Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #11   Report Post  
Antennahead1
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Up-to-date Crutchfield.com referral discount coupon code here to save
you $20 - pxjbb-k3g0a-z3qeh
  #12   Report Post  
Antennahead1
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Up-to-date Crutchfield.com referral discount coupon code here to save
you $20 - pxjbb-k3g0a-z3qeh
  #13   Report Post  
Antennahead1
 
Posts: n/a
Default More cable questions!

Up-to-date Crutchfield.com referral discount coupon code here to save
you $20 - pxjbb-k3g0a-z3qeh
  #20   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #30   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #38   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: Neve, Manley, TT patch cables, Eventide, Neumann, Coles, bulk cable, connectors, etc. Lowndes Pro Audio 0 March 6th 04 06:01 PM
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results. Bruno Putzeys High End Audio 78 December 19th 03 04:27 AM
cabling explained Midlant Car Audio 8 November 14th 03 04:07 AM
Digital Audio Cable Question(s) Hugh Cowan High End Audio 11 October 8th 03 07:15 PM
Quad snake cable Justin Ulysses Morse Pro Audio 8 July 3rd 03 05:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"