And don't you ****in forget it!

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio Shack Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were much
brighter than the coax.

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable cables
have similar characteristics?

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message ...

"Annika1980" wrote in message

oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always
figured Radio Shack Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
(which?) is an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that
looks like Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
wires were much
brighter than the coax.

Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
system, Bob.

Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my bad
science, why aren't you doing some scientific measurements
of your own to get some technical understanding of what's
going on here?

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin effect.

Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
done at a relatively low cost.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
reasonable cables
have similar characteristics?

Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is a
simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
Science for you, Bob?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message ...

"Annika1980" wrote in message

oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always
figured Radio Shack Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
(which?) is an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that
looks like Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
wires were much
brighter than the coax.

Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
system, Bob.

Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my bad
science, why aren't you doing some scientific measurements
of your own to get some technical understanding of what's
going on here?

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin effect.

Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
done at a relatively low cost.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
reasonable cables
have similar characteristics?

Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is a
simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
Science for you, Bob?


Is controlling your anger and hatred too much high science for you, Arny? I
hope the wife, and any pets, have left the house...

:-(

Margaret

"Margaret von B." wrote
in message
news

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote
in
message ...

"Annika1980" wrote in message


oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always
figured Radio Shack Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
(which?) is an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something
that
looks like Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
wires were much
brighter than the coax.

Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
system, Bob.

Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my
bad
science, why aren't you doing some scientific
measurements
of your own to get some technical understanding of
what's
going on here?

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin effect.

Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
done at a relatively low cost.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
reasonable cables
have similar characteristics?

Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is
a
simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
Science for you, Bob?


Is controlling your anger and hatred too much high science
for you, Arny? I
hope the wife, and any pets, have left the house...

What anger and hatred, Maggie?

The anger and hatred that causes you to jump in with
technical-content free posts like this last one of yours?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message ...

"Annika1980" wrote in message

oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always
figured Radio Shack Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
(which?) is an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that
looks like Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
wires were much
brighter than the coax.

Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
system, Bob.

Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my bad
science, why aren't you doing some scientific measurements
of your own to get some technical understanding of what's
going on here?

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin effect.

Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
done at a relatively low cost.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
reasonable cables
have similar characteristics?

Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is a
simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
Science for you, Bob?

Notice the nastiness. I'm so glad my system doesn't sound like that.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message ...

"Annika1980" wrote in message

oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always
figured Radio Shack Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
(which?) is an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that
looks like Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
wires were much
brighter than the coax.

Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
system, Bob.

Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my bad
science, why aren't you doing some scientific measurements
of your own to get some technical understanding of what's
going on here?

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin effect.

Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
done at a relatively low cost.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
reasonable cables
have similar characteristics?

Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is a
simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
Science for you, Bob?

Notice the nastiness. I'm so glad my system doesn't sound like that.



I'm sure it was not personal, Bob. He seemed to indicate that he was having
another breakout. We should all feel sorry and pray for him. Let God
continue to punish him. :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

Robert Morein said:

Science for you, Bob?

Notice the nastiness. I'm so glad my system doesn't sound like that.

Quite so. As you yourself have observed, what Arnii wallows in is a very bad
substitute for science. Like everything else related to Turdborg, his Borgma is
redolent of feces. I heard that a big part of the Hivie induction rituals is
eating a big **** sandwich. Not a big deal for the Krooborg, who routinely
indulges his coprophilia, but quite an obstacle for the young "trainees" ;-) he
recruits from Sunday school.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio Shack
Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like
Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were much
brighter than the coax.

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable cables
have similar characteristics?

**I still use some of the cables from these guys:

http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp

when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably priced and
very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests and am
satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In some
instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver, or
silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their cost is
in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio Shack
Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is an
open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like
Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were much
brighter than the coax.

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
cables
have similar characteristics?

**I still use some of the cables from these guys:

http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp

when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably priced
and
very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests and am
satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In some
instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver, or
silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their cost
is
in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

For theoretical reasons, copper seems a better choice.
The higher the conductivity of the material, the greater the skin effect.
Hence, silver would cause the greatest reduction in high frequency response,
rather contrary to what I'm after.

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio
Shack
Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a
quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is
an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks
like
Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were
much
brighter than the coax.

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
cables
have similar characteristics?

**I still use some of the cables from these guys:

http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp

when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably
priced and
very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests
and am
satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In
some
instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver,
or
silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their
cost is
in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Blind tests that showed a difference between cables? Blasphemy!



Scott Wheeler

wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio
Shack
Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a
quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?)
is
an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks
like
Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were
much
brighter than the coax.

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
reasonable
cables
have similar characteristics?

**I still use some of the cables from these guys:

http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp

when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably
priced and
very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests
and am
satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables.
In
some
instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the
silver,
or
silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what
their
cost is
in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Blind tests that showed a difference between cables? Blasphemy!



Scott Wheeler

He must have SEEN the cables, thereby voiding the test! eg
Hi Scott!

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio Shack
Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is an
open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like
Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were much
brighter than the coax.

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
cables
have similar characteristics?

**I still use some of the cables from these guys:

http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp

when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably priced
and
very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests and am
satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In some
instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver, or
silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their cost
is
in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

For theoretical reasons, copper seems a better choice.
The higher the conductivity of the material, the greater the skin effect.
Hence, silver would cause the greatest reduction in high frequency
response,
rather contrary to what I'm after.

**I don't think skin effect is a problem in your application. I don't know
why, but silver is my preference. Nonetheless, copper Apature cables are
worth a listen.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com...


He must have SEEN the cables, thereby voiding the test! eg
Hi Scott!

**"He" did not do the listening.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio
Shack
Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a
quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is an
open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like
Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were
much
brighter than the coax.

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
cables
have similar characteristics?

**I still use some of the cables from these guys:

http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp

when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably
priced
and
very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests and
am
satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In
some
instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver,
or
silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their
cost
is
in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

For theoretical reasons, copper seems a better choice.
The higher the conductivity of the material, the greater the skin
effect.
Hence, silver would cause the greatest reduction in high frequency
response,
rather contrary to what I'm after.

**I don't think skin effect is a problem in your application. I don't know
why, but silver is my preference. Nonetheless, copper Apature cables are
worth a listen.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

For a given diameter, conductors made of material with low bulk conductivity
have less skin effect than those made of high conductivity material. Thus it
is actually possible that conductive plastic cables would offer improvement.

As far as I am aware, there are only four reasonable possibilities for
signal cable differences:
1. inductance
2. capacitance
3. skin effect
4. dielectric memory

Of these, the first two can be compensated for by tone controls,
equalization, or the like, because they comprise a distributed linear filter
in the cable.
The last two, however, are nonlinear effects, which means that the
degradation they cause the signal, if any, cannot be reversed.

There is an elementary exercise every physics student does in adv.
undergraduate and again in graduate electrodynamics. It's a homework
problem, found in the chapter assignments: to compute epsilon, the depth of
the "skin", at various frequencies, for a particular bulk conductivity. The
answer is, it is very significant in the high treble ( 10 kHz region.)

Paradoxically, the lower the conductivity, the greater the skin depth. The
implication is that what one definitely does NOT want is a conductor with
very high conductivity, because it excludes AC.

The phenomenon of superconductivity is more interesting still. A
superconductor EXCLUDES all time-varying fields. This is a direct result of
the above skin effect calculation: epsilon goes to infinity. If one attempts
to impose a time varying field, with an arbitrary potential, the
superconductor quenches, ie., transitions to a state of normal conductivity.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Paradoxically, the lower the conductivity, the greater the skin depth. The
implication is that what one definitely does NOT want is a conductor with
very high conductivity, because it excludes AC.

Sorry, that should have been, "the smaller the skin depth."

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio
Shack
Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a
quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is
an
open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like
Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were
much
brighter than the coax.

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
cables
have similar characteristics?

**I still use some of the cables from these guys:

http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp

when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably
priced
and
very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests and
am
satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In
some
instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver,
or
silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their
cost
is
in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

For theoretical reasons, copper seems a better choice.
The higher the conductivity of the material, the greater the skin
effect.
Hence, silver would cause the greatest reduction in high frequency
response,
rather contrary to what I'm after.

**I don't think skin effect is a problem in your application. I don't
know
why, but silver is my preference. Nonetheless, copper Apature cables are
worth a listen.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

For a given diameter, conductors made of material with low bulk
conductivity
have less skin effect than those made of high conductivity material. Thus
it
is actually possible that conductive plastic cables would offer
improvement.

As far as I am aware, there are only four reasonable possibilities for
signal cable differences:
1. inductance
2. capacitance
3. skin effect
4. dielectric memory

Of these, the first two can be compensated for by tone controls,
equalization, or the like, because they comprise a distributed linear
filter
in the cable.
The last two, however, are nonlinear effects, which means that the
degradation they cause the signal, if any, cannot be reversed.

There is an elementary exercise every physics student does in adv.
undergraduate and again in graduate electrodynamics. It's a homework
problem, found in the chapter assignments: to compute epsilon, the depth
of
the "skin", at various frequencies, for a particular bulk conductivity.
The
answer is, it is very significant in the high treble ( 10 kHz region.)

**I am aware of skin effect and the complex calculations required to
quantify the effect. However, there are a few things worth knowing:

* Skin depth at 20kHz is bloody close to 0.5mm. All conductors in the
Apature cables I use, are 1mm diameter.
* I still don't believe that skin effect has any relevance at the impedances
use in line level interconnects.


Paradoxically, the lower the conductivity, the greater the skin depth. The
implication is that what one definitely does NOT want is a conductor with
very high conductivity, because it excludes AC.

**And again, with 1mm diamter conductors and audio frequencies, it is all
acedemic.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the frequency ranges
that audio cables operate in.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin
effect.

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the
frequency ranges
that audio cables operate in.

Agreed.

Ironic, isn't it that Morein hoots and hollars so often
about how other people are "bad scientists"?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the frequency ranges
that audio cables operate in.

I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.

Two aspects of the above statement are subject to dispute:
1. There is no trivial mathematical basis for it.
2. It may still be true, but there are no publications that support it. The
publications of Malcolm Hawksford go against the above statement.

If the poster wishes to claim point "1", the below serves as a refutation:

The skin depth is defined as the depth at which the conductivty is reduced
to 1/e from the surface value. e ~ 2.718

The formula varies depending upon the material. Assuming copper, the skin
depth sigma is given by sigma = 2.6*K1/sqrt(f).
At 10 kHz, the skin depth is .026 inches = .664 millimeters.

HOWEVER, the factor of note, 1/e, is an artifact of the equation that
determines skin depth. For audibility, it is more relevant to consider the
attentuation in dB, if the attenuated cross section were driving an ohmic
load.

The magnitude of the derivative (which is negative) of the conductivity
curve, is greatest at the boundary. The loss in conductivity of one factor
of 1.3, is approximately equal to 0.664mm/4 = .166mm at 10 kHz.

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message news

wrote in message

ups.com...
Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin
effect.

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the
frequency ranges
that audio cables operate in.

I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.

Two aspects of the above statement are subject to dispute:
1. There is no trivial mathematical basis for it.
2. It may still be true, but there are no publications
that support it. The
publications of Malcolm Hawksford go against the above
statement.

If the poster wishes to claim point "1", the below serves
as a refutation:

The skin depth is defined as the depth at which the
conductivty is reduced
to 1/e from the surface value. e ~ 2.718

The formula varies depending upon the material. Assuming
copper, the skin
depth sigma is given by sigma = 2.6*K1/sqrt(f).
At 10 kHz, the skin depth is .026 inches = .664
millimeters.

HOWEVER, the factor of note, 1/e, is an artifact of the
equation that
determines skin depth. For audibility, it is more relevant
to consider the
attentuation in dB, if the attenuated cross section were
driving an ohmic
load.

The magnitude of the derivative (which is negative) of the
conductivity
curve, is greatest at the boundary. The loss in
conductivity of one factor
of 1.3, is approximately equal to 0.664mm/4 = .166mm at 10
kHz.

For a more lucid treatment, please see:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...ect/page2.html

Robert Morein said:

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the frequency ranges
that audio cables operate in.

I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.

How do you know this new YACA isn't actually Bwian?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message news

wrote in message

ups.com...
Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin
effect.

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the
frequency ranges
that audio cables operate in.

I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.

Two aspects of the above statement are subject to dispute:
1. There is no trivial mathematical basis for it.
2. It may still be true, but there are no publications
that support it. The
publications of Malcolm Hawksford go against the above
statement.

If the poster wishes to claim point "1", the below serves
as a refutation:

The skin depth is defined as the depth at which the
conductivty is reduced
to 1/e from the surface value. e ~ 2.718

The formula varies depending upon the material. Assuming
copper, the skin
depth sigma is given by sigma = 2.6*K1/sqrt(f).
At 10 kHz, the skin depth is .026 inches = .664
millimeters.

HOWEVER, the factor of note, 1/e, is an artifact of the
equation that
determines skin depth. For audibility, it is more relevant
to consider the
attentuation in dB, if the attenuated cross section were
driving an ohmic
load.

The magnitude of the derivative (which is negative) of the
conductivity
curve, is greatest at the boundary. The loss in
conductivity of one factor
of 1.3, is approximately equal to 0.664mm/4 = .166mm at 10
kHz.

For a more lucid treatment, please see:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...ect/page2.html

And Dr. Malcolm Hawksford takes the opposite point of view.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein said:

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the frequency ranges
that audio cables operate in.

I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.

How do you know this new YACA isn't actually Bwian?

George,
One can never be sure. However, as a fellow literati, you are probably
more conscious of literary style than anyone here, save one person who, I
think, would prefer to remain unnamed.
The style of the post is not Bwian's. Although a reasonably versatile
mind might be expected to have the capability to emulate a variety of
styles, Bwian has never shown that ability. Several of us have communicated
with his sockpuppets, and, indeed, they have been the subject of lunchtime
discussion by law enforcement. As far as we know (note disclaimer), Brian
has never exhibited the ability to transparently emulate the style of
others. In the past several weeks, he has appeared on this group in several
guises, but I haven't bothered to point it out.

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message ...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote
in
message news

wrote in message


ups.com...
Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin
effect.

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the
frequency ranges
that audio cables operate in.

I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.

Two aspects of the above statement are subject to
dispute:
1. There is no trivial mathematical basis for it.
2. It may still be true, but there are no publications
that support it. The
publications of Malcolm Hawksford go against the above
statement.

If the poster wishes to claim point "1", the below
serves
as a refutation:

The skin depth is defined as the depth at which the
conductivty is reduced
to 1/e from the surface value. e ~ 2.718

The formula varies depending upon the material.
Assuming
copper, the skin
depth sigma is given by sigma = 2.6*K1/sqrt(f).
At 10 kHz, the skin depth is .026 inches = .664
millimeters.

HOWEVER, the factor of note, 1/e, is an artifact of
the
equation that
determines skin depth. For audibility, it is more
relevant
to consider the
attentuation in dB, if the attenuated cross section
were
driving an ohmic
load.

The magnitude of the derivative (which is negative) of
the
conductivity
curve, is greatest at the boundary. The loss in
conductivity of one factor
of 1.3, is approximately equal to 0.664mm/4 = .166mm
at 10
kHz.

For a more lucid treatment, please see:


http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...ect/page2.html

And Dr. Malcolm Hawksford takes the opposite point of
view.

Here are the corrections to Hawksford's errors:

http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/silv...diocables2.php

which references:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...lm+hawks ford
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...ight=hawksford
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...ight=hawksford

and adds:

"The Hawksford analysis, as printed in the Essex Echo,
neglects to include the storage of energy within the
conductor...the 15 nHenry per foot number with copper. This
is a result of the treatment of the wires as conductors
whose voltage and current arise as a consequence of external
fields. This is not the case for current carrying
conductors. In addition, Hawksford neglected to test
various guages of copper wire conductors, instead,
substituted a steel conductor with a mu of approximately
100. Since the internal inductance is proportional to mu,
the actual inductance he did not accout for was 1.5
microhenries per foot per wire, or 3 microhenries for the
pair. On the assumption he used a meter of wire, that is
about 10 microhenries unaccounted for in his simulation, and
hence, the inductive overshoot in his test. Clearly, had he
modelled this inductance, with the loop resistance of his
wire, he would have found that the wire matches the formula
for inductance provided us by Termen in 1947."

George M. Middius wrote:
Robert Morein said:

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the frequency
ranges
that audio cables operate in.

I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.

How do you know this new YACA isn't actually Bwian?


Or Doug Haugen. ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message ...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote
in
message news
wrote in message


ups.com...
Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin
effect.

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the
frequency ranges
that audio cables operate in.

I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.

Two aspects of the above statement are subject to
dispute:
1. There is no trivial mathematical basis for it.
2. It may still be true, but there are no publications
that support it. The
publications of Malcolm Hawksford go against the above
statement.

If the poster wishes to claim point "1", the below
serves
as a refutation:

The skin depth is defined as the depth at which the
conductivty is reduced
to 1/e from the surface value. e ~ 2.718

The formula varies depending upon the material.
Assuming
copper, the skin
depth sigma is given by sigma = 2.6*K1/sqrt(f).
At 10 kHz, the skin depth is .026 inches = .664
millimeters.

HOWEVER, the factor of note, 1/e, is an artifact of
the
equation that
determines skin depth. For audibility, it is more
relevant
to consider the
attentuation in dB, if the attenuated cross section
were
driving an ohmic
load.

The magnitude of the derivative (which is negative) of
the
conductivity
curve, is greatest at the boundary. The loss in
conductivity of one factor
of 1.3, is approximately equal to 0.664mm/4 = .166mm
at 10
kHz.

For a more lucid treatment, please see:


http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...ect/page2.html

And Dr. Malcolm Hawksford takes the opposite point of
view.

Here are the corrections to Hawksford's errors:

http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/silv...diocables2.php

The corrections are doubtful.

Arny Krueger said:

Agreed.

Ironic, isn't it that Morein hoots and hollars so often
about how other people are "bad scientists"?


Ironic does not really fit, this case, this seems much more a case of
outright ignorance.

So much of what he says is simply wrong, the fact that he is not aware
of how idiotic he is might be ironic, if weren't so pitiful.

Mostly, Morein seems to be so desparate for people to play with, that
he chooses this place and tries so hard to be one of the "Normals,"
shows how pitiful he is.

On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:02:29 -0400, Robert Morein wrote:

snip

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable cables
have similar characteristics?


Inductive & capacitive effect of speaker cable (in uncoiled, reasonable
lengths anyway) at audio frequencies is just about zero. You can measure
the stuff if you don't believe me. Skin effect is simply irrelevent. If
you were shoving 1000A through it and trying to keep the weight down then,
yeah, take it into account, but as the cable, speaker and amp output
impedences are all working together to keep the current well below this
and weight isn't a problem then just forget it. Leave it where it belongs
in the power distribution business.

The biggest differences (if any!) in speaker cables are found during
sighted or badly-conducted comparisons. What does this tell you? I
speculate that your cable comparison is null & void if you can hear any
difference - or you broke something. The resistance of the connections
will be lower when you connect a newly-stripped length of cable but that
is a difference in *connection resistance* that you hear - not in cable.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

Bwian said:

desparate

Doesn't Bwian have a history of misspelling this word?

"mick" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:02:29 -0400, Robert Morein wrote:

snip

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
cables
have similar characteristics?


Inductive & capacitive effect of speaker cable (in uncoiled, reasonable
lengths anyway) at audio frequencies is just about zero.

Mick,
What is the skin depth for copper, at 10 kHz ?
What is the depth for the current density to drop by a factor of 0.7?

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message ...

"mick" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:02:29 -0400, Robert Morein wrote:

snip

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin
effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do
any reasonable
cables
have similar characteristics?


Inductive & capacitive effect of speaker cable (in
uncoiled, reasonable
lengths anyway) at audio frequencies is just about zero.

Mick,
What is the skin depth for copper, at 10 kHz ?

Depends who you believe - a number of qualified independent
sources, or an old-timer who was obviously working out of
his element.

What is the depth for the current density to drop by a
factor of 0.7?

Wrong question. The right question is: "Where is the science
and reliable listening tests that show that skin effect is a
significant problem".

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

agreed with the comment "There is no audible skin effect in the frequency
ranges that audio cables operate in."

As a matter of interest, what would be the effect of using TV aerail co-ax
for line-level audio connections for distances up to say 50 metres?

The cable is widely available, cheap, well-screened, and has a solid
conductor. It works well at high frequencies, but what about the 20-20kHz
range?

Tim

dick Malesweski wrote:

;-)

There's that big red nose winky again.
Do you ever plan to quit drinking?

How come you got so ****ed off the other night, dick?
Is it because we've got it all wrong? You're ****ed because
everyone thinks you're Richard Malesweski, the failure internet
bicycle mechanic, when you're really a successful businessman?
Is it because I posted a link to RM's wanky website and a pic
of RM ( "some guy" wink, wink) getting an award, when you
don't have a big red nose and scrawny ponytail?
Is it because I've been sending all those emails that you
can't answer?

Why all the hostility Richard? Why so ****ed off when we're
ridiculing SOMEONE ELSE? All this misdirection should be
good for a cowardly dick like you.

So seriously, did you sell the little shack you inherited? Is
that what the "warm welcome" is all about? What'd you get
for it? How long will you be able to survive on the proceeds?
Where are you going now? Back to the NE? What's your
next scam?

George asked "where and when", dick. You never answered
the question.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

You'd think so. I had some PBJ and thought I would solder up my own braided
wire with some Rat Shack stuff. It sounded different. The highs were rolled
and the soundstage was flatter. The bass was more full, but not in a bad
way.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message ...

"Annika1980" wrote in message

oups.com...
And don't you ****in forget it!

I have never been interested in cables. I've always
figured Radio Shack Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
(which?) is an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that
looks like Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
wires were much
brighter than the coax.

Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
system, Bob.

Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my bad
science, why aren't you doing some scientific measurements
of your own to get some technical understanding of what's
going on here?

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin effect.

Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
done at a relatively low cost.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
reasonable cables
have similar characteristics?

Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is a
simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
Science for you, Bob?

Hey Arnie, howzit going?

Just my yearly chick-in here, nice to see that some things never change. I
made my own hookups and I like them better than my PBJs. More flexible, and
the highs are rolled a bit which to me is a Good Thing.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 05:17:24 -0400, Robert Morein wrote:

snip

Mick,
What is the skin depth for copper, at 10 kHz ?
What is the depth for the current density to drop by a factor of 0.7?


What I can't understand is why you are bothered. You, no doubt, are using
a good quality connector at each end (if not then you should be!). You are
interested in making contact with *all* the strands that make up the wire
if possible, as that will give the lowest overall resistance.

What happens to the current between the two end connectors is almost
immaterial providing you don't lose too much of it or push it through
something too non-linear. You can't control it anyway.

The only time it is of any consequence is when you are sizing a power
conductor for minimum losses and that is only really important in
distribution switchgear where it makes a hell of a difference in conductor
costs. We sometimes use copper-coated aluminium - Cuponal - for busbars as
most of the current flows in the copper skin and the weight and cost of
the bars is kept down. This stuff doesn't really start to pay for itself
until you get up to CSAs like 1.5sq in running at about 75% load.

Worrying about skin effect is a pointless exercise in speaker cable as I
pointed out previously - the inherrent loop resistance will swamp any
changes due to skin effect. Please, if you really want to mess with this
then do some *measurements* - not listening tests. You will find them far
more revealing.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

On Sat, 21 May 2005 13:36:41 +0000, Tim Martin wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

agreed with the comment "There is no audible skin effect in the frequency
ranges that audio cables operate in."

As a matter of interest, what would be the effect of using TV aerail co-ax
for line-level audio connections for distances up to say 50 metres?

The cable is widely available, cheap, well-screened, and has a solid
conductor. It works well at high frequencies, but what about the 20-20kHz
range?


Dunno about your tv coax, but the cheap stuff isn't well screened at all.
It doesn't need to be at UHF, so manufacturers leave big holes in the
screen layer that would make a difference at AF.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

tubeguy said:

Just my yearly chick-in here, nice to see that some things never change. I
made my own hookups and I like them better than my PBJs. More flexible, and
the highs are rolled a bit which to me is a Good Thing.

But wouldn't that be less [gasp!] ACCURATE? Horrors!

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


tubeguy said:

Just my yearly chick-in here, nice to see that some things never change.
I
made my own hookups and I like them better than my PBJs. More flexible,
and
the highs are rolled a bit which to me is a Good Thing.

But wouldn't that be less [gasp!] ACCURATE? Horrors!

Yes, zounds. Not there's anything wrong with that. I just like the sound of
my cables better. Go figure. I have been always been quite neutral, but
braided regular Radio Shack copper sounds better to me. (when branded as
kimber does) Even on cheap systems. This was a few years ago. I have since
got some Grados and Bringers for reference. Simply pristene sound. But I
know there is something missing, and I also know that I will have the
hardware to extract this missing detail in the future. However I have good
enough ears to tell that I am hearing pretty good sound right now. Beringer
rocks in the area that they are in- nearfield monitors, and they play
wonderful music for me. bass, good spread, good response. I get the feeling
that I'm hearing everything, given my 30 years or4 so in listening to music.

Don't get me wrong!

I say that a lot, but it rings true. I know how stuff is supposed to sound.
This is like cooking. Getting the right temperature and ingredients all at
the right time. I know how making sound work can be a hassle. It's all about
what tit sounds like to you. Forgive me for belaboring a point that has been
bandied about ad-museum, but this is about how music sounds- to me and to
you. There's no middle ground- there is only how this tune sounds to you.
Make it good for you.