^-6 H.

9 X 10^-6 X 15000 X 2 X pi = 0.85 Ohms.

= A significant and AUDIBLE dip in the frequency response (provided
the
listener's hearing extends beyond 15kHz). 20 Metre cables will be
far
worse.

OTOH: The Goertz MI-1 cited will exibit a significantly lower XL.
I'll
let you work that out.

BTW: I have zero objection to double blind trials. That said, when
obviously audible anomalies are evident, double blind trials merely
confirm the blindingly obvious.




That audiophools are just as likely to pick the dodgey cabling as
sounding better, sure.





**I apologise for over-estimating your ability to understand technical
matters and basic electronic maths. I won't make that mistake again.


You fail to understand that if you are running 20 metres of cabling
that
the noticeable sound difference is so negligible as to be irrelevant
compared to so many other factors.

**Bullshit. Do the math.

The math is irrelevant to the perceived audible difference over 20
metres when all the other factors are considered which is the point you
seem to be missing.

**WTF are you smoking? A variation of several dB will be noticable by
many listeners.






What the difference is technically isn't reflected as a practical
difference - that is something you fail to understand.

**WTF are you talking about? The auible differences are measureable
differences, which are no different to the mathematically prediced
differences.



Of course they are in how they are perceived by the listener. Humans
listen with their ears and minds, not mathematical equations.

**My entire career is and has been consumed by technical measurements.
Those measurements correlate remarkably well with what we hear. In fact,
measurements (and mathematics) is utterly essential to develop all
electonic and electrical system. That you persist in arguing this point
is just plain stupid.


There are so many factors which will affect how something sounds when
talking about 20 metre spans that the audible difference caused by the
cabling isn't likely to be much of a factor.

**What are those things you mention?


That you fail to get this as someone in the game is astounding.

Sigh.

**Like I said: Study some electrical theory and get back to us.

Face it Trevor, technical measurements are only of use to advertise
goods, or to brag about your possessions. If you happen to be a musician
with the wherewithall to spend megabucks on a system, expensive speaker
cables may be marginally worthwhile, but for 99.9% of the population the
transmission line parameters of them are totally irrelevant no matter
what your meters say.

 

[atec77]

On 24/07/2014 1:42 PM, keithr wrote:

On 23/07/2014 11:37 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 11:07 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 10:33 AM, Clocky wrote:
Sigh.

**Like I said: Study some electrical theory and get back to us.


Face it Trevor, technical measurements are only of use to advertise
goods, or to brag about your possessions. If you happen to be a musician
with the wherewithall to spend megabucks on a system, expensive speaker
cables may be marginally worthwhile, but for 99.9% of the population the
transmission line parameters of them are totally irrelevant no matter
what your meters say.

Remember with such a vested interest twevy will bend twist and obscure
with goalpost moving no matter the facts



--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 24/07/2014 1:42 PM, keithr wrote:

On 23/07/2014 11:37 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 11:07 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 10:33 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:18 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 10:11 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 7:35 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 9:20 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 6:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 22/07/2014 8:52 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
message
news:c360rmFacn1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2014 11:23 AM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:9s3rs9lkn8dc8is4ke1jbkqlthe4leu9sd@4ax.com...
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/

Bybee Holographic AC Adapter
RRP: $2,795.00
Now $2,295.00.

The next logical progression from "directional" cables.

"Whileever there're stupid people with money, there'll be
smart
people
to take it from them."

A couple of decades ago, a friend and I contemplated
ordering a
special
run of twin-core "AC flex" (you know the type, used to connect
lights &
switches in 99.999% of Australian households) in black. The
plan
was to
sell it to audiophiles for $100/metre as "super-high-grade
lossless
pure
copper ultra-transparent" speaker cable.

**Many speaker cables are configured and sold similarly. Many,
but
certainly not all. There is nothing special about most speaker
cables,
apart from the pretty cosmetics.


We gave up on the idea when we realised neither of us was
capable of
keeping a straight face for long enough to sell it to
anyone. I
can
guarantee though that it would've performed better than any of
the
$300-$500/metre crap being flogged commercially.


**You can make no such guarantee. Like many who look from the
outside,
your simplistic approach can be tested and dismissed quite
quickly.

I make these observations as (a) an electronics engineer and
(b) a
former employee of a rather high end audio wholesale/retail
group.

**Then do the math on my cited examples. As an electronic
engineer,
you
should be well aware that 'figure 8' type cables present the
highest
possible inductance figures and thus are unsuited to a number of
applications.


Don't believe me? Dust off your calculator and factor in a long
speaker cable run (say, 20 Metres) for these speakers:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Kappa9&image=090801082656_kappa9.jpg












And:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg












The typical resistance and inductance of the cables you suggest
are
approximately 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.9 uH.Metre respectively.

OTOH, a top-of-the-line speaker cable, like the Goertz MI-1
possesses
figures of 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.012 uH/Metre respectively.

Run the numbers. You'll realise that SOME systems require
different
geometry speaker cables than standard 'figure 8' types. Low
inductance
figures can be pivotal to good performance. In most such
cases, I
suggest using RG213/U, which offers sunstantially lower
inductance
than regular cables, but at a rational price. Not as good as
Goertz
though.

You're quite right that there will be a difference, but the
question
arises, will in general use this difference be perceptible to
the
unbiased human ear (i.e., will blind tests consistently show
that
"bells
'n' whistles" speaker cable is better than regular
electrical/RF/network
cable or cheaper generic speaker cable)?

**The difference will be measureable (within the limits of
accepted
audibility). Therefore, there will be an audible difference to
some
listeners.


Except in a double blind trial.


**Nonsense. I am suprised that I need to walk anyone through the
maths
in an electronics group, but, perhap, I should not be surprised.
Anyway,
here goes:

In the second speaker cited, there is an impedance dip at
approximately
15kHz of around 0.55 Ohms.

The inductive reactance of 10 Metres of 'figure 8' speaker cable
(almost
any variant) is:

0.9 X 10^-6 X 10 = 9 X 10^-6 H.

9 X 10^-6 X 15000 X 2 X pi = 0.85 Ohms.

= A significant and AUDIBLE dip in the frequency response (provided
the
listener's hearing extends beyond 15kHz). 20 Metre cables will be
far
worse.

OTOH: The Goertz MI-1 cited will exibit a significantly lower XL.
I'll
let you work that out.

BTW: I have zero objection to double blind trials. That said, when
obviously audible anomalies are evident, double blind trials merely
confirm the blindingly obvious.




That audiophools are just as likely to pick the dodgey cabling as
sounding better, sure.





**I apologise for over-estimating your ability to understand
technical
matters and basic electronic maths. I won't make that mistake again.


You fail to understand that if you are running 20 metres of cabling
that
the noticeable sound difference is so negligible as to be irrelevant
compared to so many other factors.

**Bullshit. Do the math.

The math is irrelevant to the perceived audible difference over 20
metres when all the other factors are considered which is the point you
seem to be missing.

**WTF are you smoking? A variation of several dB will be noticable by
many listeners.






What the difference is technically isn't reflected as a practical
difference - that is something you fail to understand.

**WTF are you talking about? The auible differences are measureable
differences, which are no different to the mathematically prediced
differences.



Of course they are in how they are perceived by the listener. Humans
listen with their ears and minds, not mathematical equations.

**My entire career is and has been consumed by technical measurements.
Those measurements correlate remarkably well with what we hear. In fact,
measurements (and mathematics) is utterly essential to develop all
electonic and electrical system. That you persist in arguing this point
is just plain stupid.


There are so many factors which will affect how something sounds when
talking about 20 metre spans that the audible difference caused by the
cabling isn't likely to be much of a factor.

**What are those things you mention?


That you fail to get this as someone in the game is astounding.

Sigh.

**Like I said: Study some electrical theory and get back to us.


Face it Trevor, technical measurements are only of use to advertise
goods, or to brag about your possessions. If you happen to be a musician
with the wherewithall to spend megabucks on a system, expensive speaker
cables may be marginally worthwhile, but for 99.9% of the population the
transmission line parameters of them are totally irrelevant no matter
what your meters say.

**Wrong. Read my first post and do the maths. If you imagine that a dip
of several dB is inaudible, then I have some news for you:

The human ear can EASILY percieve a 3dB change in level. Under good
conditions, 1dB variations are audible. Under exceptional conditions, it
is possible that SOME listeners may be able to perceive variations of
0.1dB. For my part, 1dB, yes. 0.1dB, no chance.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Yaputya]

On 23/07/2014 10:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 23/07/2014 7:51 PM, Yaputya wrote:
On 23/07/2014 1:35 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 9:20 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 6:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 22/07/2014 8:52 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:c360rmFacn1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2014 11:23 AM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:9s3rs9lkn8dc8is4ke1jbkqlthe4leu9sd@4ax.com...
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/

Bybee Holographic AC Adapter
RRP: $2,795.00
Now $2,295.00.

The next logical progression from "directional" cables.

"Whileever there're stupid people with money, there'll be smart
people
to take it from them."

A couple of decades ago, a friend and I contemplated ordering a
special
run of twin-core "AC flex" (you know the type, used to connect
lights &
switches in 99.999% of Australian households) in black. The plan
was to
sell it to audiophiles for $100/metre as "super-high-grade lossless
pure
copper ultra-transparent" speaker cable.

**Many speaker cables are configured and sold similarly. Many, but
certainly not all. There is nothing special about most speaker
cables,
apart from the pretty cosmetics.


We gave up on the idea when we realised neither of us was
capable of
keeping a straight face for long enough to sell it to anyone. I can
guarantee though that it would've performed better than any of the
$300-$500/metre crap being flogged commercially.


**You can make no such guarantee. Like many who look from the
outside,
your simplistic approach can be tested and dismissed quite quickly.

I make these observations as (a) an electronics engineer and (b) a
former employee of a rather high end audio wholesale/retail group.

**Then do the math on my cited examples. As an electronic engineer,
you
should be well aware that 'figure 8' type cables present the highest
possible inductance figures and thus are unsuited to a number of
applications.


Don't believe me? Dust off your calculator and factor in a long
speaker cable run (say, 20 Metres) for these speakers:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Kappa9&image=090801082656_kappa9.jpg







And:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg







The typical resistance and inductance of the cables you suggest are
approximately 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.9 uH.Metre respectively.

OTOH, a top-of-the-line speaker cable, like the Goertz MI-1
possesses
figures of 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.012 uH/Metre respectively.

Run the numbers. You'll realise that SOME systems require different
geometry speaker cables than standard 'figure 8' types. Low
inductance
figures can be pivotal to good performance. In most such cases, I
suggest using RG213/U, which offers sunstantially lower inductance
than regular cables, but at a rational price. Not as good as Goertz
though.

You're quite right that there will be a difference, but the question
arises, will in general use this difference be perceptible to the
unbiased human ear (i.e., will blind tests consistently show that
"bells
'n' whistles" speaker cable is better than regular
electrical/RF/network
cable or cheaper generic speaker cable)?

**The difference will be measureable (within the limits of accepted
audibility). Therefore, there will be an audible difference to some
listeners.


Except in a double blind trial.


**Nonsense. I am suprised that I need to walk anyone through the maths
in an electronics group, but, perhap, I should not be surprised. Anyway,
here goes:

In the second speaker cited, there is an impedance dip at approximately
15kHz of around 0.55 Ohms.

The inductive reactance of 10 Metres of 'figure 8' speaker cable (almost
any variant) is:

0.9 X 10^-6 X 10 = 9 X 10^-6 H.

9 X 10^-6 X 15000 X 2 X pi = 0.85 Ohms.

= A significant and AUDIBLE dip in the frequency response (provided the
listener's hearing extends beyond 15kHz). 20 Metre cables will be far
worse.

The average 40 year old bloke has lost 10dB of hearing at just 4kHz, by
50 years it is 20dB down - far more significant than the speaker cable!
http://books.google.de/books?id=sLBRgV3NpZIC&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false


**So what? Are you now suggesting that to establish the significance of
speaker cables on an audio system, that we should restrict our testing
to those whose hearing is impaired? I don't understand your thoughts here.




OTOH: The Goertz MI-1 cited will exibit a significantly lower XL. I'll
let you work that out.

What about the capacitive reactance?

**What has XC got to do with it?

Audiophool cables typically have much higher Xc than figure-8.

**So? We assume that the amplifier used is stable when driving highly
capacitive cables. To do otherwise is dumb.



BTW: I have zero objection to double blind trials. That said, when
obviously audible anomalies are evident, double blind trials merely
confirm the blindingly obvious.

Well, you better have a look at this link before you say any more...
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

**I checked your link. The very first link I clicked on returned a 404
error. OTOH, I have a much better idea: Read what I wrote and do the
damned maths. The maths prove, beyond any doubt, that SOME speaker
cables in SOME systems are audibly significant.

The page is from 2010 and contains over 50 links, no doubt one or two
are bust now. Read the rest of the page, especially the conclusions.
I'm not challenging your maths, just the incorrect notion that small
differences are audible. Real blind tests prove most people cannot tell
the difference between cheap cable and audiophool cable.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 24/07/2014 3:44 PM, atec77 wrote:

On 24/07/2014 1:42 PM, keithr wrote:
On 23/07/2014 11:37 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 11:07 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 10:33 AM, Clocky wrote:
Sigh.

**Like I said: Study some electrical theory and get back to us.


Face it Trevor, technical measurements are only of use to advertise
goods, or to brag about your possessions. If you happen to be a musician
with the wherewithall to spend megabucks on a system, expensive speaker
cables may be marginally worthwhile, but for 99.9% of the population the
transmission line parameters of them are totally irrelevant no matter
what your meters say.

Remember with such a vested interest twevy will bend twist and obscure
with goalpost moving no matter the facts

**What vested interests would they be, moron?

Just to re-cap:

* I don't sell Goertz products.
* I don't sell ESL speakers.
* RG213/U can be purchased almost anywhere.

You would not know a fact, if it smacked you across your stupid head.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 24/07/2014 8:18 PM, Yaputya wrote:

On 23/07/2014 10:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 7:51 PM, Yaputya wrote:
On 23/07/2014 1:35 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 9:20 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 6:14 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 22/07/2014 8:52 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:c360rmFacn1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2014 11:23 AM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:9s3rs9lkn8dc8is4ke1jbkqlthe4leu9sd@4ax.com...
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/

Bybee Holographic AC Adapter
RRP: $2,795.00
Now $2,295.00.

The next logical progression from "directional" cables.

"Whileever there're stupid people with money, there'll be smart
people
to take it from them."

A couple of decades ago, a friend and I contemplated ordering a
special
run of twin-core "AC flex" (you know the type, used to connect
lights &
switches in 99.999% of Australian households) in black. The plan
was to
sell it to audiophiles for $100/metre as "super-high-grade
lossless
pure
copper ultra-transparent" speaker cable.

**Many speaker cables are configured and sold similarly. Many, but
certainly not all. There is nothing special about most speaker
cables,
apart from the pretty cosmetics.


We gave up on the idea when we realised neither of us was
capable of
keeping a straight face for long enough to sell it to anyone. I
can
guarantee though that it would've performed better than any of the
$300-$500/metre crap being flogged commercially.


**You can make no such guarantee. Like many who look from the
outside,
your simplistic approach can be tested and dismissed quite quickly.

I make these observations as (a) an electronics engineer and (b) a
former employee of a rather high end audio wholesale/retail group.

**Then do the math on my cited examples. As an electronic engineer,
you
should be well aware that 'figure 8' type cables present the highest
possible inductance figures and thus are unsuited to a number of
applications.


Don't believe me? Dust off your calculator and factor in a long
speaker cable run (say, 20 Metres) for these speakers:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Kappa9&image=090801082656_kappa9.jpg








And:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg








The typical resistance and inductance of the cables you suggest are
approximately 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.9 uH.Metre respectively.

OTOH, a top-of-the-line speaker cable, like the Goertz MI-1
possesses
figures of 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.012 uH/Metre respectively.

Run the numbers. You'll realise that SOME systems require different
geometry speaker cables than standard 'figure 8' types. Low
inductance
figures can be pivotal to good performance. In most such cases, I
suggest using RG213/U, which offers sunstantially lower inductance
than regular cables, but at a rational price. Not as good as Goertz
though.

You're quite right that there will be a difference, but the question
arises, will in general use this difference be perceptible to the
unbiased human ear (i.e., will blind tests consistently show that
"bells
'n' whistles" speaker cable is better than regular
electrical/RF/network
cable or cheaper generic speaker cable)?

**The difference will be measureable (within the limits of accepted
audibility). Therefore, there will be an audible difference to some
listeners.


Except in a double blind trial.


**Nonsense. I am suprised that I need to walk anyone through the maths
in an electronics group, but, perhap, I should not be surprised.
Anyway,
here goes:

In the second speaker cited, there is an impedance dip at approximately
15kHz of around 0.55 Ohms.

The inductive reactance of 10 Metres of 'figure 8' speaker cable
(almost
any variant) is:

0.9 X 10^-6 X 10 = 9 X 10^-6 H.

9 X 10^-6 X 15000 X 2 X pi = 0.85 Ohms.

= A significant and AUDIBLE dip in the frequency response (provided the
listener's hearing extends beyond 15kHz). 20 Metre cables will be far
worse.

The average 40 year old bloke has lost 10dB of hearing at just 4kHz, by
50 years it is 20dB down - far more significant than the speaker cable!
http://books.google.de/books?id=sLBRgV3NpZIC&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false



**So what? Are you now suggesting that to establish the significance of
speaker cables on an audio system, that we should restrict our testing
to those whose hearing is impaired? I don't understand your thoughts
here.




OTOH: The Goertz MI-1 cited will exibit a significantly lower XL. I'll
let you work that out.

What about the capacitive reactance?

**What has XC got to do with it?

Audiophool cables typically have much higher Xc than figure-8.

**So? We assume that the amplifier used is stable when driving highly
capacitive cables. To do otherwise is dumb.



BTW: I have zero objection to double blind trials. That said, when
obviously audible anomalies are evident, double blind trials merely
confirm the blindingly obvious.

Well, you better have a look at this link before you say any more...
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

**I checked your link. The very first link I clicked on returned a 404
error. OTOH, I have a much better idea: Read what I wrote and do the
damned maths. The maths prove, beyond any doubt, that SOME speaker
cables in SOME systems are audibly significant.

The page is from 2010 and contains over 50 links, no doubt one or two
are bust now. Read the rest of the page, especially the conclusions.
I'm not challenging your maths, just the incorrect notion that small
differences are audible.

**Since when has an audible difference of several dB, within the audible
range, been inaudible?

Real blind tests prove most people cannot tell
> the difference between cheap cable and audiophool cable.

**Bullshit. Do the tests yourself. The difference is not that difficult
to hear.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 24/07/2014 7:56 AM, Jeßus wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:29:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


FWIW: I use 192 MP3 in the car, because I can't hear the difference in
that environment. Different matter on the home system.

I'm happy enough with mp3 in the cars for the same reason. That said,
the Pioneer tuner/USB player in the Hilux is great as it also supports
FLAC files, so I don't need to muck about converting to mp3 just so I
can play them in the car.

**On a somewhate related matter, I was speaking with a mate yesterday
and he was complaining that his CD player in his late model Landcruiser
skips on rough roads. Does you Pioneer survive such treatment? I haven't
looked at the Landcruiser dash, but, if it uses a standard DIN sized
radio, I could whack in a modern unit with USB capability. That should
solve his problem. As long as Toyota don't use some weird sized radio,
of course.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Clocky]

On 25/07/2014 5:45 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 24/07/2014 7:56 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:29:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


FWIW: I use 192 MP3 in the car, because I can't hear the difference in
that environment. Different matter on the home system.

I'm happy enough with mp3 in the cars for the same reason. That said,
the Pioneer tuner/USB player in the Hilux is great as it also supports
FLAC files, so I don't need to muck about converting to mp3 just so I
can play them in the car.


**On a somewhate related matter, I was speaking with a mate yesterday
and he was complaining that his CD player in his late model Landcruiser
skips on rough roads. Does you Pioneer survive such treatment? I haven't
looked at the Landcruiser dash, but, if it uses a standard DIN sized
radio, I could whack in a modern unit with USB capability. That should
solve his problem. As long as Toyota don't use some weird sized radio,
of course.

They don't.

 

[atec77]

On 25/07/2014 6:50 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 24/07/2014 3:44 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 24/07/2014 1:42 PM, keithr wrote:
On 23/07/2014 11:37 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 11:07 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 10:33 AM, Clocky wrote:
Sigh.

**Like I said: Study some electrical theory and get back to us.


Face it Trevor, technical measurements are only of use to advertise
goods, or to brag about your possessions. If you happen to be a musician
with the wherewithall to spend megabucks on a system, expensive speaker
cables may be marginally worthwhile, but for 99.9% of the population the
transmission line parameters of them are totally irrelevant no matter
what your meters say.

Remember with such a vested interest twevy will bend twist and obscure
with goalpost moving no matter the facts



**What vested interests would they be, moron?

Just to re-cap:

* I don't sell Goertz products.
* I don't sell ESL speakers.
* RG213/U can be purchased almost anywhere.

You would not know a fact, if it smacked you across your stupid head.

Your welcome to try any time tweva but understand you might not get the
outcome you envisage whilst pulling your pud
as stated your heavily invested in the bs of the audiophile world
remember your publicly known as a goal shifter

--

--









X-No-Archive: Yes

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 25/07/2014 8:50 AM, atec77 wrote:

On 25/07/2014 6:50 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 24/07/2014 3:44 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 24/07/2014 1:42 PM, keithr wrote:
On 23/07/2014 11:37 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 11:07 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/07/2014 10:33 AM, Clocky wrote:
Sigh.

**Like I said: Study some electrical theory and get back to us.


Face it Trevor, technical measurements are only of use to advertise
goods, or to brag about your possessions. If you happen to be a
musician
with the wherewithall to spend megabucks on a system, expensive speaker
cables may be marginally worthwhile, but for 99.9% of the population
the
transmission line parameters of them are totally irrelevant no matter
what your meters say.

Remember with such a vested interest twevy will bend twist and obscure
with goalpost moving no matter the facts



**What vested interests would they be, moron?

Just to re-cap:

* I don't sell Goertz products.
* I don't sell ESL speakers.
* RG213/U can be purchased almost anywhere.

You would not know a fact, if it smacked you across your stupid head.


Your welcome to try any time tweva but understand you might not get the
outcome you envisage whilst pulling your pud
as stated your heavily invested in the bs of the audiophile world
remember your publicly known as a goal shifter

**Pot, kettle, black, you lying moron.

I'll ask once more:

What vested interests would they be?

Who is the goal post shifter now?

Idiot.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeßus]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:50:25 +1000, atec77 <"atec77 "@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On 25/07/2014 6:50 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
You would not know a fact, if it smacked you across your stupid head.

Your welcome to try any time tweva but understand you might not get the
outcome you envisage whilst pulling your pud
as stated your heavily invested in the bs of the audiophile world
remember your publicly known as a goal shifter

If/when I ever go back to that shit hole of a town where you live, can
I have a go at smacking you across the head? Because I'd really love
the opportunity.

 

[Jeßus]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:45:45 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 24/07/2014 7:56 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:29:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


FWIW: I use 192 MP3 in the car, because I can't hear the difference in
that environment. Different matter on the home system.

I'm happy enough with mp3 in the cars for the same reason. That said,
the Pioneer tuner/USB player in the Hilux is great as it also supports
FLAC files, so I don't need to muck about converting to mp3 just so I
can play them in the car.


**On a somewhate related matter, I was speaking with a mate yesterday
and he was complaining that his CD player in his late model Landcruiser
skips on rough roads. Does you Pioneer survive such treatment? I haven't
looked at the Landcruiser dash, but, if it uses a standard DIN sized
radio, I could whack in a modern unit with USB capability. That should
solve his problem. As long as Toyota don't use some weird sized radio,
of course.

This Pioneer unit doesnt have a CD/DVD drive at all - it's just a
tuner and has two USB inputs for memory sticks.

Had no problems with it playing on rough roads - in fact yesterday I
was in the bush with a load of firewood and had to charge through a
creek crossing so hard that it broke the battery carrier, tore a wire
off and I might have even cracked the radiator (I have to go out and
look at that in a minute). But the Pioneer kept playing the pod casts
no problem

That said, I've had a few CD players in 4WDs and never really had a
problem with skipping on rough roads.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 25/07/2014 9:46 AM, Jeßus wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:45:45 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 24/07/2014 7:56 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:29:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


FWIW: I use 192 MP3 in the car, because I can't hear the difference in
that environment. Different matter on the home system.

I'm happy enough with mp3 in the cars for the same reason. That said,
the Pioneer tuner/USB player in the Hilux is great as it also supports
FLAC files, so I don't need to muck about converting to mp3 just so I
can play them in the car.


**On a somewhate related matter, I was speaking with a mate yesterday
and he was complaining that his CD player in his late model Landcruiser
skips on rough roads. Does you Pioneer survive such treatment? I haven't
looked at the Landcruiser dash, but, if it uses a standard DIN sized
radio, I could whack in a modern unit with USB capability. That should
solve his problem. As long as Toyota don't use some weird sized radio,
of course.

This Pioneer unit doesnt have a CD/DVD drive at all - it's just a
tuner and has two USB inputs for memory sticks.

Had no problems with it playing on rough roads - in fact yesterday I
was in the bush with a load of firewood and had to charge through a
creek crossing so hard that it broke the battery carrier, tore a wire
off and I might have even cracked the radiator (I have to go out and
look at that in a minute). But the Pioneer kept playing the pod casts
no problem

That said, I've had a few CD players in 4WDs and never really had a
problem with skipping on rough roads.

**Thanks for that. It would seem to be a smarter choice to eliminate the
rotating mechanism completely.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor]

"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfb5b2$0$2796$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...

On 23/07/2014 5:26 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cf67d6$0$2930$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
Just as some claim they can pick the difference between 192kbps MP3 and
the same CD track, in the real world that simply doesn't pan out

What rubbish,

Real world tests prove it. There is even an online test you can do to see
how you go picking different compression rates.
Google it and have a go.

I have done it many times. Try the ABX comparator with the castenets sound
files and then tell me you can't pick the difference!

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cfc130$0$2766$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...

On 23/07/2014 4:28 PM, Jeßus wrote:

Never mind speakers. I have a habit of
swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?


Again, I didn't say there is anything wrong with it. But I'm sure you know
that USB DAC's connected to PC's are notoriously noisy.

What rubbish, you are about 20 years behind the times with that comment. My
USB ADC/DAC can do better than 118dB S/N below DFS on loopback, and less
than 0.002% THD. (And for the record, there are internal PCI cards that do
just as well also) Easily better than CD is capable of.

I personally hate connecting stuff to my laptop and PC because the noise
that is introduced annoys me.

Time you bought something better then. Go to a pro audio shop, or look on
the net. They are not that expensive for two channels now.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:snb0t91226k6bcsi0k7th5p1or1b54ce3q@4ax.com...

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:29:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


FWIW: I use 192 MP3 in the car, because I can't hear the difference in
that environment. Different matter on the home system.

I'm happy enough with mp3 in the cars for the same reason.

Me too.

That said,
the Pioneer tuner/USB player in the Hilux is great as it also supports
FLAC files, so I don't need to muck about converting to mp3 just so I
can play them in the car.

How is mucking about converting to FLAC any different? Mind you I have all
my files in both MP3 and FLAC. I find the batch convert option of LameXP to
make it completely painless to convert from wave to FLAC and MP3 (and other
formats too if you want them)

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

Real blind tests prove most people cannot tell
the difference between cheap cable and audiophool cable.

**Bullshit. Do the tests yourself. The difference is not that difficult to
hear.

That would require him to have one of the very few specific speakers with
really bad impedance problems, something he obviously doesn't have or he
wouldn't be arguing with you.
Of course why you need to argue about a specific case involving <<1% of
speakers on the market is another question?

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Yaputya" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c39du3F1leeU1@mid.individual.net...

This is a link to a post listing 48 speaker 'hifi' cable listening tests.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
From the conclusion:
If hifi is all about sound and more specifically sound quality, then we
should, once the other senses have been removed be able to hear
differences which can be verified by being able to identify one product
from another by only listening. But time and again we cannot.

So you can either buy good but inexpensive hifi products such as cables,
amps, CDPs and be satisfied that the sound they produce is superb. You do
need to spend time with speakers as they really do sound identifiably
different. Or you can buy expensive hifi products such as cable tec and
luxuriate in the build and image and identify one hifi from another by
looks and sound. But you cannot buy expensive and identify it from cheap
by sound alone.

You are generalising (and are correct up to a point) while Trevor Wilson
claimed a *very specific* example where bad speaker impedance problems can
require suitable low inductance cables to work properly.
Either you can't read or simply like arguing at a tangent. Mind you, I think
TW was simply confirming the general rule by pointing out a few limited
exceptions

Trevor.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Trevor"

"Trevor Wilson"


**Bullshit. Do the tests yourself. The difference is not that difficult
to
hear.

That would require him to have one of the very few specific speakers with
really bad impedance problems...

** The AR11 and the original Quad ESL57 are among your "very few".

FYI:

The AR11 dips to 2ohms between 4kHz and 11kHz.

The ESL57 dips to 1.8 ohms around 17kHz.

A friend had stacked ESL57s, using low inductance ( ie 144 strand woven )
cables with them made a HUGE audible difference compared to even 4sq.mm
conductor twin cable.

Of course why you need to argue about a specific case involving <<1% of
speakers on the market is another question?

** Don't you know ??

Hint: TW use to sell the horrible things .....


..... Phil