PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 21/05/2016 11:40 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 20/05/16 22:24, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and
also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the original Power
Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.75uH/Metre.
RG213/U exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY
useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my knowledge) is
Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around 0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not that
it's likely to make much difference)

What sort of inductance is achievable like that?

**Slightly difficult to calculate, but, given the mutual coupling
achievable, certainly lower than regular 'figure 8' cable (which
includes all variants of Monster Cable™). However, using a 15 way ribbon
cable will offer rather poor resistivity, so many more conductors will
be required, thus increasing the complexity (and potential for mistakes)
and time required for termination. Others have suggested Cat5/6 cables,
which can also provide lower inductance, but, in the case of Cat5, at
least 5 X Cat5 cables are required to equal the resistivity of RG213/U.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/05/2016 8:55 PM, Trevor wrote:

On 20/05/2016 9:25 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/05/2016 3:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
IMO you choose *all* system components as necessary. IF I was to buy an
ESL I'd buy appropriate cable. I don't use coax for my speaker cable
though, nor would I buy Monster cable.

**RG213/U, or another low inductance speaker cable may be necessary for
long cable runs, even when using 'normal' impedance speakers.

Have done runs up to about 10 metres without any problem using normal
amps, cables and speakers. Any further and I'd just move the amp instead.

**Have you tried RG213/U or another low inductance speaker cable in such
instances? I have. It's worth it.

**Not necessarily. I've attended several systems where particularly
heroic methods were required to eliminate 'frame buzz' caused by TV
transmitters. Shielded speaker cables was one of those methods.


Once again VERY FEW speakers would be affected by that, and those with
speakers that are can do whatever they need to rather than everybody
else.

**The frame buzz has nothing to do with the speaker system.

Or the speaker cable in any amp with output filters. ie most of them.

**Incorrect. If the signal is sufficiently powerful, it will enter the
amplifier, through the speaker cables and enters the front end of the
amp through the global NFB line. Most valve amps are immune, as are zero
global NFB SS amps. Shielded speaker cables can help.

It is
totally dominated by the amplification. High global NFB amplifiers may
be severely effected, whilst low, or zero global NFB amplifiers may
not be.

You mean poorly shielded and filtered amplifiers may be affected. ZGNFB
design will reduce the problem of course.

**No. Since the signal can enter the amplifier through the (unshielded)
speaker cables.

Using
zero global NFB amplification was more effective, but more expensive.
That said, the idea of using RG213/U is not specifically because it is
shielded cable, but because it is low inductance.

Right, something that effects only a minority of speakers.

**Again: It has NOTHING to do with the speaker system.

In a purely resistive load higher inductance cable should reduce the
problem, not make it worse. As long as you don't coil them up anyway.
A shield will help of course if it's earthed.

**Sorry. I was off my game on this part of the conversation. YOU are, of
course, correct, in that cable inductance is heavily dependent upon
speaker impedance AND/OR cable length.

Many/most
solid state amps have an inductor at their output already for stability
into capacitive loads. (and you attack Naim for not doing so) The usual
cable inductance is simply not an issue in the vast majority of cases.

**An output inductor may pose an additional problem, when using ESL or
other speakers with low impedance characteristics at high frequencies.
The best amplifiers are stable, without resorting to the use of output
inductors.

Yet you happily accept valve amps with output transformers!

**Do I? Care to cite where I said any such thing?

For the record: I have not used a valve amplifier in my system since the
late 1970s (a Dynaco PAS3 preamp and prior to that, a home brew power
amp in the late 1960s). I see no point in using valves anymore (in my
system). I was merely pointing out that condemning valve amplifier, out
of hand, is a very risky thing to do, since, in some critical areas,
they may outperform a great many run-of-the-mill SS amps.

**The Audio Research VT200 exhibits a THD figure of below 0.1% well
past
100 Watts:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-1-preamplifier-vt200-power-amplifier-measurements-audio-research-vt#3LeThsrZBWluOfYP.97


There are likely to be lots of others, but I can't be bothered looking.
So, yes, it is possible.

Sure, and how much does that amp cost?

**A lot. But that is not the point.

Of course it is. As I said simply buy a bigger SS amp for less and the
clipping issue goes away.

**It MAY go away, but that fails to address the fact that bigger SS amps
are not always better.

I provided it to prove that a good
quality valve amp can provide inaudible levels of distortion, at
reasonable power output. I have NEVER denied that building valve amps
will always be more expensive than building equivalent SS ones.

Yet you claimed a soft knee was a benefit of valve amps. As I keep
pointing out it ISN'T if you factor in cost!

**It's a POSSIBLE benefit of valve amps. Push pull, pentode valve amps,
using lots of global NFB can exhibit a very sharp knee in their clipping
character. Push pull triodes, with minimal global NFB may not be so
afflicted.

It is VERY important to describe the topolgy, as well as the technology,
when discussing such things. As I previously stated:

Some valve amps sound quite decent (neutral) and some sound like crap.

More than a solid state amp with
FAR more power right?

**In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. Here are some SS amps which
cost more (in Dollars/Watt):

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/806halcro/index.html#ckShOGrgEQ0dWz7g.97



http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/1004halcro/index.html#m7dQApH2vgUizzhV.97

http://www.stereophile.com/content/luxman-b-1000f-monoblock-power-amplifier#vth8LSKvzU2sREZM.97

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/115/index.html#V8lYvxI7jRCEWZJL.97

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-reference-9011-monoblock-amplifier-specifications#Ts4Jpd3DfLWPbOxG.97

And, who can forget the biggest con-artists in the audiophile world:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/120147/index.html#xSZj88hxW4D0gutx.97


The Audio Research VT200 doesn't look too bad after all.

You mean because you can find bigger rip off prices for a few SS amps, a
rip off price for a valve amp is OK?

**I would challenge the assumption that the VT200 is a "rip-off", just
because it is expensive. It is, of necessity, more expensive to build a
valve amp. FWIW: The biggest rip-off in the listed amps is the 47 Labs
product.


So let me ask this, do YOU own any
> of those listed? I sure don't!

**Of course not. I own a modestly priced, Australian made, zero global
NFB SS amp and have done so since 1979. In fact, the one I use right now
dates from 1983.

So why not simply use the solid state amp within
it's limits rather than pushing an expensive valve amp beyond its
limits?

**An excellent idea. In theory. In practice, it often doesn't work that
way.


Works just fine for me!!!!
I suggest if it doesn't work for you then that is YOUR fault.

**Not necessarily. It's just that you have probably not heard any better
alternatives.

And have to laugh, ANY solid sate amp with a distortion figure
of <0.1% would be considered crap these days when they are often close
to 1/100th of that. Then there are the noise, frequency response, and a
dozen other parameters to consider where the valve amp always comes out
poorly in comparison.

**Again, I direct you to the Audio Research VT200:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-1-preamplifier-vt200-power-amplifier-measurements-audio-research-vt#68r6B0kToj0xk4q5.97



Sure, the amp is far from 'perfect', but it demonstrates no obvious
audible flaws.

Nor do the *vast* majority of SS amps costing *FAR* less. So once again,
what is the point?

**On the contrary, the vast majority of SS amps DO display audible flaws.

Would I own one? Not a chance. For the same reasons I wouldn't own an
Italian car.

If money was no object I'd buy a Ferrari long before I'd buy a valve amp.

**I wouldn't own either. I hate putting my hand in my pocket every 6 months.

**Yes, you can, but there are other issues associated with building
such
products. Current demands rise, as power output rises, thus elevating
cost.

????? The cost of decent solid sate amps that deliver FAR greater
voltage and current outputs than *any* valve amp is almost always FAR
lower!

**Nope. See above examples. I could find many, many more if you wish.

Above examples prove absolutely nothing!!! You simply did not list any
of the huge amount of low cost SS amps with far more power that cost far
less and also have "no audible flaws" How disingenuous an argument!
It's like saying a Toyota Prius is better than a petrol car because it
costs less than a Rolls Royce!

**I simply showed that it was very easy to spend more on some SS amps,
than on what is regarded as a very fine valve amp.

Their right to choose what THEY want of course, not to continually
sprout BS to everyone else.

**I could say the same thing about religious nutters too. They're far
more dangerous and dangerously unbalanced than some poor bugger who
wants to play LPs.

No argument there, but hardly relevant.




A well setup vinyl system can sound very good indeed.

Absolutely, was happy when that was all we had. Thankfully technology
has now improved and we can get far more actual performance for much
less cost!

**NO doubt.



Sadly, the cost is much higher than a digital one of similar
performance. Same deal with valves.

Not similar performance at all. Vinyl and valve technology is
*demonstrably* inferior at *any* cost. Personal *preference* for
expensive distortions has absolutely nothing to do with *actual*
"performance".

**Funnily enough, I've played LPs to people who thought they were
listening to CDs.

And vice versa. Most people don't have a clue if they can't see.

**There you go. A good vinyl system can offer very high levels of
performance. As can a good valve amp.

Carefully chosen material, played on a good turntable
can offer surprisingly good results. That said, I very rarely bother
with LPs any longer for a bunch of reasons.

Me either, even though I still have two expensive turntables. Would only
get worse if I had to replace cartridges all the time as well :-(
But the convenience aspect is the main difference for me. So pleased not
to have to deal with vinyl all the time like I did 30+ years ago!

**For me, it's more about the fact that there has been no decent vinyl
released in the past few decades. I just buy the CD. Record
manufacturers ceased caring about their products somewhere around 1985.

As for valve amps, I have
taken the time to allow myself to be subjected to several blind
listening tests with valve amps. In one instance, the result was quite
sobering. I listened to two SS amps and one valve amp. I was certain
that the worst sounding amp was the valve amp. It wasn't. I ranked it as
my second preference. A well designed and built valve amplifier can
provide excellent sound quality.

Of course it can, at a much higher cost. (and listing a few overpriced
SS amps proves nothing when good ones ARE available for far less)
Not to mention cost of maintenance, new valves etc. that are not
required for SS.

**FWIW, the amplifiers were as follows:

* ME150 - $3750.00 My first preference. Zero global NFB SS. (I am using
this amp today and will happily compare it to any currently manufactured
product)
* Audio research D-115 - $7,000.00 My second preference. Low global NFB
push pull pentodes.
* Krell KSA100 - $10,000.00 My last preference. High global NFB SS.
Frankly, I expected it to beat the pants off both the other amps in
every area.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2016-05-21, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 20/05/16 22:24, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the original Power
Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.75uH/Metre.
RG213/U exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY
useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my knowledge) is
Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around 0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not that
it's likely to make much difference)

What sort of inductance is achievable like that?

with 15 conductors like that the inductance is approximately
watever the first two have divided by 14, but more significantly you
get a better impedance match

ribbon cable characteristic impedance is about 200 ohms between
conductors (I had mis-remembered it as 100 ohms), that divides
it by 14, getting about 15 ohms, a 30-way cable should work even
better.

when you match the characteristic impedance of the cable to the load
the inductance is of the cable is cancelled by the capacitance.

--
\_(ツ)_

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 21/05/2016 9:00 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2016-05-21, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote:
On 20/05/16 22:24, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the original Power
Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.75uH/Metre.
RG213/U exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY
useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my knowledge) is
Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around 0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not that
it's likely to make much difference)

What sort of inductance is achievable like that?

with 15 conductors like that the inductance is approximately
watever the first two have divided by 14, but more significantly you
get a better impedance match

ribbon cable characteristic impedance is about 200 ohms between
conductors (I had mis-remembered it as 100 ohms), that divides
it by 14, getting about 15 ohms, a 30-way cable should work even
better.

when you match the characteristic impedance of the cable to the load
the inductance is of the cable is cancelled by the capacitance.

**Capacitance is irrelevant at audio frequencies, unless the cable
length is very long indeed. Capacitance starts to become relevant at a
few km. Inductance and resistance are the only important factors at sane
cable lengths.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor]

On 21/05/2016 8:11 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 20/05/2016 8:55 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 20/05/2016 9:25 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/05/2016 3:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
IMO you choose *all* system components as necessary. IF I was to buy an
ESL I'd buy appropriate cable. I don't use coax for my speaker cable
though, nor would I buy Monster cable.

**RG213/U, or another low inductance speaker cable may be necessary for
long cable runs, even when using 'normal' impedance speakers.

Have done runs up to about 10 metres without any problem using normal
amps, cables and speakers. Any further and I'd just move the amp instead.

**Have you tried RG213/U or another low inductance speaker cable in such
instances? I have. It's worth it.

If I (or anyone else) can't tell the difference between 1 metre cables
and 10 metre cables I'm happy. No need to look for non existent problems
IMO.

**Not necessarily. I've attended several systems where particularly
heroic methods were required to eliminate 'frame buzz' caused by TV
transmitters. Shielded speaker cables was one of those methods.


Once again VERY FEW speakers would be affected by that, and those with
speakers that are can do whatever they need to rather than everybody
else.

**The frame buzz has nothing to do with the speaker system.

Or the speaker cable in any amp with output filters. ie most of them.

**Incorrect. If the signal is sufficiently powerful, it will enter the
amplifier, through the speaker cables and enters the front end of the
amp through the global NFB line. Most valve amps are immune, as are zero
global NFB SS amps. Shielded speaker cables can help.

As does the output filter in most solid state amps, as I already said.
If you are using one without them, of course you may need another
solution. Despite your original statement however that low inductance
was the prime factor, shielded cables would help here far more than low
inductance cable.

It is
totally dominated by the amplification. High global NFB amplifiers may
be severely effected, whilst low, or zero global NFB amplifiers may
not be.

You mean poorly shielded and filtered amplifiers may be affected. ZGNFB
design will reduce the problem of course.

**No. Since the signal can enter the amplifier through the (unshielded)
speaker cables.

You are contradicting yourself here! YOU said ZGNF would help more than
once!
But so will *higher inductance cable* but not as much of course.

Using
zero global NFB amplification was more effective, but more expensive.
That said, the idea of using RG213/U is not specifically because it is
shielded cable, but because it is low inductance.

Right, something that effects only a minority of speakers.

**Again: It has NOTHING to do with the speaker system.

In a purely resistive load higher inductance cable should reduce the
problem, not make it worse. As long as you don't coil them up anyway.
A shield will help of course if it's earthed.

**Sorry. I was off my game on this part of the conversation. YOU are, of
course, correct, in that cable inductance is heavily dependent upon
speaker impedance AND/OR cable length.



Many/most
solid state amps have an inductor at their output already for stability
into capacitive loads. (and you attack Naim for not doing so) The usual
cable inductance is simply not an issue in the vast majority of cases.

**An output inductor may pose an additional problem, when using ESL or
other speakers with low impedance characteristics at high frequencies.
The best amplifiers are stable, without resorting to the use of output
inductors.

Yet you happily accept valve amps with output transformers!

**Do I? Care to cite where I said any such thing?

Why do you state "most valve amps are immune" then? Because of the
output transformer for one thing. I seriously doubt the 100W valve amp
you quoted is transformerless?

For the record: I have not used a valve amplifier in my system since the
late 1970s (a Dynaco PAS3 preamp and prior to that, a home brew power
amp in the late 1960s). I see no point in using valves anymore (in my
system).

Exactly, me either!

I was merely pointing out that condemning valve amplifier, out
of hand, is a very risky thing to do, since, in some critical areas,
they may outperform a great many run-of-the-mill SS amps.

True, a Ferrari often outperforms a Toyota Corolla too when it's going.
Your point is what exactly? IME there are *far* more (percentage wise
since there aren't actually that many valve amps at all!) low performing
valve amps than solid state amps at *any* given price point!

**The Audio Research VT200 exhibits a THD figure of below 0.1% well
past
100 Watts:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-1-preamplifier-vt200-power-amplifier-measurements-audio-research-vt#3LeThsrZBWluOfYP.97



There are likely to be lots of others, but I can't be bothered
looking.
So, yes, it is possible.

Sure, and how much does that amp cost?

**A lot. But that is not the point.

Of course it is. As I said simply buy a bigger SS amp for less and the
clipping issue goes away.

**It MAY go away, but that fails to address the fact that bigger SS amps
are not always better.

But *almost always* compared to valve amps. One or two exceptions out of
thousands do nothing to disprove that.

I provided it to prove that a good
quality valve amp can provide inaudible levels of distortion, at
reasonable power output. I have NEVER denied that building valve amps
will always be more expensive than building equivalent SS ones.

Yet you claimed a soft knee was a benefit of valve amps. As I keep
pointing out it ISN'T if you factor in cost!

**It's a POSSIBLE benefit of valve amps. Push pull, pentode valve amps,
using lots of global NFB can exhibit a very sharp knee in their clipping
character. Push pull triodes, with minimal global NFB may not be so
afflicted.

It is VERY important to describe the topolgy, as well as the technology,
when discussing such things. As I previously stated:

Some of us listen to music rather than debates over which valve topology
compromise is the better choice, when there are better options with less
compromises for less money readily available.

Some valve amps sound quite decent (neutral) and some sound like crap.

No argument. Most modern solid state amps sound quite decent, few sound
like crap any more. And usually cost far less. Aren't technology
advances wonderful!

More than a solid state amp with
FAR more power right?

**In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. Here are some SS amps which
cost more (in Dollars/Watt):
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/806halcro/index.html#ckShOGrgEQ0dWz7g.97
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/1004halcro/index.html#m7dQApH2vgUizzhV.97
http://www.stereophile.com/content/luxman-b-1000f-monoblock-power-amplifier#vth8LSKvzU2sREZM.97
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/115/index.html#V8lYvxI7jRCEWZJL.97
http://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-reference-9011-monoblock-amplifier-specifications#Ts4Jpd3DfLWPbOxG.97
And, who can forget the biggest con-artists in the audiophile world:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/120147/index.html#xSZj88hxW4D0gutx.97

The Audio Research VT200 doesn't look too bad after all.

You mean because you can find bigger rip off prices for a few SS amps, a
rip off price for a valve amp is OK?

**I would challenge the assumption that the VT200 is a "rip-off", just
because it is expensive. It is, of necessity, more expensive to build a
valve amp.

Exactly, more expensive, less performance. Some people like the warm
glow of exposed tubes though. Good luck to them.

FWIW: The biggest rip-off in the listed amps is the 47 Labs
product.

How novel, some companies are rip off merchants regardless of product.
Not just valve amp builders. Who would have thought it!
<sarcasm mode off>
Each company is simply satisfying a market though or they wouldn't stay
in business. That their market is simply people with more money than
sense is just the capitalist system in action. My biggest beef is that a
lot of people do have a lot more money than sense, not with the
companies seeking to exploit them.

So let me ask this, do YOU own any
of those listed? I sure don't!

**Of course not. I own a modestly priced, Australian made, zero global
NFB SS amp and have done so since 1979. In fact, the one I use right now
dates from 1983.

Yes, and we know what company that is. And thanks for proving my point.
Even many of those who stick up for valve amps wouldn't actually want to
buy one! Or any of the overpriced SS amps they throw in as straw men

So why not simply use the solid state amp within
it's limits rather than pushing an expensive valve amp beyond its
limits?

**An excellent idea. In theory. In practice, it often doesn't work that
way.


Works just fine for me!!!!
I suggest if it doesn't work for you then that is YOUR fault.

**Not necessarily. It's just that you have probably not heard any better
alternatives.

Than what exactly? Seems to work for you too though since you have been
happily using your ME amp since 1983. You do have a habit of constantly
contradicting yourself just to continue an argument. Not sure why?

And have to laugh, ANY solid sate amp with a distortion figure
of <0.1% would be considered crap these days when they are often close
to 1/100th of that. Then there are the noise, frequency response, and a
dozen other parameters to consider where the valve amp always comes out
poorly in comparison.

**Again, I direct you to the Audio Research VT200:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-1-preamplifier-vt200-power-amplifier-measurements-audio-research-vt#68r6B0kToj0xk4q5.97


Sure, the amp is far from 'perfect', but it demonstrates no obvious
audible flaws.

Nor do the *vast* majority of SS amps costing *FAR* less. So once again,
what is the point?

**On the contrary, the vast majority of SS amps DO display audible flaws.

As long as you don't have to prove it with a double blind test of
course! Never heard a SS amplifier considered HiFi in the last 20 or 30
years that was inferior to any speaker ever made. So I always worry
about where the problems really exist. Life's too short to waste hunting
such BS IMO. But you are welcome to.

Would I own one? Not a chance. For the same reasons I wouldn't own an
Italian car.

If money was no object I'd buy a Ferrari long before I'd buy a valve amp.

**I wouldn't own either. I hate putting my hand in my pocket every 6
months.

You do understand what "money no object" means right? If talking about
valve amps I would have thought it mandatory.

**Yes, you can, but there are other issues associated with building
such
products. Current demands rise, as power output rises, thus elevating
cost.

????? The cost of decent solid sate amps that deliver FAR greater
voltage and current outputs than *any* valve amp is almost always FAR
lower!

**Nope. See above examples. I could find many, many more if you wish.

Above examples prove absolutely nothing!!! You simply did not list any
of the huge amount of low cost SS amps with far more power that cost far
less and also have "no audible flaws" How disingenuous an argument!
It's like saying a Toyota Prius is better than a petrol car because it
costs less than a Rolls Royce!

**I simply showed that it was very easy to spend more on some SS amps,
than on what is regarded as a very fine valve amp.

Who would have thought it also possible to buy SS amps that are grossly
overpriced? Gee thanks for telling us TW!
<sarcasm mode again>

Their right to choose what THEY want of course, not to continually
sprout BS to everyone else.

**I could say the same thing about religious nutters too. They're far
more dangerous and dangerously unbalanced than some poor bugger who
wants to play LPs.

No argument there, but hardly relevant.


A well setup vinyl system can sound very good indeed.

Absolutely, was happy when that was all we had. Thankfully technology
has now improved and we can get far more actual performance for much
less cost!

**NO doubt.


Sadly, the cost is much higher than a digital one of similar
performance. Same deal with valves.

Not similar performance at all. Vinyl and valve technology is
*demonstrably* inferior at *any* cost. Personal *preference* for
expensive distortions has absolutely nothing to do with *actual*
"performance".

**Funnily enough, I've played LPs to people who thought they were
listening to CDs.

And vice versa. Most people don't have a clue if they can't see.

**There you go. A good vinyl system can offer very high levels of
performance. As can a good valve amp.

Wonder who said they couldn't? Certainly wasn't me! But just like *YOU*,
I don't bother with either any more. Why the hell you bother wasting
time on continually arguing the point is another matter entirely however?

Carefully chosen material, played on a good turntable
can offer surprisingly good results. That said, I very rarely bother
with LPs any longer for a bunch of reasons.

Me either, even though I still have two expensive turntables. Would only
get worse if I had to replace cartridges all the time as well :-(
But the convenience aspect is the main difference for me. So pleased not
to have to deal with vinyl all the time like I did 30+ years ago!

**For me, it's more about the fact that there has been no decent vinyl
released in the past few decades. I just buy the CD. Record
manufacturers ceased caring about their products somewhere around 1985.

I still have 1,000 pre 1985 pristine vinyl records to play. No need to
buy more. Still can't be bothered playing them hardly at all. Bet you
also have a vinyl collection you now play on CD instead.
In any case anybody who thinks any modern music recorded digitally is
going to sound better on vinyl is a real nut case. That just leaves a
few real nutters who prefer to record a whole project to tape still,
rather than simply use it as the "effect" it now is.

As for valve amps, I have
taken the time to allow myself to be subjected to several blind
listening tests with valve amps. In one instance, the result was quite
sobering. I listened to two SS amps and one valve amp. I was certain
that the worst sounding amp was the valve amp. It wasn't. I ranked it as
my second preference. A well designed and built valve amplifier can
provide excellent sound quality.

Of course it can, at a much higher cost. (and listing a few overpriced
SS amps proves nothing when good ones ARE available for far less)
Not to mention cost of maintenance, new valves etc. that are not
required for SS.


**FWIW, the amplifiers were as follows:

* ME150 - $3750.00 My first preference. Zero global NFB SS. (I am using
this amp today and will happily compare it to any currently manufactured
product)
* Audio research D-115 - $7,000.00 My second preference. Low global NFB
push pull pentodes.
* Krell KSA100 - $10,000.00 My last preference. High global NFB SS.
Frankly, I expected it to beat the pants off both the other amps in
every area.

So by your own admission, a SS amp beat a valve amp costing twice the
price. Thanks for proving my point!
I wouldn't have bought either of the last two, so wouldn't have even
bothered comparing them when that sort of money is FAR better spent on
speakers.

Trevor.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2016-05-21, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 21/05/2016 9:00 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-21, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote:
On 20/05/16 22:24, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the original Power
Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.75uH/Metre.
RG213/U exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY
useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my knowledge) is
Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around 0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not that
it's likely to make much difference)

What sort of inductance is achievable like that?

with 15 conductors like that the inductance is approximately
watever the first two have divided by 14, but more significantly you
get a better impedance match

ribbon cable characteristic impedance is about 200 ohms between
conductors (I had mis-remembered it as 100 ohms), that divides
it by 14, getting about 15 ohms, a 30-way cable should work even
better.

when you match the characteristic impedance of the cable to the load
the inductance is of the cable is cancelled by the capacitance.


**Capacitance is irrelevant at audio frequencies, unless the cable
length is very long indeed.

If you get enough capacitance it can cancel the inductance,
match stuff up and the inductance just dissolves, it's called a
transmission line.

Capacitance starts to become relevant at a
few km. Inductance and resistance are the only important factors at sane
cable lengths.

I'm not convinced that the inductance has any signifigant effect
either, but if you want to reduce it to zero, that's easy.

--
\_(ツ)_

 

[Clocky]

On 21/05/2016 12:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 21/05/2016 11:40 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 19/05/2016 4:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/05/2016 8:15 PM, keithr wrote:
On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The
Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid
wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their
money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the
price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker
cables,
the worst choice possible. Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that
highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™
provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable
will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers),
then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/




Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

At what length do the characteristics of speaker cable become
significant?

**It depends entirely on the impedance characteristics of the speaker
system. I've measured audibly significant differences at lengths of less
than 3 Metres (the typical length used in many systems).


How do you determine them to be audibly significant differences?

**Any difference which can be measured within the audible spectrum,
which can be determined to be audibly significant.

Something that can technically be measured on the audible spectrum may
not be audible to the listener.

You can actually hear the difference can you?

**Attempt to personalise the argument noted.

Well if you can't hear the difference then you can't note any
improvement and hearing is a very personal thing given that it varies
from person to person.

Yes, I have heard the difference between speaker cables under certain
circumstances. As have many of my clients. It's why I suggest RG213/U
when the situation demands it.

I'd still like to see a double blind trial on that.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 22/05/2016 10:29 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2016-05-21, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 21/05/2016 9:00 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-21, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote:
On 20/05/16 22:24, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the original Power
Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.75uH/Metre.
RG213/U exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY
useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my knowledge) is
Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around 0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not that
it's likely to make much difference)

What sort of inductance is achievable like that?

with 15 conductors like that the inductance is approximately
watever the first two have divided by 14, but more significantly you
get a better impedance match

ribbon cable characteristic impedance is about 200 ohms between
conductors (I had mis-remembered it as 100 ohms), that divides
it by 14, getting about 15 ohms, a 30-way cable should work even
better.

when you match the characteristic impedance of the cable to the load
the inductance is of the cable is cancelled by the capacitance.


**Capacitance is irrelevant at audio frequencies, unless the cable
length is very long indeed.

If you get enough capacitance it can cancel the inductance,
match stuff up and the inductance just dissolves, it's called a
transmission line.

**And a transmission line is only truly a transmission line, when it is
1/4 wavelength of the highest frequency. At 20kHz, that means the line
needs to be 3,750 Metres long. At (say) 10 or 20 Metres, the influence
of capacitance is utterly and completely irrelevant. Unless one is using
a very poorly designed amplifier of course. In transmission line terms,
the cables need to be several thousand Metres long, before it can be
treated as a transmission line (at any sane audio frequency).

Capacitance starts to become relevant at a
few km. Inductance and resistance are the only important factors at sane
cable lengths.

I'm not convinced that the inductance has any signifigant effect
either, but if you want to reduce it to zero, that's easy.

**Do the math. Here are some impedance curves of some nasty speakers
I've measured:

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

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



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 23/05/2016 1:29 AM, Clocky wrote:

On 21/05/2016 12:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 21/05/2016 11:40 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 19/05/2016 4:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/05/2016 8:15 PM, keithr wrote:
On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The
Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid
wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their
money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the
price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker
cables,
the worst choice possible. Naim cable is worse, due to the
incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that
highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™
provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable
will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers),
then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/





Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance
figure.
Cost is reasonable.

At what length do the characteristics of speaker cable become
significant?

**It depends entirely on the impedance characteristics of the speaker
system. I've measured audibly significant differences at lengths of
less
than 3 Metres (the typical length used in many systems).


How do you determine them to be audibly significant differences?

**Any difference which can be measured within the audible spectrum,
which can be determined to be audibly significant.


Something that can technically be measured on the audible spectrum may
not be audible to the listener.

**Read my answer again.

You can actually hear the difference can you?

**Attempt to personalise the argument noted.


Well if you can't hear the difference then you can't note any
improvement and hearing is a very personal thing given that it varies
from person to person.

**What _I_ can hear is not relevant.

Yes, I have heard the difference between speaker cables under certain
circumstances. As have many of my clients. It's why I suggest RG213/U
when the situation demands it.




I'd still like to see a double blind trial on that.

**You organise it. I'll bring the speakers, amplification, source and
cables.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[felix]

On 23-May-2016 9:01 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 23/05/2016 1:29 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 21/05/2016 12:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 21/05/2016 11:40 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 19/05/2016 4:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/05/2016 8:15 PM, keithr wrote:
On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The
Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid
wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available,
and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their
money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the
price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits
reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker
cables,
the worst choice possible. Naim cable is worse, due to the
incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that
highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™
provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable
will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers),
then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/






Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance
figure.
Cost is reasonable.

At what length do the characteristics of speaker cable become
significant?

**It depends entirely on the impedance characteristics of the speaker
system. I've measured audibly significant differences at lengths of
less
than 3 Metres (the typical length used in many systems).


How do you determine them to be audibly significant differences?

**Any difference which can be measured within the audible spectrum,
which can be determined to be audibly significant.


Something that can technically be measured on the audible spectrum may
not be audible to the listener.

**Read my answer again.



You can actually hear the difference can you?

**Attempt to personalise the argument noted.


Well if you can't hear the difference then you can't note any
improvement and hearing is a very personal thing given that it varies
from person to person.

**What _I_ can hear is not relevant.


Yes, I have heard the difference between speaker cables under certain
circumstances. As have many of my clients. It's why I suggest RG213/U
when the situation demands it.




I'd still like to see a double blind trial on that.


**You organise it. I'll bring the speakers, amplification, source and
cables.

speaker cables can affect the sound from the speakers just as AV
interconnects do


--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/
http://www.australianlibertyalliance.org.au/

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 23/05/2016 12:06 PM, felix wrote:

On 23-May-2016 9:01 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/05/2016 1:29 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 21/05/2016 12:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 21/05/2016 11:40 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 19/05/2016 4:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/05/2016 8:15 PM, keithr wrote:
On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The
Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid
wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available,
and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their
money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the
price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits
reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker
cables,
the worst choice possible. Naim cable is worse, due to the
incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that
highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™
provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable
will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers),
then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/






Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance
figure.
Cost is reasonable.

At what length do the characteristics of speaker cable become
significant?

**It depends entirely on the impedance characteristics of the speaker
system. I've measured audibly significant differences at lengths of
less
than 3 Metres (the typical length used in many systems).


How do you determine them to be audibly significant differences?

**Any difference which can be measured within the audible spectrum,
which can be determined to be audibly significant.


Something that can technically be measured on the audible spectrum may
not be audible to the listener.

**Read my answer again.



You can actually hear the difference can you?

**Attempt to personalise the argument noted.


Well if you can't hear the difference then you can't note any
improvement and hearing is a very personal thing given that it varies
from person to person.

**What _I_ can hear is not relevant.


Yes, I have heard the difference between speaker cables under certain
circumstances. As have many of my clients. It's why I suggest RG213/U
when the situation demands it.




I'd still like to see a double blind trial on that.


**You organise it. I'll bring the speakers, amplification, source and
cables.



speaker cables can affect the sound from the speakers just as AV
interconnects do

**Of course. Only a complete moron would dispute such things.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Blue Peeler]

felix wrote:

speaker cables can affect the sound from the speakers just as AV
interconnects do

You are absolutely correct Fetid.

Pity that your beloved monster cables are amongst the very worst at
doing that.

 

[Trevor]

On 23/05/2016 1:29 AM, Clocky wrote:

On 21/05/2016 12:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Yes, I have heard the difference between speaker cables under certain
circumstances. As have many of my clients. It's why I suggest RG213/U
when the situation demands it.

I'd still like to see a double blind trial on that.

He's right of course, "under certain circumstances"... "when the
situation demands it".
Not something that too many people have to deal with though. Obviously
you don't, and neither do I.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

On 23/05/2016 12:06 PM, felix wrote:

speaker cables can affect the sound from the speakers just as AV
interconnects do

Absolutely, I've had more than one interconnect fail and that certainly
affects the sound!

Trevor.

 

[felix]

On 23-May-2016 2:14 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 23/05/2016 12:06 PM, felix wrote:
On 23-May-2016 9:01 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/05/2016 1:29 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 21/05/2016 12:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:


Yes, I have heard the difference between speaker cables under certain
circumstances. As have many of my clients. It's why I suggest RG213/U
when the situation demands it.




I'd still like to see a double blind trial on that.


**You organise it. I'll bring the speakers, amplification, source and
cables.



speaker cables can affect the sound from the speakers just as AV
interconnects do



**Of course. Only a complete moron would dispute such things.

well don't tell noddy. according to him Clocky is the cable expert and I
know nothing about them


--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/
http://www.australianlibertyalliance.org.au/

 

[Noddy]

On 23/05/16 7:00 PM, felix wrote:

**Of course. Only a complete moron would dispute such things.


well don't tell noddy. according to him Clocky is the cable expert and I
know nothing about them

Really? When did I say that?

See? Lies. It's all you ever do, and when you ask for "examples" you put
your fucking blinkers on and just ignore everything.




--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[Clocky]

On 23/05/2016 5:00 PM, felix wrote:

On 23-May-2016 2:14 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/05/2016 12:06 PM, felix wrote:
On 23-May-2016 9:01 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/05/2016 1:29 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 21/05/2016 12:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:


Yes, I have heard the difference between speaker cables under certain
circumstances. As have many of my clients. It's why I suggest RG213/U
when the situation demands it.




I'd still like to see a double blind trial on that.


**You organise it. I'll bring the speakers, amplification, source and
cables.



speaker cables can affect the sound from the speakers just as AV
interconnects do



**Of course. Only a complete moron would dispute such things.


well don't tell noddy. according to him Clocky is the cable expert and I
know nothing about them

Nobody, including me, has ever claimed that I'm a cable expert.

 

[Clocky]

On 23/05/2016 3:33 PM, Trevor wrote:

On 23/05/2016 1:29 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 21/05/2016 12:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Yes, I have heard the difference between speaker cables under certain
circumstances. As have many of my clients. It's why I suggest RG213/U
when the situation demands it.

I'd still like to see a double blind trial on that.

He's right of course, "under certain circumstances"... "when the
situation demands it".
Not something that too many people have to deal with though. Obviously
you don't, and neither do I.

Trevor.

And most that think they do I would hazard to guess.

 

[Noddy]

On 24/05/16 10:45 AM, Clocky wrote:

well don't tell noddy. according to him Clocky is the cable expert and I
know nothing about them

Nobody, including me, has ever claimed that I'm a cable expert.

Relax. It's just more of Felix's bullshit that he insists doesn't exist.

You were a little slow picking up on that Sheriff.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[felix]

On 24-May-2016 10:45 AM, Clocky wrote:

On 23/05/2016 5:00 PM, felix wrote:
On 23-May-2016 2:14 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/05/2016 12:06 PM, felix wrote:
On 23-May-2016 9:01 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/05/2016 1:29 AM, Clocky wrote:
On 21/05/2016 12:48 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:


Yes, I have heard the difference between speaker cables under
certain
circumstances. As have many of my clients. It's why I suggest
RG213/U
when the situation demands it.




I'd still like to see a double blind trial on that.


**You organise it. I'll bring the speakers, amplification, source and
cables.



speaker cables can affect the sound from the speakers just as AV
interconnects do



**Of course. Only a complete moron would dispute such things.


well don't tell noddy. according to him Clocky is the cable expert and I
know nothing about them




Nobody, including me, has ever claimed that I'm a cable expert.

just exaggerating for impact. but you were trying to tell me about
cables saying I didn't know what I was talking about, and noddy did say
he would take your word over mine, so don't get so uppity



--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/
http://www.australianlibertyalliance.org.au/