Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
While reading Mix this morning, I saw a comment in an ad attributed to Scott
Dorsey in Recording Magazine. Is it a print magazine, available for free to the trades like Mix, EM, EQ, SVC, and the rest? How did I miss this one? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
mcp6453 wrote:
While reading Mix this morning, I saw a comment in an ad attributed to Scott Dorsey in Recording Magazine. Is it a print magazine, available for free to the trades like Mix, EM, EQ, SVC, and the rest? It is a print magazine, and it's one that is actually doing very well. While Mix and EQ are shrinking, Recording is actually increasing in page count somewhat. They have a website at www.recordingmag.com. How did I miss this one? It's not free to the trade, which I suspect is why it's actually doing okay. I think I have an editorial about the AES student competitions in the latest issue. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Sep 25, 9:41 pm, Marc Wielage wrote:
I still to this day lament the passing of RE/P. _That_ was a really terrific magazine. I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many people actually want to learn about recording and the science of audio. I assume the audio magazines poll their subscribers to know what they want, and the result reads more like fan-boy rags than techniques and education. It's the same in the hi-fi world. Look at successful Stereophile versus the past failed attempts at science- based magazine such as The Audio Critic. It seems the majority of audio people want to be bull****ted to. They'd rather hear some well known 20-something grunge rocker blab incoherently about technology he doesn't understand than read an article giving solid tips and advice. --Ethan |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
Ethan Winer wrote:
I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many people actually want to learn about recording and the science of audio. That's a lot of the problem, yeah. The great thing about RE/P is that it talked about the science of audio as it was being developed. So reading it was a learning experience, but it was learning something that was new and therefore exciting. Now all that stuff is pretty well figured-out, so it's not exciting and people don't feel enthused about learning it. I assume the audio magazines poll their subscribers to know what they want, and the result reads more like fan-boy rags than techniques and education. It's the same in the hi-fi world. Look at successful Stereophile versus the past failed attempts at science- based magazine such as The Audio Critic. From my experience, the editors tend to ignore what the subscribers say they want. Folks call into a magazine asking for more DIY articles, and the editors say that "Readers of DIY articles are a tiny minority, just a really vocal and annoying one." Recording is actually better in regard to listening to their subscribers than most of the magazines. A lot of the magazines treat the advertisers as the customer, rather than the subscriber. They view their job as delivering eyes to advertising. When you're giving most of the magazines away for free, it's hard to do anything else (which is part of why I am so impressed with Tape Op in that they manage to give away the magazine for free WITHOUT doing this). It seems the majority of audio people want to be bull****ted to. They'd rather hear some well known 20-something grunge rocker blab incoherently about technology he doesn't understand than read an article giving solid tips and advice. That's why I think the number one job is to educate the 20-something grunge rockers so they can give coherent and informative interviews. Again, the great thing about Tape Op is that they go out of their way to interview informed people who actually understand the technology. They do interview a lot of clueless people who spout nonsense as well, too, but in an industry where most people are spouting nonsense it's hard to avoid that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On 9/26/2010 11:48 AM, Ethan Winer wrote:
I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many people actually want to learn about recording and the science of audio. Around this time last year I was thrashing around the idea of an on-line pro audio review web site with some background articles, and including the parts of my reviews that I usually had to cut out - the parts that were educatoinal so even if you weren't interested in a particular product being reviewed, you could learn about the technology involved. I figured that with essentially an unlimited article length, a review could be really complete, informative, and educational as well. I couldn't review everything myself, and I couldn't figure out how to get enough income from it to pay other reviewers. There really isn't money flowing magically over the Internet. Then after writing a couple of reviews for Everything Audio Network (dot com) I learned that people don't have the attention span to read more than about a 1500 word article on line, or even at their comp8uter if they could download the whole article. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 22:33:14 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/26/2010 11:48 AM, Ethan Winer wrote: I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many people actually want to learn about recording and the science of audio. Around this time last year I was thrashing around the idea of an on-line pro audio review web site with some background articles, and including the parts of my reviews that I usually had to cut out - the parts that were educatoinal so even if you weren't interested in a particular product being reviewed, you could learn about the technology involved. I figured that with essentially an unlimited article length, a review could be really complete, informative, and educational as well. I couldn't review everything myself, and I couldn't figure out how to get enough income from it to pay other reviewers. There really isn't money flowing magically over the Internet. Then after writing a couple of reviews for Everything Audio Network (dot com) I learned that people don't have the attention span to read more than about a 1500 word article on line, or even at their comp8uter if they could download the whole article. Fine, so make the home page at the website about news and have it in a more-or-less blog format, so people will return every day. That blog would tell news of a new product, and say, "We'll be doing a full review in the Month issue of the magazine." That would help sell magazine subscriptions. About 6 months after the magazine is published, put the full review online at the website. This will attract more people to the site as a result of search engine results, and show them how good the magazine is. IMO, this seems to work very well for Sound on Sound, for example. You can go in their archive and read complete issues of the magazine. Also, you can put educational articles in the magazine, and gradually add them to a learning center area of the website. That way, the magazine can cover increasingly-advanced subjects, and new readers can catch up by reading off the website. The hardest part is getting things started. You either have to start really small and informally, like Tape Op did, or have a lot of startup money that you can afford to lose if things don't work out. But, if you can get the money coming in, then you can continue to pay qualified people to do the reviews. I think the real difficulty is getting people to pay more than $10-15 for a subscription. If the readers don't pay for the costs, then the advertisers wind up with too much power, the reviews become too positive, and then people won't trust them and just search for other people's comments on the Internet. Jay Ts |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On 9/26/2010 10:33 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/26/2010 11:48 AM, Ethan Winer wrote: I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many people actually want to learn about recording and the science of audio. Around this time last year I was thrashing around the idea of an on-line pro audio review web site with some background articles, and including the parts of my reviews that I usually had to cut out - the parts that were educatoinal so even if you weren't interested in a particular product being reviewed, you could learn about the technology involved. I figured that with essentially an unlimited article length, a review could be really complete, informative, and educational as well. I couldn't review everything myself, and I couldn't figure out how to get enough income from it to pay other reviewers. There really isn't money flowing magically over the Internet. Then after writing a couple of reviews for Everything Audio Network (dot com) I learned that people don't have the attention span to read more than about a 1500 word article on line, or even at their comp8uter if they could download the whole article. With the decline in pages in the magazines I mentioned, there will probably be a market for another one before long. I confess to being able to read everything in one that I want to read in one or two sessions on the porcelain throne. All magazines are understandably trying to push subscribers to digital version so that one day they can pull the plug on hard copies, but I do not read ANY magazines online. It's too rough on my eyes. Printing a magazine to read it takes too much paper. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Sep 26, 12:22 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Now all that stuff is pretty well figured-out, so it's not exciting and people don't feel enthused about learning it. Agreed mostly, but there's still plenty that *readers* have not yet figured out. Such as the fact that digital does not leave "holes" in the waveform, and other 101 other common audio myths. And acoustics is mostly ignored, except by Sound On Sound which is my current fave. Note well: SOS is the best science-based audio magazine out there, and it continues to grow every month. Coincidence? I don't think so! A lot of the magazines treat the advertisers as the customer This is a huge problem. Too many publishers fail to understand that they are there to serve us, the reader. If they give the reader what the reader wants and needs, advertisers will surely follow. Again, the great thing about Tape Op is that they go out of their way to interview informed people who actually understand the technology. They do interview a lot of clueless people who spout nonsense as well, too, but in an industry where most people are spouting nonsense it's hard to avoid that. I wish they'd be more selective in what they print. The core problem is that most audio magazine editors are themselves clueless about the science of audio. I remember very well when I proposed my Audio Myths article (www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html) to Electronic Musician magazine. After seeing my proposal the editor told me on the phone they had a meeting and all the editors disputed every one of my ten points. Sheesh! Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and very knowledgeable, so the article did get published. --Ethan |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Sep 26, 10:33 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Around this time last year I was thrashing around the idea of an on-line pro audio review web site with some background articles, and including the parts of my reviews that I usually had to cut out - the parts that were educatoinal so even if you weren't interested in a particular product being reviewed, you could learn about the technology involved. Personally, I'm more interested in the educational aspect than anything else. Most gear reviews bore me, though it doesn't have to be that way. About the only parts that interest me are talk of features and usability, and flaws and shortcomings such as lack of a Q knob on a parametric EQ. But reading about "the sound" of this or that is boring to me. For the most part, competent gear sounds just like everything else that's competent. Subjective opinions are worthless and are often wrong. Reviews should also include independent testing, not just a re-state of the vendor's specs. Which are usually incomplete anyway. Sorry, I'm starting to sound like a cranky old man! :-) --Ethan |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:08:42 -0700 (PDT), Ethan Winer
wrote: I wish they'd be more selective in what they print. The core problem is that most audio magazine editors are themselves clueless about the science of audio. I remember very well when I proposed my Audio Myths article (www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html) to Electronic Musician magazine. After seeing my proposal the editor told me on the phone they had a meeting and all the editors disputed every one of my ten points. Sheesh! Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and very knowledgeable, so the article did get published. Ethan I just read the article, and there is one area where I would take issue with you - the Audiophile speaker cable bit. In fact ALL cables, audiophile or not are capable of carrying frequencies well into the hundreds of MHz, so whatever the difference may be, it isn't that. And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated strands, but a special weave that brings each strand periodically to the outer surface of the bunch. d |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:08:42 -0400, Ethan Winer wrote
(in article ): Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and very knowledgeable, so the article did get published. --Ethan Frank is one of the guys who does know his stuff, but you're right (whoever), it's a balance between advertising and editorial. I had a guy on GearSlutz try to tear me a new asshole because I had industry contacts, figuring I must be writing what they want me to. In looking back, it may have been somebody who works/worked for a company I didn't review so favorably. (no names) The code words, btw, are "for the money." When you see them and the price seems really reasonable, it's usually due to the fact that the performance isn't equivalent to the good stuff, but it's also cheaper. I had a hard time convincing publishers to let me: 1. Write in second person. That was weird. I told them that, "if one does this or that, one should expect..." was offputting, stiff and unnatural. They were VERY resistant to let me use second person, but went with it. 2. Compare the review piece with other known gear in the review. This was "unheard of" and possibly injurious to the other mfgr's model. I told them I would do it in a clinical way. I did. I told them the best way to explain what a piece of gear is about is to compare it to a known entity. I think MIX caught some flak when I review a Rode, the NTK I think. I had other engineers' comment that they liked it in VO situations as well or better than a U 87. It was THEIR comment, not mine, but it was in my review so I got tagged. This very newsgroup is pretty weird as well. I was making a comment about a female editor on this newsgroup; something that came down weird in trying to get something reviewed. Out of professionalism and courtesy, I never mentioned her name. Some weasel in rec.audio.pro pimped it up and sent it to another female editor in an effort to get me in trouble. It was settled pretty quickly, but that's the kind of nasty stuff that goes on here, right in this newsgroup. And, btw, I know who you are. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
Ethan Winer wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:22 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Now all that stuff is pretty well figured-out, so it's not exciting and people don't feel enthused about learning it. Agreed mostly, but there's still plenty that *readers* have not yet figured out. Such as the fact that digital does not leave "holes" in the waveform, and other 101 other common audio myths. And acoustics is mostly ignored, except by Sound On Sound which is my current fave. Note well: SOS is the best science-based audio magazine out there, and it continues to grow every month. Coincidence? I don't think so! Well, the question then becomes: is it the purpose of a magazine to teach basic technology fundamentals? The thing is, fundamental stuff doesn't change.... so presumably there is a better way to present it than with a monthly magazine. Magazines are for news. Again, the great thing about Tape Op is that they go out of their way to interview informed people who actually understand the technology. They do interview a lot of clueless people who spout nonsense as well, too, but in an industry where most people are spouting nonsense it's hard to avoid that. I wish they'd be more selective in what they print. The core problem is that most audio magazine editors are themselves clueless about the science of audio. I remember very well when I proposed my Audio Myths article (www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html) to Electronic Musician magazine. After seeing my proposal the editor told me on the phone they had a meeting and all the editors disputed every one of my ten points. Sheesh! Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and very knowledgeable, so the article did get published. Yes, and I think most of that cluelessness is _encouraged_ by the vendors. If not actively promoted. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On 9/27/2010 12:19 PM, Ethan Winer wrote:
Personally, I'm more interested in the educational aspect than anything else. Most gear reviews bore me, though it doesn't have to be that way. About the only parts that interest me are talk of features and usability, and flaws and shortcomings such as lack of a Q knob on a parametric EQ. But reading about "the sound" of this or that is boring to me. Me, too, which is why I try to avoid reviewing things where it's all about the sound. But people want to read about that, so I'd like to have a staff who can write about it in a meaningful way. That's where the money goes. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Sep 26, 9:33*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/26/2010 11:48 AM, Ethan Winer wrote: I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many people actually want to learn about recording and the science of audio. Around this time last year I was thrashing around the idea of an on-line pro audio review web site with some background articles, and including the parts of my reviews that I usually had to cut out - the parts that were educatoinal so even if you weren't interested in a particular product being reviewed, you could learn about the technology involved. I figured that with essentially an unlimited article length, a review could be really complete, informative, and educational as well. I couldn't review everything myself, and I couldn't figure out how to get enough income from it to pay other reviewers. There really isn't money flowing magically over the Internet. Then after writing a couple of reviews for Everything Audio Network (dot com) I learned that people don't have the attention span to read more than about a 1500 word article on line, or even at their comp8uter if they could download the whole article. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson I like long articles. Problem I have with most long articles on the internet is they have been split into 10 pages to maximise profits and searchability. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Sep 27, 12:51 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
In fact ALL cables, audiophile or not are capable of carrying frequencies well into the hundreds of MHz ... And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated strands, but a special weave that brings each strand periodically to the outer surface of the bunch. Points taken. --Ethan |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Sep 27, 2:42 pm, Ty Ford wrote:
2. Compare the review piece with other known gear in the review. This is one thing I really like about Sound On Sound - they usually include a list of competing products in the same price range. And, btw, I know who you are. Uh oh. :-) --Ethan |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Sep 27, 3:21 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Well, the question then becomes: is it the purpose of a magazine to teach basic technology fundamentals? The thing is, fundamental stuff doesn't change.... so presumably there is a better way to present it than with a monthly magazine. Magazines are for news. That's a good point Scott, though "news" can be more than just reviews and announcements of new / current products. News can also be explaining techniques that take advantage of new features recently added to a software update. But magazines can also teach basics. A lot of people will not buy a book for whatever reason, and many magazines have had ongoing teaching series. Recording magazine, the subject of this thread, is a good example of useful tutorials that span many issues. --Ethan |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
Ethan Winer wrote:
On Sep 27, 3:21 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Well, the question then becomes: is it the purpose of a magazine to teach basic technology fundamentals? The thing is, fundamental stuff doesn't change.... so presumably there is a better way to present it than with a monthly magazine. Magazines are for news. That's a good point Scott, though "news" can be more than just reviews and announcements of new / current products. News can also be explaining techniques that take advantage of new features recently added to a software update. Yes, absolutely! And stuff like explaining new features and new techniques for existing software is EXACTLY the kind of thing magazines should be doing. It's the kind of thing RE/P used to do also. The first time I ever heard about jamming all the buttons in on the 1176 was in RE/P. But magazines can also teach basics. A lot of people will not buy a book for whatever reason, and many magazines have had ongoing teaching series. Recording magazine, the subject of this thread, is a good example of useful tutorials that span many issues. There's only so many times you can run the same tutorials over and over again, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... | Ethan Winer wrote: | On Sep 27, 3:21 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: | Well, the question then becomes: is it the purpose of a magazine to | teach basic technology fundamentals? The thing is, fundamental stuff | doesn't change.... so presumably there is a better way to present it | than with a monthly magazine. Magazines are for news. | | That's a good point Scott, though "news" can be more than just reviews | and announcements of new / current products. News can also be | explaining techniques that take advantage of new features recently | added to a software update. | | Yes, absolutely! And stuff like explaining new features and new techniques | for existing software is EXACTLY the kind of thing magazines should be doing. | | It's the kind of thing RE/P used to do also. The first time I ever heard | about jamming all the buttons in on the 1176 was in RE/P. | | But magazines can also teach basics. A lot | of people will not buy a book for whatever reason, and many magazines | have had ongoing teaching series. Recording magazine, the subject of | this thread, is a good example of useful tutorials that span many | issues. | | There's only so many times you can run the same tutorials over and over | again, though. | --scott | -- | "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." No, I don't think there is a limit to how many times basics are covered in magazines, whether it is aviation, boating, or audio. I see articles on "landing a tail dragger" for instance that contains no information that wasn't accepted common knowledge in articles published 50 years ago. And, I read them.. or skim them... even though I've got a bunch of tail dragger time. I want to see how this author/pilot tells the story, and the review can never hurt. Same with audio. I guess the trick is, where on the spectrum from super basic to sophisticated do you pitch the magazine. What is the balance of basic to esoteric? Some readers deal with circuit design or room accoustics every day . Most only occasionally involve themselves at those levels. At my level of current involvement in audio and the associated electronics it can be years between similar diagnostic and repair issues. I need refreshers. So bring it all on for me. Steve King |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On 9/28/2010 12:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
There's only so many times you can run the same tutorials over and over again, though. There's a batch of new subscribers/readers every couple of years, and they all should learn the fundamentals (whether they think so or not). So the same old same old gets recycled every couple of years when they find a new writer to do the "novice" column. What I've found over the 15 years that I've been associated with Recording is that the articles about the basics seem to be getting shorter and less detailed, so I don't think they're as effective as when I was writing regularly in 1995-2000. It's pretty rare to find an article about something basic that has enough detail to allow the reader to take it further on his own. Paul Stamler's recent overview of microphones is a good example of something that, once read and understood, would far reduce the "is this a good microphone?" questions. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:08:42 -0700 (PDT), Ethan Winer wrote: I wish they'd be more selective in what they print. The core problem is that most audio magazine editors are themselves clueless about the science of audio. I remember very well when I proposed my Audio Myths article (www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html) to Electronic Musician magazine. After seeing my proposal the editor told me on the phone they had a meeting and all the editors disputed every one of my ten points. Sheesh! Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and very knowledgeable, so the article did get published. Ethan I just read the article, and there is one area where I would take issue with you - the Audiophile speaker cable bit. In fact ALL cables, audiophile or not are capable of carrying frequencies well into the hundreds of MHz, so whatever the difference may be, it isn't that. The issue is not whether or not a cable carries the signal at all, but whether or not the signal is carried in such a way that there is no audible degradation at the loudspeaker end. While pieces of both 10 gauge and 24 gauge speaker wire will carry signals up into the many MHz range with some amount of attenuation depending on the application, the 10 gauge wire can possibly have audible losses due to inductance and skin effect, while the 24 gauge wire can have enough DC resistance and inductance to cause audible losses. All you need to have audible losses is the wrong length, the wrong physical configuration, and the wrong speaker. And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated strands, but a special weave that brings each strand periodically to the outer surface of the bunch. Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only mechanical advantages. It obviously doesn't do anything for skin effect, despite much audiophile lore. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated
strands, but a special weave that brings each strand periodically to the outer surface of the bunch. Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only mechanical advantages. It obviously doesn't do anything for skin effect, despite much audiophile lore. It's litz wire, not Litz wire. It's from the German word for "stranded". It's not a person's name. If you have any question as to whether there's an audible difference among wires/cables, put one kind on one channel, another kind on the other channel, and play a mono program source. By the way, it is possible for a given amp and speaker cable to interact /pathologically/. I've seen and heard this. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:09:12 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only mechanical advantages. It obviously doesn't do anything for skin effect, despite much audiophile lore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire Seems to cover it quite convincingly. Prior to reading that, I hadn't appreciated that each strand in Litz wire is separately insulated. That's the key to making it work. "The weaving or twisting pattern of litz wire is designed so individual wires will reside for short intervals on the outside of cable and for short intervals on the inside of the cable. This allows the interior of the litz wire to contribute to the cable's conductivity." Of course it's all irrelevant to audio... -- Anahata -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827 |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
Arny Krueger wrote:
While pieces of both 10 gauge and 24 gauge speaker wire will carry signals up into the many MHz range with some amount of attenuation depending on the application, the 10 gauge wire can possibly have audible losses due to inductance and skin effect, while the 24 gauge wire can have enough DC resistance and inductance to cause audible losses. All you need to have audible losses is the wrong length, the wrong physical configuration, and the wrong speaker. Sit down and do the numbers. Skin effect issues are hardly even measurable in the audio range. They are not a significant issue and they are another example of audiophiles pulling things out of a hat to try and explain things without doing the actual math to see what significance the effect does. And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated strands, but a special weave that brings each strand periodically to the outer surface of the bunch. Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only mechanical advantages. It obviously doesn't do anything for skin effect, despite much audiophile lore. The whole point of litz wire is to reduce skin effect losses, by effectively reducing the diameter of each conductor. That is why it is used in TV set sweep circuit inductors and the like. Litz wiring is a very effective way to handle skin effect problems, but it is superfluous for speaker cabling because skin effect problems don't exist there. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On 10/1/2010 9:13 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
If you have any question as to whether there's an audible difference among wires/cables, put one kind on one channel, another kind on the other channel, and play a mono program source. Don't you think that the difference between one speaker and the other, both the hardware and their positions in the room, would overshadow a difference in the sound of the cable? I think it would be impossible for an "ordinary" user to design a valid experiment like this. A better test would be to switch wires to the same speaker, but it's harder to do than simply using the controls on the amplifier. I suspect that with the same type of cable on both speakers in a more or less normal setup, any listener, upon careful listening, would hear a difference between them. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Oct 1, 9:13 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: By the way, it is possible for a given amp and speaker cable to interact /pathologically/. I've seen and heard this. Yes, but only if the wire is incompetent. Such as those flat cables with parallel conductors, which increases capacitance substantially compared to heavy gauge zip cord. So coupled with an incompetent power amp, the amp might oscillate or affect the sound. --Ethan |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
In article , wrote:
On 2010-10-01 (ScottDorsey) said: Sit down and do the numbers. Skin effect issues are hardly even measurable in the audio range. They are not a significant issue and they are another example of audiophiles pulling things out of a hat to try and explain things without doing the actual math to see what significance the effect does. RIght, skin effect is relevant at rf, not at audio frequencies, but then the whole audiophool market is based on junk science. Well, it _does_ get relevant at audio frequencies if the conductor diameter is large enough. Once you start getting into conductors a few feet in diameter, skin losses become significant even at 60 Hz. Which is why the brushes on the generators at Niagra are honeycombed. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
If you have any question as to whether there's an audible
difference among wires/cables, put one kind on one channel, another kind on the other channel, and play a mono program source. Don't you think that the difference between one speaker and the other, both the hardware and their positions in the room, would overshadow a difference in the sound of the cable? NO, I don't. If it did, then the cable's affect on the sound would have to be considered negligibly minor. Furthermore, one could listen first with identical cables simply to get a feeling for the "baseline". I suspect that with the same type of cable on both speakers in a more or less normal setup, any listener, upon careful listening, would hear a difference between them. Suspect all you like. I've played mono recordings through the front channels of my system, and the sound is almost perfectly centered. You're pulling a "John Atkinson" -- arguing against the pre-sumed results of an experiment, rather than actually /performing/ the experiment. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
William Sommerwerck wrote:
If you have any question as to whether there's an audible difference among wires/cables, put one kind on one channel, another kind on the other channel, and play a mono program source. Don't you think that the difference between one speaker and the other, both the hardware and their positions in the room, would overshadow a difference in the sound of the cable? NO, I don't. If it did, then the cable's affect on the sound would have to be considered negligibly minor. Furthermore, one could listen first with identical cables simply to get a feeling for the "baseline". But the cable's effect on the sound _is_ comparatively minor. Especially in a typical untreated room where small speaker position changes can make significant sonic changes. It's an interesting exercise and I have done it myself but if anything it minimizes cable differences. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On 2010-10-01 (ScottDorsey) said: Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro Sit down and do the numbers. Skin effect issues are hardly even measurable in the audio range. They are not a significant issue and they are another example of audiophiles pulling things out of a hat to try and explain things without doing the actual math to see what significance the effect does. RIght, skin effect is relevant at rf, not at audio frequencies, but then the whole audiophool market is based on junk science. Well, it _does_ get relevant at audio frequencies if the conductor diameter is large enough. Once you start getting into conductors a few feet in diameter, skin losses become significant even at 60 Hz. Which is why the brushes on the generators at Niagra are honeycombed. --scott Granted, but how many folks are going to be using speaker cables of diameters sufficient enough for skin effect to be a real factor? Last time I really looked at the math and other goodies re skin effect it didn't seem to me where the average audiophile with his system in his listening room would have to even consider it. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On 10/1/2010 2:13 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
Don't you think that the difference between one speaker and the other, both the hardware and their positions in the room, would overshadow a difference in the sound of the cable? NO, I don't. If it did, then the cable's affect on the sound would have to be considered negligibly minor. And you think the cable's effect on the sound is significantly major? If so, then I'll say no more to you. Suspect all you like. I've played mono recordings through the front channels of my system, and the sound is almost perfectly centered. That's the easy part. Can you listen to one channel only, then the other channel, and say that they sound the same from your listening position? I can't, but then I don't have a precise listening room. I enjoy music for the music, not for the sound. You're pulling a "John Atkinson" -- arguing against the pre-sumed results of an experiment, rather than actually /performing/ the experiment. I don't know John Atkinson. I'm not arguing, I'm only predicting results based on my own experience with my own system, which I think is typical of what a common user might have. It may not be a formal experiment, but I believe it's a valid observation. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
Don't you think that the difference between one speaker
and the other, both the hardware and their positions in the room, would overshadow a difference in the sound of the cable? NO, I don't. If it did, then the cable's effect on the sound would have to be considered negligibly minor. And you think the cable's effect on the sound is significantly major? If so, then I'll say no more to you. Do you know what "functionally illiterate" means? It means that you can read words, but don't understand what sentences mean. I said nothing of the sort. Take a reading course. Suspect all you like. I've played mono recordings through the front channels of my system, and the sound is almost perfectly centered. That's the easy part. Can you listen to one channel only, then the other channel, and say that they sound the same from your listening position? I can't, but then I don't have a precise listening room. I enjoy music for the music, not for the sound. You're pulling a "John Atkinson" -- arguing against the pre-sumed results of an experiment, rather than actually /performing/ the experiment. I don't know John Atkinson. I'm not arguing, I'm only predicting results based on my own experience with my own system, which I think is typical of what a common user might have. It may not be a formal experiment, but I believe it's a valid observation. John Atkinson is the high-IQ, well-educated, numbskull editor of "Stereophile". I've never met anyone so intelligent who uses his intelligence so poorly. It's not even an observation at all. You are presumptively drawing conclusions about an experiment you haven't even performed! Do you know how indescribably irritating it is to have "discussions" with people who are completely devoid of any degree of mental discipline? To clarify a point... I don't care whether someone agrees with me. I do care whether they think clearly. You don't. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
On Oct 1, 9:13 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: By the way, it is possible for a given amp and speaker cable to interact /pathologically/. I've seen and heard this. Yes, but only if the wire is incompetent. Right. And due to the *magic* of high end audio marketing, we have a number of incompetent amps, speakers, and wire to frustrate some people. Such as those flat cables with parallel conductors, which increases capacitance substantially compared to heavy gauge zip cord. Still shouldn't bother a competent amp, but back in the real world of high end audio mystecism... So coupled with an incompetent power amp, the amp might oscillate or affect the sound. Right. Furthermore there are some speakers that are incompetently designed, and need very low inductance and/or very low resistance wire to have flat response as they are often used. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
"Anahata" wrote in message
o.uk On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:09:12 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only mechanical advantages. It obviously doesn't do anything for skin effect, despite much audiophile lore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire Seems to cover it quite convincingly. Prior to reading that, I hadn't appreciated that each strand in Litz wire is separately insulated. That's the key to making it work. "The weaving or twisting pattern of litz wire is designed so individual wires will reside for short intervals on the outside of cable and for short intervals on the inside of the cable. This allows the interior of the litz wire to contribute to the cable's conductivity." Of course it's all irrelevant to audio... I would think that this would all average out over a practical length of wire. The usual technical solution to skin effect is to use a wire that is actually a hollow tube of sorts. An example is the coax commonly used in cable systems - an aluminum or steel core with a thin layer of copper or even silver on the outside of it. Mechanically, its not a tube, but due to skin effect, it works like one. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: While pieces of both 10 gauge and 24 gauge speaker wire will carry signals up into the many MHz range with some amount of attenuation depending on the application, the 10 gauge wire can possibly have audible losses due to inductance and skin effect, while the 24 gauge wire can have enough DC resistance and inductance to cause audible losses. All you need to have audible losses is the wrong length, the wrong physical configuration, and the wrong speaker. Sit down and do the numbers. Of course I have. Skin effect issues are hardly even measurable in the audio range. They are clearly measurable, partially because we can now do some pretty incredible measurements. They are not a significant issue and they are another example of audiophiles pulling things out of a hat to try and explain things without doing the actual math to see what significance the effect does. Admittedly, it takes a really big wire (e.g. below 12 gauge) significant cable lengths and low impedance speakers to have potentially audible effects. But in the wild whacky world of high end audio - all things are possible and many of them have actually seen the light of day, or at least some stereo show some place. And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated strands, but a special weave that brings each strand periodically to the outer surface of the bunch. Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only mechanical advantages. It obviously doesn't do anything for skin effect, despite much audiophile lore. The whole point of litz wire is to reduce skin effect losses, by effectively reducing the diameter of each conductor. That is why it is used in TV set sweep circuit inductors and the like. The modern equivalent of a CRT sweep circuit is the ubiquitous switchmode power supply. Its been a dog's age since I saw one of those with litz wire in it. Litz wiring is a very effective way to handle skin effect problems, but it is superfluous for speaker cabling because skin effect problems don't exist there. --scott AFAIK litz wire is pretty much an historical artefact. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
wrote in message
Granted, but how many folks are going to be using speaker cables of diameters sufficient enough for skin effect to be a real factor? Last time I really looked at the math and other goodies re skin effect it didn't seem to me where the average audiophile with his system in his listening room would have to even consider it. Haven't you seen the garden hose-like speaker cables at the high end shows. Some of them are just insulation, but some actually use a lot of copper. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On Oct 2, 10:28 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: John Atkinson is the high-IQ, well-educated, numbskull editor of "Stereophile". I've never met anyone so intelligent who uses his intelligence so poorly. Wow, that's the best summation of JA I've ever seen. Bravo. --Ethan |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording Magazine
On 2010-10-02 said: Granted, but how many folks are going to be using speaker cables of diameters sufficient enough for skin effect to be a real factor? Last time I really looked at the math and other goodies re skin effect it didn't seem to me where the average audiophile with his system in his listening room would have to even consider it. Haven't you seen the garden hose-like speaker cables at the high end shows. Some of them are just insulation, but some actually use a lot of copper. Okay, but where I see larger diameter speaker cabling is in higher power apps, i.e. live sound. AS for the high end shows, I don't bother. they have no real interest for me, not even enough to pay the price of admission. So, when larger diameter cables are required for the installation some benefit might be derived, but for most folks ... I've much more important things to agonize about with an installation grin. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Recording Magazine celebrating 20 Years | Pro Audio | |||
Recording Magazine Reamp DIY Box Part Problem | Pro Audio | |||
More Magazine Statistics | Audio Opinions | |||
Mad Magazine gets it, why can't you? | Audio Opinions | |||
latest issue of recording magazine | Pro Audio |