Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction
and geometry affect cable inductance. On the one hand, I'm told that large conductor diameters and small interconductor spacing leads to low inductance. On the other hand, I see where braided cables of small conductors (i.e. Kimber's speaker cables) have remarkably low inductance. So from a purely theoretical perspective, how do these different cable structures lead to greater or lesser inductance in the cable, assuming a consistent overall gauge? Thanks, Colin |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
wrote in message
... OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. On the one hand, I'm told that large conductor diameters and small interconductor spacing leads to low inductance. Yep. On the other hand, I see where braided cables of small conductors (i.e. Kimber's speaker cables) have remarkably low inductance. Inductance is a combination of self inductance and mutual inductance. By twisting or braiding you can get partial cancelation of the mutual inductance. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
wrote in message
... OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. On the one hand, I'm told that large conductor diameters and small interconductor spacing leads to low inductance. Yep. On the other hand, I see where braided cables of small conductors (i.e. Kimber's speaker cables) have remarkably low inductance. Inductance is a combination of self inductance and mutual inductance. By twisting or braiding you can get partial cancelation of the mutual inductance. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
wrote in message
... OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. On the one hand, I'm told that large conductor diameters and small interconductor spacing leads to low inductance. Yep. On the other hand, I see where braided cables of small conductors (i.e. Kimber's speaker cables) have remarkably low inductance. Inductance is a combination of self inductance and mutual inductance. By twisting or braiding you can get partial cancelation of the mutual inductance. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Up-to-date Crutchfield.com referral discount coupon code here to save
you $20 - pxjbb-k3g0a-z3qeh |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Up-to-date Crutchfield.com referral discount coupon code here to save
you $20 - pxjbb-k3g0a-z3qeh |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Up-to-date Crutchfield.com referral discount coupon code here to save
you $20 - pxjbb-k3g0a-z3qeh |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Isaac Wingfield wrote:
In article , wrote: OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. Short answer: not in any way that matters *at all* for decently designed amplifiers and speakers. Pathological cases may be different, but why would you be using ineptly designed gear? Hmm. I'm guessing that you missed the long interconnect thread I started a few weeks ago. :-) I've got well designed gear (in my opinion--intelligent solid-state pre- and power- amps), and I'm not looking for audible effects. I'm just mucking about, trying to understand the theory here, short of taking a full electronics refresher course. Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. Colin |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Isaac Wingfield wrote:
In article , wrote: OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. Short answer: not in any way that matters *at all* for decently designed amplifiers and speakers. Pathological cases may be different, but why would you be using ineptly designed gear? Hmm. I'm guessing that you missed the long interconnect thread I started a few weeks ago. :-) I've got well designed gear (in my opinion--intelligent solid-state pre- and power- amps), and I'm not looking for audible effects. I'm just mucking about, trying to understand the theory here, short of taking a full electronics refresher course. Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. Colin |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Isaac Wingfield wrote:
In article , wrote: OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. Short answer: not in any way that matters *at all* for decently designed amplifiers and speakers. Pathological cases may be different, but why would you be using ineptly designed gear? Hmm. I'm guessing that you missed the long interconnect thread I started a few weeks ago. :-) I've got well designed gear (in my opinion--intelligent solid-state pre- and power- amps), and I'm not looking for audible effects. I'm just mucking about, trying to understand the theory here, short of taking a full electronics refresher course. Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. Colin |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:54:21 GMT,
wrote: OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. On the one hand, I'm told that large conductor diameters and small interconductor spacing leads to low inductance. On the other hand, I see where braided cables of small conductors (i.e. Kimber's speaker cables) have remarkably low inductance. So from a purely theoretical perspective, how do these different cable structures lead to greater or lesser inductance in the cable, assuming a consistent overall gauge? Thanks, Colin They don't. Braiding the cables closely together leads - as you would expect - to greater capacitance, not lower inductance. However, the net effect in network terms is that the overall reactance is less inductive. This is of course the same thing as more capacitive. Somehow, as usual, the audio fraternity has managed to get the whole thing arse-about-face. Every audio engineer should be obliged to take a course in distributed RF modelling to understand what is really going on at the upper reaches of the audio band. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:54:21 GMT,
wrote: OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. On the one hand, I'm told that large conductor diameters and small interconductor spacing leads to low inductance. On the other hand, I see where braided cables of small conductors (i.e. Kimber's speaker cables) have remarkably low inductance. So from a purely theoretical perspective, how do these different cable structures lead to greater or lesser inductance in the cable, assuming a consistent overall gauge? Thanks, Colin They don't. Braiding the cables closely together leads - as you would expect - to greater capacitance, not lower inductance. However, the net effect in network terms is that the overall reactance is less inductive. This is of course the same thing as more capacitive. Somehow, as usual, the audio fraternity has managed to get the whole thing arse-about-face. Every audio engineer should be obliged to take a course in distributed RF modelling to understand what is really going on at the upper reaches of the audio band. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
wrote ...
Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. But NOT audible. This is the kind of "pathological" wacko "pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will actually HEAR at audio frequencies. "You should also understand how the Skin Effect can cause problems with wideband signals..." But no explanation (that I saw) AUDIO (20Hz...20KHz) is NOT "wideband". If you really want to discuss "skin effect" at 20KHz and "audio harmonics" above 20KHz, you should probably go and find one of the "golden-ears" high-end audio forums. I would wager that only a small fraction of people on THIS newsgroup can hear to anywhere near 20KHz. (Likely the same on the "golden-ears" newsgroups, but they won't admit it! :-) |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
wrote ...
Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. But NOT audible. This is the kind of "pathological" wacko "pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will actually HEAR at audio frequencies. "You should also understand how the Skin Effect can cause problems with wideband signals..." But no explanation (that I saw) AUDIO (20Hz...20KHz) is NOT "wideband". If you really want to discuss "skin effect" at 20KHz and "audio harmonics" above 20KHz, you should probably go and find one of the "golden-ears" high-end audio forums. I would wager that only a small fraction of people on THIS newsgroup can hear to anywhere near 20KHz. (Likely the same on the "golden-ears" newsgroups, but they won't admit it! :-) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
wrote ...
Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. But NOT audible. This is the kind of "pathological" wacko "pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will actually HEAR at audio frequencies. "You should also understand how the Skin Effect can cause problems with wideband signals..." But no explanation (that I saw) AUDIO (20Hz...20KHz) is NOT "wideband". If you really want to discuss "skin effect" at 20KHz and "audio harmonics" above 20KHz, you should probably go and find one of the "golden-ears" high-end audio forums. I would wager that only a small fraction of people on THIS newsgroup can hear to anywhere near 20KHz. (Likely the same on the "golden-ears" newsgroups, but they won't admit it! :-) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
wrote ... Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. But NOT audible. Agreed. A graphic summary of which frequency response variations are audible and which are not can be found at http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_crit.htm or http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/FR/index.htm This is the kind of "pathological" wacko "pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will actually HEAR at audio frequencies. The guy who built the site is more of a physicist than a psychoacoustician. "You should also understand how the Skin Effect can cause problems with wideband signals..." But no explanation (that I saw) AUDIO (20Hz...20KHz) is NOT "wideband". Agreed. In fact with music, everything above 16 KHz is optional. If you really want to discuss "skin effect" at 20KHz and "audio harmonics" above 20KHz, you should probably go and find one of the "golden-ears" high-end audio forums. I would wager that only a small fraction of people on THIS newsgroup can hear to anywhere near 20KHz. (Likely the same on the "golden-ears" newsgroups, but they won't admit it! :-) You can study this issue for yourself by downloading and listening to files from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
wrote ... Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. But NOT audible. Agreed. A graphic summary of which frequency response variations are audible and which are not can be found at http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_crit.htm or http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/FR/index.htm This is the kind of "pathological" wacko "pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will actually HEAR at audio frequencies. The guy who built the site is more of a physicist than a psychoacoustician. "You should also understand how the Skin Effect can cause problems with wideband signals..." But no explanation (that I saw) AUDIO (20Hz...20KHz) is NOT "wideband". Agreed. In fact with music, everything above 16 KHz is optional. If you really want to discuss "skin effect" at 20KHz and "audio harmonics" above 20KHz, you should probably go and find one of the "golden-ears" high-end audio forums. I would wager that only a small fraction of people on THIS newsgroup can hear to anywhere near 20KHz. (Likely the same on the "golden-ears" newsgroups, but they won't admit it! :-) You can study this issue for yourself by downloading and listening to files from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
wrote ... Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. But NOT audible. Agreed. A graphic summary of which frequency response variations are audible and which are not can be found at http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_crit.htm or http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/FR/index.htm This is the kind of "pathological" wacko "pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will actually HEAR at audio frequencies. The guy who built the site is more of a physicist than a psychoacoustician. "You should also understand how the Skin Effect can cause problems with wideband signals..." But no explanation (that I saw) AUDIO (20Hz...20KHz) is NOT "wideband". Agreed. In fact with music, everything above 16 KHz is optional. If you really want to discuss "skin effect" at 20KHz and "audio harmonics" above 20KHz, you should probably go and find one of the "golden-ears" high-end audio forums. I would wager that only a small fraction of people on THIS newsgroup can hear to anywhere near 20KHz. (Likely the same on the "golden-ears" newsgroups, but they won't admit it! :-) You can study this issue for yourself by downloading and listening to files from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ... Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. But NOT audible. This is the kind of "pathological" wacko "pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will actually HEAR at audio frequencies. Woah there! The guy in St. Andrews is very clearly talking physics, and doing so correctly. The graphs speak for themselves. 0.1dB at 100kHz is completely inaudible of course, and the fact that he doesn't belabour the point doesn't make him a pathological wacko pseudo-scientist. It just means that he assumes his audience is smart enough to understand what he's saying. That said, he does point this out: "In effect, therefore, the above differential group delay is equivalent to a sound source that seems 16 microns nearer at high audible frequencies than at low audible frequencies." Is it really necessary to explicitly FURTHER point out that a group delay shift of 50nsec is inaudible? "You should also understand how the Skin Effect can cause problems with wideband signals..." But no explanation (that I saw) AUDIO (20Hz...20KHz) is NOT "wideband". But his analysis proves the point that skin effect is a moot point. Consider it this way: the graphs are an integral part of his research and presentation. If you really want to discuss "skin effect" at 20KHz and "audio harmonics" above 20KHz, you should probably go and find one of the "golden-ears" high-end audio forums. I would wager that only a small fraction of people on THIS newsgroup can hear to anywhere near 20KHz. (Likely the same on the "golden-ears" newsgroups, but they won't admit it! :-) Well skin effect is very real and measurable at 20kHz, just completely irrelevant. :-) As an aside, I was playing with a signal generator and amp this weekend. Sadly, my hearing gives out somewhere between 16kHz and 17kHz. Gone are my 20kHz days! :-( Colin |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ... Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. But NOT audible. This is the kind of "pathological" wacko "pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will actually HEAR at audio frequencies. Woah there! The guy in St. Andrews is very clearly talking physics, and doing so correctly. The graphs speak for themselves. 0.1dB at 100kHz is completely inaudible of course, and the fact that he doesn't belabour the point doesn't make him a pathological wacko pseudo-scientist. It just means that he assumes his audience is smart enough to understand what he's saying. That said, he does point this out: "In effect, therefore, the above differential group delay is equivalent to a sound source that seems 16 microns nearer at high audible frequencies than at low audible frequencies." Is it really necessary to explicitly FURTHER point out that a group delay shift of 50nsec is inaudible? "You should also understand how the Skin Effect can cause problems with wideband signals..." But no explanation (that I saw) AUDIO (20Hz...20KHz) is NOT "wideband". But his analysis proves the point that skin effect is a moot point. Consider it this way: the graphs are an integral part of his research and presentation. If you really want to discuss "skin effect" at 20KHz and "audio harmonics" above 20KHz, you should probably go and find one of the "golden-ears" high-end audio forums. I would wager that only a small fraction of people on THIS newsgroup can hear to anywhere near 20KHz. (Likely the same on the "golden-ears" newsgroups, but they won't admit it! :-) Well skin effect is very real and measurable at 20kHz, just completely irrelevant. :-) As an aside, I was playing with a signal generator and amp this weekend. Sadly, my hearing gives out somewhere between 16kHz and 17kHz. Gone are my 20kHz days! :-( Colin |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ... Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. But NOT audible. This is the kind of "pathological" wacko "pseudo-science" that people get hung up with when trying to avoid the real world (for whatever reason?) The website appears to do a good job of explaining the physics, but it doesn't follow through with what effect (or not) you will actually HEAR at audio frequencies. Woah there! The guy in St. Andrews is very clearly talking physics, and doing so correctly. The graphs speak for themselves. 0.1dB at 100kHz is completely inaudible of course, and the fact that he doesn't belabour the point doesn't make him a pathological wacko pseudo-scientist. It just means that he assumes his audience is smart enough to understand what he's saying. That said, he does point this out: "In effect, therefore, the above differential group delay is equivalent to a sound source that seems 16 microns nearer at high audible frequencies than at low audible frequencies." Is it really necessary to explicitly FURTHER point out that a group delay shift of 50nsec is inaudible? "You should also understand how the Skin Effect can cause problems with wideband signals..." But no explanation (that I saw) AUDIO (20Hz...20KHz) is NOT "wideband". But his analysis proves the point that skin effect is a moot point. Consider it this way: the graphs are an integral part of his research and presentation. If you really want to discuss "skin effect" at 20KHz and "audio harmonics" above 20KHz, you should probably go and find one of the "golden-ears" high-end audio forums. I would wager that only a small fraction of people on THIS newsgroup can hear to anywhere near 20KHz. (Likely the same on the "golden-ears" newsgroups, but they won't admit it! :-) Well skin effect is very real and measurable at 20kHz, just completely irrelevant. :-) As an aside, I was playing with a signal generator and amp this weekend. Sadly, my hearing gives out somewhere between 16kHz and 17kHz. Gone are my 20kHz days! :-( Colin |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:17:44 GMT,
wrote: Isaac Wingfield wrote: In article , wrote: OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. Short answer: not in any way that matters *at all* for decently designed amplifiers and speakers. Pathological cases may be different, but why would you be using ineptly designed gear? Hmm. I'm guessing that you missed the long interconnect thread I started a few weeks ago. :-) I've got well designed gear (in my opinion--intelligent solid-state pre- and power- amps), and I'm not looking for audible effects. I'm just mucking about, trying to understand the theory here, short of taking a full electronics refresher course. Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. Yup, there are lots of readily measurable and predictable effects at 100kHz and around the 0.1dB level. Now, does this tell you anything about audio cables..........................? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:17:44 GMT,
wrote: Isaac Wingfield wrote: In article , wrote: OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. Short answer: not in any way that matters *at all* for decently designed amplifiers and speakers. Pathological cases may be different, but why would you be using ineptly designed gear? Hmm. I'm guessing that you missed the long interconnect thread I started a few weeks ago. :-) I've got well designed gear (in my opinion--intelligent solid-state pre- and power- amps), and I'm not looking for audible effects. I'm just mucking about, trying to understand the theory here, short of taking a full electronics refresher course. Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. Yup, there are lots of readily measurable and predictable effects at 100kHz and around the 0.1dB level. Now, does this tell you anything about audio cables..........................? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:17:44 GMT,
wrote: Isaac Wingfield wrote: In article , wrote: OK, this time it's speaker cables. I was wondering how construction and geometry affect cable inductance. Short answer: not in any way that matters *at all* for decently designed amplifiers and speakers. Pathological cases may be different, but why would you be using ineptly designed gear? Hmm. I'm guessing that you missed the long interconnect thread I started a few weeks ago. :-) I've got well designed gear (in my opinion--intelligent solid-state pre- and power- amps), and I'm not looking for audible effects. I'm just mucking about, trying to understand the theory here, short of taking a full electronics refresher course. Now to partly answer my own question, I came across a great website that discusses the issues I'm pondering. He titles the articles "Skin effect" but in fact spends very little time on true skin effect. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...io/Analog.html He does provide many graphs showing very clear effects of different cable construction--all at about 100kHz, and most less than 0.1dB-- but measurable and predictable, nonetheless. Yup, there are lots of readily measurable and predictable effects at 100kHz and around the 0.1dB level. Now, does this tell you anything about audio cables..........................? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
cbigam wrote ...
Woah there! The guy in St. Andrews is very clearly talking physics, and doing so correctly. The graphs speak for themselves. 0.1dB at 100kHz is completely inaudible of course, and the fact that he doesn't belabour the point doesn't make him a pathological wacko pseudo-scientist. It just means that he assumes his audience is smart enough to understand what he's saying. Sorry, I didn't write clearly. I didn't mean that the "Scots Guide" is wacko pseudo-science. I meant to say that extrapolating it into thinking that skin effect and similar effects in wire/cable are AUDIBLE is wacko pseudo-science. That said, he does point this out: "In effect, therefore, the above differential group delay is equivalent to a sound source that seems 16 microns nearer at high audible frequencies than at low audible frequencies." Is it really necessary to explicitly FURTHER point out that a group delay shift of 50nsec is inaudible? Actually, to gullible newbies, it likely IS necessary. They may very well have no idea how "50ns" relates to audible frequencies. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
cbigam wrote ...
Woah there! The guy in St. Andrews is very clearly talking physics, and doing so correctly. The graphs speak for themselves. 0.1dB at 100kHz is completely inaudible of course, and the fact that he doesn't belabour the point doesn't make him a pathological wacko pseudo-scientist. It just means that he assumes his audience is smart enough to understand what he's saying. Sorry, I didn't write clearly. I didn't mean that the "Scots Guide" is wacko pseudo-science. I meant to say that extrapolating it into thinking that skin effect and similar effects in wire/cable are AUDIBLE is wacko pseudo-science. That said, he does point this out: "In effect, therefore, the above differential group delay is equivalent to a sound source that seems 16 microns nearer at high audible frequencies than at low audible frequencies." Is it really necessary to explicitly FURTHER point out that a group delay shift of 50nsec is inaudible? Actually, to gullible newbies, it likely IS necessary. They may very well have no idea how "50ns" relates to audible frequencies. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
cbigam wrote ...
Woah there! The guy in St. Andrews is very clearly talking physics, and doing so correctly. The graphs speak for themselves. 0.1dB at 100kHz is completely inaudible of course, and the fact that he doesn't belabour the point doesn't make him a pathological wacko pseudo-scientist. It just means that he assumes his audience is smart enough to understand what he's saying. Sorry, I didn't write clearly. I didn't mean that the "Scots Guide" is wacko pseudo-science. I meant to say that extrapolating it into thinking that skin effect and similar effects in wire/cable are AUDIBLE is wacko pseudo-science. That said, he does point this out: "In effect, therefore, the above differential group delay is equivalent to a sound source that seems 16 microns nearer at high audible frequencies than at low audible frequencies." Is it really necessary to explicitly FURTHER point out that a group delay shift of 50nsec is inaudible? Actually, to gullible newbies, it likely IS necessary. They may very well have no idea how "50ns" relates to audible frequencies. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Richard Crowley wrote:
Sorry, I didn't write clearly. I didn't mean that the "Scots Guide" is wacko pseudo-science. I meant to say that extrapolating it into thinking that skin effect and similar effects in wire/cable are AUDIBLE is wacko pseudo-science. Oh! Well then, no argument at all from me. Actually, to gullible newbies, it likely IS necessary. They may very well have no idea how "50ns" relates to audible frequencies. Hmm. True, but (a) equating it to moving your head 16 microns is pretty clear, and (b) there's also the target audience to consider. There comes a point when you assume that anyone reading your work doesn't have to be lectured in first principles again, unless of course you're teaching first principles. At any rate, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm curious about the causes of measurable (but not necessarily audible) effects, and I'm looking at DC to VLF (and maybe LF) frequencies, i.e. before transmission line effects predominate. I'm just curious about it all. Colin |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Richard Crowley wrote:
Sorry, I didn't write clearly. I didn't mean that the "Scots Guide" is wacko pseudo-science. I meant to say that extrapolating it into thinking that skin effect and similar effects in wire/cable are AUDIBLE is wacko pseudo-science. Oh! Well then, no argument at all from me. Actually, to gullible newbies, it likely IS necessary. They may very well have no idea how "50ns" relates to audible frequencies. Hmm. True, but (a) equating it to moving your head 16 microns is pretty clear, and (b) there's also the target audience to consider. There comes a point when you assume that anyone reading your work doesn't have to be lectured in first principles again, unless of course you're teaching first principles. At any rate, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm curious about the causes of measurable (but not necessarily audible) effects, and I'm looking at DC to VLF (and maybe LF) frequencies, i.e. before transmission line effects predominate. I'm just curious about it all. Colin |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
More cable questions!
Richard Crowley wrote:
Sorry, I didn't write clearly. I didn't mean that the "Scots Guide" is wacko pseudo-science. I meant to say that extrapolating it into thinking that skin effect and similar effects in wire/cable are AUDIBLE is wacko pseudo-science. Oh! Well then, no argument at all from me. Actually, to gullible newbies, it likely IS necessary. They may very well have no idea how "50ns" relates to audible frequencies. Hmm. True, but (a) equating it to moving your head 16 microns is pretty clear, and (b) there's also the target audience to consider. There comes a point when you assume that anyone reading your work doesn't have to be lectured in first principles again, unless of course you're teaching first principles. At any rate, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm curious about the causes of measurable (but not necessarily audible) effects, and I'm looking at DC to VLF (and maybe LF) frequencies, i.e. before transmission line effects predominate. I'm just curious about it all. Colin |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: Neve, Manley, TT patch cables, Eventide, Neumann, Coles, bulk cable, connectors, etc. | Pro Audio | |||
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results. | High End Audio | |||
cabling explained | Car Audio | |||
Digital Audio Cable Question(s) | High End Audio | |||
Quad snake cable | Pro Audio |