[[email protected]]

The current online stereophile has one of its gems posted from time to
time. This one involves a review of a tube preamp. Where oh where is the
editor and his pencil for such as below when it comes to physical reality?
That being a claimed audible difference in a cap "error" which produces no
measurable difference.

There are other examples in the article also, including hearing the
difference of a cause said to produce either 600 or 800 kz top
reproduction, the glue used to hold a replacement cap, about which more
below.

It is this kind of silly technical explanation allowed, or even encouraged
it ssometimes seems, in the mag that caused me to allow its subscription
to run out almost 20 years ago.

Also, do you agree with me that the need to replace the cap had more to do
with increasing face time with someone who could make or break marketing
of the product? Read and enjoy:

A case in point: A few weeks after I'd received the review sample of CAT's
SL1 Renaissance preamplifier, Stevens called to tell me that, because of
an
error by their parts supplier, some capacitors in the phono section of a
few Renaissance units weren't exactly as specified. (It has since been
determined that only three samples of the Renaissance were affected, my
review sample being No.3.) The difference wasn't something obvious, such
as
capacitor value, but the metal used in the capacitor lead wire. That wire
was supposed to be made of copper, but for some of the capacitors
copper-clad steel was used. Stevens admitted that the sonic difference
produced by the lead wire was small, and would not show up in any
conventional measurement of the Renaissance's performance, but it was one
that he could hear in his own high-resolution system.

He said that only a practiced eye could tell by looking at the capacitor
which kind of lead wire it had, and he wanted to ensure that the review
sample represented current production. Stevens offered to visit me in
Toronto (the CAT factory is in Rush, New York, near Rochester, about a
three-hour drive from my house) and, if necessary, replace the affected
capacitors. That was fine with me--the visit would also allow him to
confirm that the Renaissance was working as expected in my system. (By
that
time I'd already listened briefly to the phono section, and couldn't tell
that there was anything amiss.)

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 1, 7:29=A0pm, wrote:
The current online stereophile has one of its gems posted from time to
time. =A0This one involves a review of a tube preamp. =A0Where oh where i=
s the
editor and his pencil for such as below when it comes to physical reality=
? =A0
That being a claimed audible difference in a cap "error" which produces n=
o
measurable difference.

There are other examples in the article also, including hearing the
difference of a cause said to produce either 600 or 800 kz top
reproduction, the glue used to hold a replacement cap, about which more
below.

It is this kind of silly technical explanation allowed, or even encourage=
d
it ssometimes seems, in the mag that caused me to allow its subscription
to run out almost 20 years ago.

Also, do you agree with me that the need to replace the cap had more to d=
o
with increasing face time with someone who could make or break marketing
of the product? =A0Read and enjoy:

A case in point: A few weeks after I'd received the review sample of CAT'=
s
SL1 Renaissance preamplifier, Stevens called to tell me that, because of
an
error by their parts supplier, some capacitors in the phono section of a
few Renaissance units weren't exactly as specified. (It has since been
determined that only three samples of the Renaissance were affected, my
review sample being No.3.) The difference wasn't something obvious, such
as
capacitor value, but the metal used in the capacitor lead wire. That wire
was supposed to be made of copper, but for some of the capacitors
copper-clad steel was used. Stevens admitted that the sonic difference
produced by the lead wire was small, and would not show up in any
conventional measurement of the Renaissance's performance, but it was one
that he could hear in his own high-resolution system.

He said that only a practiced eye could tell by looking at the capacitor
which kind of lead wire it had, and he wanted to ensure that the review
sample represented current production. Stevens offered to visit me in
Toronto (the CAT factory is in Rush, New York, near Rochester, about a
three-hour drive from my house) and, if necessary, replace the affected
capacitors. That was fine with me--the visit would also allow him to
confirm that the Renaissance was working as expected in my system. (By
that
time I'd already listened briefly to the phono section, and couldn't tell
that there was anything amiss.)

You seem fairly obsessed with a magazine that you stopped following 20
years ago. But apart from all that, these magazines exist at the
pleasure of their advertisers, and all those salaries and fees are
based on advertising revenue. I expect that I could polish some pine-
wood blocks, put little wheels on them and a groove on top, add little
neodymium magnets at one end and perhaps some black magic marker (left
side) or red (right) on the other and sell it for say..... $4,500/
pair. If I were to take out 3 months of full-page adds at (insert high-
end-audio magazine name here) I would get a fair review. Were I to
commit for a full year, a rave review.

Oh, the purpose of the little "pinewood racers" would be to rolled
along each speaker wire to demagnetize it and also to find the proper
'sweet spot' where it should remain. Adjust for each type of music
played, of course. And for an additional $1,500, we could customize
the groove for your particular type of speaker wire and add the "noise
spoiler"... It's that personal touch!

You get the idea.

Any one wanna stake me? I could have engineering drawings in your
hands within 48 hours.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


The current online stereophile has one of its gems posted
from time to time. This one involves a review of a tube
preamp. Where oh where is the editor and his pencil for
such as below when it comes to physical reality? That
being a claimed audible difference in a cap "error" which
produces no measurable difference.

If memory serves, the history of paranoia over the use of ferrous parts in
audio gear goes back to the late 1960s or early 1970s when a Japanese
"researcher" claimed audible effects due to the proximity of ferrous parts
to audio circuitry.

There are other examples in the article also, including
hearing the difference of a cause said to produce either
600 or 800 kHz top reproduction, the glue used to hold a
replacement cap, about which more below.

I believe I still have in my possession a sample of an "audio varnish" that
when applied to integrated circuits would have audible benefits.

It is this kind of silly technical explanation allowed,
or even encouraged it sometimes seems, in the mag that
caused me to allow its subscription to run out almost 20
years ago.

I was a charter subscriber to Stereophile, but dropped my subscription in
the 1970s when its content dropped beyond the pale.

Also, do you agree with me that the need to replace the
cap had more to do with increasing face time with someone
who could make or break marketing of the product?

Interesting theory. I presume that the following are quotes from the
ragazine???

Read and enjoy:


A case in point: A few weeks after I'd received the
review sample of CAT's SL1 Renaissance preamplifier,
Stevens called to tell me that, because of an
error by their parts supplier, some capacitors in the
phono section of a few Renaissance units weren't exactly
as specified. (It has since been determined that only
three samples of the Renaissance were affected, my review
sample being No.3.) The difference wasn't something
obvious, such as
capacitor value, but the metal used in the capacitor lead
wire. That wire was supposed to be made of copper, but
for some of the capacitors copper-clad steel was used.

If copper clad steel wire harmed sound quality, we'd be all in deep water.
Copper clad steel wire is commonly used for transmission lines. The benefit
of the steel core is mechanical strength.

Stevens admitted that the sonic difference produced by
the lead wire was small, and would not show up in any
conventional measurement of the Renaissance's
performance, but it was one that he could hear in his own
high-resolution system.

Expectation bias, anybody?

He said that only a practiced eye could tell by looking
at the capacitor which kind of lead wire it had, and he
wanted to ensure that the review sample represented
current production. Stevens offered to visit me in
Toronto (the CAT factory is in Rush, New York, near
Rochester, about a three-hour drive from my house) and,
if necessary, replace the affected capacitors. That was
fine with me--the visit would also allow him to confirm
that the Renaissance was working as expected in my
system. (By that
time I'd already listened briefly to the phono section,
and couldn't tell that there was anything amiss.)

Looks like the editor has some time to burn on an unnecessary road trip.