Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message ... In the 1960's, the various magazines (Popular Electronics, Radio Electronics, etc) had discovered hi-fi. Articles on the topic were epidemic and interest was high. Many of the articles used superlatives that defied definition and measurement. "The amplifier has a velvet texture to the strings", was typical. Nothing's changed then. MrT. |
#42
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"jwvm" wrote in... Sorry but you need an audiophile CD player to play the CD. The texture, soundstage, chromatic balance and realism will all be attenuated with a cheap player and result in a biased burn-in. Don't forget to put green marker around the edge of the CD while you are at it so restless photons don't mess things up. Wasn't that seepage problem cured by the miraculous Black CD ? |
#43
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:32:57 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message Tim Williams wrote: "Jeff Liebermann" wrote Anyway, I like the idea of the audio conditioner. It probably doesn't do much for the electronics, but perhaps the suspension in my loudspeakers could use some loosening up. Just make sure it doesn't play a lot of 8Hz, or *you'll* be the one loosened up! ;o) Busted by mythbusters I'm afraid. I've personally experienced it. Mythbusters didn't duplicate our test procedures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note#In_fiction What's unclear about "Mythbusters didn't duplicate our test procedures." Rock PA subwoofers are generally merely woofers by hi fi standards. |
#44
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
... They got the "heart" model all wrong, much less anything that resembles human internal conductivity modeling. Have you posted comments? They do listen. |
#45
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
I'm bothered by the "knee jerk" reaction of the people in this group against
what are, admittedly, "loony" and grossly overpriced accessories that claim to perform miracles (to people with "common sense", anyway). These negative reactions (most of which are justified) _aren't_ based on careful consideration, but on a thoughtless/mindless reflex that dismisses _anything and everything_ that doesn't fit with one's experience or world view. This is neither intelligent nor "scientific". Several things bother me about this, on a practical as well as intellectual level. Reading the posts, I get the impression that blindly (as opposed to thoughtfully) rejecting these far-out claims comes with a rejection of _any_ belief in meaningful differences among audio equipment. That, in turn, means an increased tendency to buy products on the basis of specs or price, rather than extended, low-pressure listening sessions. By the way, I've been replacing the expensive AudioQuest cables in my system with Acoustic Research cables, and hear no particular difference. On the other hand, the Parasound A21 amplifiers were a revelation. |
#46
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message I'm bothered by the "knee jerk" reaction of the people in this group against what are, admittedly, "loony" and grossly overpriced accessories that claim to perform miracles (to people with "common sense", anyway). I wouldn't be. These negative reactions (most of which are justified) _aren't_ based on careful consideration, Says who? but on a thoughtless/mindless reflex that dismisses _anything and everything_ that doesn't fit with one's experience or world view. This is neither intelligent nor "scientific". Come on William, science is itself a world view. You can't say that having a world view is wrong and then fault people for not being scientific. If you're scientific you've bought into the scientific world view which is one of those damnable world views, and if you haven't bought into one of those damnable world views than you can't be scientific. Several things bother me about this, on a practical as well as intellectual level. Reading the posts, I get the impression that blindly (as opposed to thoughtfully) rejecting these far-out claims comes with a rejection of _any_ belief in meaningful differences among audio equipment. Absolutely wrong. I'm quite sure I'm one of the sorts that you are complaining about William, and trust me, I know for a fact that there are meaningful differences among a wide variety of kinds of audio gear. I've probabaly spent more time finding them in scientific ways than the nest 5 other guys you know. That, in turn, means an increased tendency to buy products on the basis of specs or price, rather than extended, low-pressure listening sessions. The error here is the implication that somehow one can avoid doing extended, low-pressure listening sessions. They always happen, if at no other time after the equipment is bought and put into service. By the way, I've been replacing the expensive AudioQuest cables in my system with Acoustic Research cables, and hear no particular difference. On the other hand, the Parasound A21 amplifiers were a revelation. Or so you believe. Or maybe it is true that the Parasound amps were an improvement, given that we know zilch about the specfic pieces of equipment that you replaced. By that I mean the results of detailed technical tests. Read my lips William: Detailed technical tests, not some manufacturer's spec shreet! |
#47
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message "loosening up"? Sheesh, where do you guys get this crap? From a JAES paper written by Wolfgang Klippel, for example. It's worth reading. There isn't a HUGE change in compliance with a new driver, but there is some, and the T-S parameters need to be measured after it's stabilized. Which is only temporary anyway. See Dick Pierce's postings on the subject. Yup! That's the scary part! --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#48
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. .. "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message These negative reactions (most of which are justified) _aren't_ based on careful consideration, Says who? I do. Read the comments. All too often they're of the "Oh, how crazy can you get, this is totally stupid" sort, rather than "This doesn't make any sense, because... [critique based on math/physics/common sense]" That is, extravagant claims are _a priori_ invalid, and don't need any examination, because they're "unscientific". Several things bother me about this, on a practical as well as intellectual level. Reading the posts, I get the impression that blindly (as opposed to thoughtfully) rejecting these far-out claims comes with a rejection of _any_ belief in meaningful differences among audio equipment. Absolutely wrong. I'm quite sure I'm one of the sorts that you are complaining about William, and trust me, I know for a fact that there are meaningful differences among a wide variety of [all] kinds of audio gear. I've probabaly spent more time finding them in scientific ways than the nest 5 other guys you know. Birds of a feather? grin I don't want to re-ignite ouir argument, but where is the book systematically documenting your discoveries? I'm not being sarcastic; I'd be the first person to buy it. I want to read about what you've _learned_ -- that is, what you _understand_. |
#49
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message These negative reactions (most of which are justified) _aren't_ based on careful consideration, Says who? I do. What's new? Read the comments. All too often they're of the "Oh, how crazy can you get, this is totally stupid" sort, rather than "This doesn't make any sense, because... [critique based on math/physics/common sense]" That is, extravagant claims are _a priori_ invalid, and don't need any examination, because they're "unscientific". The real question is about whether or not you have to taste a piece of crap in order to know that it is crap, or whether all you have to do is sniff it from a distance. As far as break-in of electronic compononents and circuits goes, the notion has been around for a decade or three. Once upon a time people even investigated it seriously. But now, its just another one of those decades-old pieces of crap that need not be taste-tested every time it is encountered. Several things bother me about this, on a practical as well as intellectual level. Reading the posts, I get the impression that blindly (as opposed to thoughtfully) rejecting these far-out claims comes with a rejection of _any_ belief in meaningful differences among audio equipment. Absolutely wrong. I'm quite sure I'm one of the sorts that you are complaining about William, and trust me, I know for a fact that there are meaningful differences among a wide variety of [all] kinds of audio gear. I've probabaly spent more time finding them in scientific ways than the nest 5 other guys you know. Birds of a feather? grin Birds who did some crap-tasting a few decades back. I don't want to re-ignite ouir argument, but where is the book systematically documenting your discoveries? Not worth the trouble to write. I'm not being sarcastic; I'd be the first person to buy it. You and two other people - not enough to make a market. I want to read about what you've _learned_ -- that is, what you _understand_. It's so well known that Scott managed to say just about everything about it that I could... |
#50
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
oboy oboy oboy, i jes gotta get sum uf dem!
i use my food muney to get dem if need be! i'll be da only one in da neybor hud wit it and be the king of the blok! sheesh, i wonder if Burma/Myanmar can supply enough heroin to substantiate all this acoustic behavior? "ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:37:09 -0700, "Lumpy" wrote: Rane spoofs themselves - http://www.rane.com/pdf/old/pi14dat.pdf Bwuahahahaha! Funny. Check out the bass on this preamp - http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24...ckieSRM150.jpg Mmmm... OK Regulate that Resonance! - http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm Bwuahahahaha! And to think... they are NOT spoofing themselves! |
#51
Posted to sci.electronics.design,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
: Come on, Jeff. Everyone in the field of electronics knows a gullibility meter when they see one. If everyone knew, the meter wouldn't work. |
#52
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. .. "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message Read the comments. All too often they're of the "Oh, "how crazy can you get, this is totally stupid" sort, rather than "This doesn't make any sense, because... [critique based on math/physics/common sense]" That is, extravagant claims are _a priori_ invalid, and don't need any examination, because they're "unscientific". The real question is about whether or not you have to taste a piece of crap in order to know that it is crap, or whether all you have to do is sniff it from a distance. You're making my point for me, Arny. Knee-jerk, knee-jerk, knee-jerk. As far as break-in of electronic compononents and circuits goes, the notion has been around for a decade or three. Once upon a time, people even investigated it seriously. But now, its just another one of those decades-old pieces of crap that need not be taste-tested every time it is encountered. Sorry, but I heard it with Krell equipment. And other people have, too. (It occurred over a period of about 20 hours.) I've never heard this with any other brand of electronics. It also occurs with planar drivers of many types, and again, the break-in is fairly rapid. This isn't of the "I had to listen to this equipment for several hundred hours before it finally settled in.") type. Absolutely wrong. I'm quite sure I'm one of the sorts that you are complaining about William, and trust me, I know for a fact that there are meaningful differences among a wide variety of [all] kinds of audio gear. I've probabaly spent more time finding them in scientific ways than the nest 5 other guys you know. Birds of a feather? grin Birds who did some crap-tasting a few decades back. You missed the typo. I don't want to re-ignite ouir argument, but where is the book systematically documenting your discoveries? Not worth the trouble to write. Then what would be in it is of no value. I want to read about what you've _learned_ -- that is, what you _understand_. It's so well known that Scott managed to say just about everything about it that I could... Scott? Inquiring minds want to know! |
#53
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message Read the comments. All too often they're of the "Oh, "how crazy can you get, this is totally stupid" sort, rather than "This doesn't make any sense, because... [critique based on math/physics/common sense]" That is, extravagant claims are _a priori_ invalid, and don't need any examination, because they're "unscientific". The real question is about whether or not you have to taste a piece of crap in order to know that it is crap, or whether all you have to do is sniff it from a distance. The following critical paragraph is restored to the thread by me to where it origionally appeared, due to the fact that William redacted for some unknown reason. As far as break-in of electronic components and circuits goes, the notion has been around for a decade or three. Once upon a time people even investigated it seriously. But now, its just another one of those decades-old pieces of crap that need not be taste-tested every time it is encountered. You're making my point for me, Arny. Knee-jerk, knee-jerk, knee-jerk. That's just it - it's not a knee-jerk, its a simple matter of pattern recognition. As far as break-in of electronic compononents and circuits goes, the notion has been around for a decade or three. Once upon a time, people even investigated it seriously. But now, its just another one of those decades-old pieces of crap that need not be taste-tested every time it is encountered. Sorry, but I heard it with Krell equipment. Tell me about your bias-controlled testing. And other people have, too. IME William, it is likely that they share your malaise with doing proper tests. (It occurred over a period of about 20 hours.) I've never heard this with any other brand of electronics. It also occurs with planar drivers of many types, and again, the break-in is fairly rapid. At this point I will remind one and all that I limited the discussion the discussion to "electronic components and circuits", above. For some reason William decided to remove this critical comment. I think now we see the reason - I had intentionally removed loudspeakers from the discussion to keep things simple and clear. This isn't of the "I had to listen to this equipment for several hundred hours before it finally settled in.") type. As far as electronics goes, they get from a few seconds to a few minutes to get their act together. Of course retro-technology like tubed equipment can be exceptional, because it may be just careening from one breakdown and tube replacement to the next. Absolutely wrong. I'm quite sure I'm one of the sorts that you are complaining about William, and trust me, I know for a fact that there are meaningful differences among a wide variety of [all] kinds of audio gear. I've probabaly spent more time finding them in scientific ways than the nest 5 other guys you know. Birds of a feather? grin Birds who did some crap-tasting a few decades back. You missed the typo. The [all] is gratuitous, as the extent of the idea I was trying to convey was conveyed by "a wide variety". I don't want to re-ignite ouir argument, but where is the book systematically documenting your discoveries? Not worth the trouble to write. Then what would be in it is of no value. Simply not true. One of the things that is nice about working with practicing technologists (recordists) as opposed to dilentantes, idlers, and dabblers with massive amounts of time and money to waste (audiophiles) is that so many of the recordists learn a lot of useful knowlege from what they do. There is not any need to waste time arguing with them about imagninary events such as cable break-in. I want to read about what you've _learned_ -- that is, what you _understand_. It's so well known that Scott managed to say just about everything about it that I could... Scott? Inquiring minds want to know! See Scott Dorsey's posts, which refer to the writings of Dick Pierce and Wolfgang Klippel. Driver breakin, such as it exists is very real to people who are trying to make accurate measurements of driver parameters. In my case, I'm also informed by the experiences and thoughts of David L. Clark and Earl Geddes - both personal friends for decades, who co-invented the DuMax. http://www.audioxpress.com/reviews/m...azella2154.pdf |
#54
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Chel van Gennip" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck wrote: Sorry, but I heard it with Krell equipment. And other people have, too. (It occurred over a period of about 20 hours.) I've never heard this with any other brand of electronics. It also occurs with planar drivers of many types, and again, the break-in is fairly rapid. This isn't of the "I had to listen to this equipment for several hundred hours before it finally settled Just a quote from the product: "FryBaby is designed to condition and break-in interconnects, speaker cables, power cords, digital and video cables, or any type of wire used in an audio system." So the vendor claims cables will improve over time. It is not possible that electronics can change its behaviour over time. It is however improbable that such a change will be an improvement and even more improbable that the changes will stop at a point in time where "perfection" is reached. In general, an electronic component changing behaviour over time, is a bad component and should be avoided. As is typical of most of your posts, you really don't know what you're talking about. I was simply making an observation. I have no idea what is going on within the electronics. I have some friends at Krell. I'll ask them about this. |
#55
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:32:13 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
wrote: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:40:22 +0200, Chel van Gennip wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Sorry, but I heard it with Krell equipment. And other people have, too. (It occurred over a period of about 20 hours.) I've never heard this with any other brand of electronics. It also occurs with planar drivers of many types, and again, the break-in is fairly rapid. This isn't of the "I had to listen to this equipment for several hundred hours before it finally settled Just a quote from the product: "FryBaby is designed to condition and break-in interconnects, speaker cables, power cords, digital and video cables, or any type of wire used in an audio system." So the vendor claims cables will improve over time. It is not possible that electronics can change its behaviour over time. It is however improbable that such a change will be an improvement and even more improbable that the changes will stop at a point in time where "perfection" is reached. In general, an electronic component changing behaviour over time, is a bad component and should be avoided. Excellent observation. One point, however... Silver Oxide is a better conductor than pure Silver is, but there is no requisite of passing signals through it to "age" it. All that is needed is time, and the presence of Oxygen. Wrong again! Pure silver is the best room-temperature conductor. Silver oxide is variously referred to as an insulator or a semiconductor, as its conductivity varies greatly depending on impurities. John |
#56
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Chel van Gennip" wrote in message
... It is not possible that electronics can change its behaviour over time. It is however improbable that such a change will be an improvement and even more improbable that the changes will stop at a point in time where "perfection" is reached. In general, an electronic component changing behaviour over time, is a bad component and should be avoided. I wish it wer so. Most electrolytic capacitors require 30-60 minutes or so after turn-on for the leakage to drop to proper levels. It's not mysterious, it can be easily measured (a battery, a 10k resistor and a voltmeter will do). Equipment which uses electrolytic capacitors in its power supplies will change for a while after they're turned on. Some manufacturers tell you that, others don't. Peace, Paul |
#57
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:17:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message .. . Pure silver oxide conducts better than pure silver. Hard to believe, especially as the once-free silver electrons are now bound to the oxygen. Give a reference. Silver oxide is, technically, a ceramic, and conducts like one. John |
#58
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
... On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:15:36 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: It is not possible that electronics can change its behaviour over time. It is however improbable that such a change will be an improvement and even more improbable that the changes will stop at a point in time where "perfection" is reached. In general, an electronic component changing behaviour over time, is a bad component and should be avoided. As is typical of most of your posts, you really don't know what you're talking about. I was simply making an observation. I have no idea what is going on within the electronics. I have some friends at Krell. I'll ask them about this. Idiot. The WIRES are "electronics" as well. You "single definition per term" boys make me laugh. This "idiot" said nothing about wires. When did they come in to the point Iwas making? The idiot I referred to is you since you apparently did not even read his post. He made a reference to the Fry Baby, not the Krell gear. The claim was that said cabling (read wires, idiot) was affected by said "conditioning", and he noted that is simply not the case. And yes, calling the cabling part of the electronics is perfectly correct. Is your English really that bad, or are you just ****ing that dense? Are you an insufferably rude shmuck, or do you just play one on UseNet? I was addressing the topic of whether or not audio components' "sound" changes with time. I did read the original post, and decided to discuss a particular situation with which I and others had experience. |
#59
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
In article ,
John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:17:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message . .. Pure silver oxide conducts better than pure silver. Hard to believe, especially as the once-free silver electrons are now bound to the oxygen. Give a reference. Silver oxide is, technically, a ceramic, and conducts like one. Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver sulphide and not oxide. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#60
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
|
#61
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:15:36 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: It is not possible that electronics can change its behaviour over time. It is however improbable that such a change will be an improvement and even more improbable that the changes will stop at a point in time where "perfection" is reached. In general, an electronic component changing behaviour over time, is a bad component and should be avoided. As is typical of most of your posts, you really don't know what you're talking about. I was simply making an observation. I have no idea what is going on within the electronics. I have some friends at Krell. I'll ask them about this. Idiot. The WIRES are "electronics" as well. You "single definition per term" boys make me laugh. This "idiot" said nothing about wires. When did they come in to the point Iwas making? The idiot I referred to is you since you apparently did not even read his post. He made a reference to the Fry Baby, not the Krell gear. The claim was that said cabling (read wires, idiot) was affected by said "conditioning", and he noted that is simply not the case. And yes, calling the cabling part of the electronics is perfectly correct. Is your English really that bad, or are you just ****ing that dense? Are you an insufferably rude shmuck, or do you just play one on UseNet? I was addressing the topic of whether or not audio components' "sound" changes with time. I did read the original post, and decided to discuss a particular situation with which I and others had experience. He is one of the biggest 'Skippys' on the electronics newsgroups. Don't waste your time. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#62
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
In article , Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:17:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message ... Pure silver oxide conducts better than pure silver. Hard to believe, especially as the once-free silver electrons are now bound to the oxygen. Give a reference. Silver oxide is, technically, a ceramic, and conducts like one. Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver sulphide and not oxide. I'd like to see a cite for silver sulfide or any silver compound having higher conductivity than pure silver for that matter. - Don Klipstein ) |
#63
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"John Larkin" wrote in message ... It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal; metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there any conductive oxides? One comes to mind: ITO, indium-tin oxide, which is actually a tin-oxide-doped form of indium oxide. It's most commonly used where one has to have a transparent conductor, as in touch panels or some of the interconnects in LCD panels. Certainly not a great conductor, of course, but at least it IS transparent in thin films. Bob M. |
#64
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Don Klipstein" wrote ...
I'd like to see a cite for silver sulfide or any silver compound having higher conductivity than pure silver for that matter. Electrical Conductivity of Silver Sulfide Malcolm H. Hebb, J. Chem. Phys. 20, 185 (1952) http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes The answer seems likely in the article cited, but I don't have access to it. |
#65
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"John Larkin" wrote in message
... Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver sulphide and not oxide. It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal; metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there any conductive oxides? Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor. Peace, Paul |
#66
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:38:52 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote: "John Larkin" wrote in message .. . Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver sulphide and not oxide. It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal; metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there any conductive oxides? Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor. Peace, Paul Not when pure. Although 5.5E-6 S/m technically doesn't quite qualify as an insulator, it's pretty darn close. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
#67
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:25:07 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored
wrote: Pure Silver Oxide conducts better than pure Silver. Take plenty of no-notice. |
#68
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
Paul Stamler wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote in message ... Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver sulphide and not oxide. It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal; metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there any conductive oxides? Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor. That depends on the purity. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#70
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
... Why don't you ask your "Krell" friend? I will. (I was busy today.) Though I am afraid of giant spiders. |
#71
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
... Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor. But it's dangerous. And nowhere nearly as good a conductor as hydrogen hydroxide. |
#72
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:38:52 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote: "John Larkin" wrote in message .. . Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver sulphide and not oxide. It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal; metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there any conductive oxides? Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor. Peace, Paul http://zpinch.sandia.gov/Z/Images/z.jpg John |
#73
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
In article ,
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin wrote: It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is usually dismissed as "an insulator." That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide batteries. D'oh! You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based on your "always wrong" baby bull****. As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous silver oxide being "reasonably conductive"? Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver oxide is more conductive than pure silver? - Don Klipstein ) |
#74
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:38:52 +0000, Paul Stamler wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote in message ... Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver sulphide and not oxide. It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal; metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there any conductive oxides? Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor. Actually, in its pure form it's a fairly good insulator. Cheers! Rich |
#75
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message ... They got the "heart" model all wrong, much less anything that resembles human internal conductivity modeling. Have you posted comments? They do listen. .....and do the occasional follow-up episodes where they revisit some of the tests viewers have taken them to task on. |
#76
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:20:18 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:38:52 +0000, Paul Stamler wrote: "John Larkin" wrote in message ... Yes. I believe he is talking about tarnish, which is actually silver sulphide and not oxide. It's probably a mixture, which makes it a semiconductor; silver oxide is apparently very sensitive to doping, so the oxide-sulphide mix probably conducts better than pure oxide. But no oxide/sulphide of any metal is going to conduct a fraction as well as the pure metal; metallic oxides are "ceramics." AlO2, BeO, things like that. Are there any conductive oxides? Dihydrogen oxide is a fairly good conductor. Actually, in its pure form it's a fairly good insulator. Cheers! Rich Yup. You can water-cool the anode of a transmitting tube, 20KV off ground or so, with pure water flowing through plastic tubes. And megavolt Marx generators often use water resistors. John |
#77
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
|
#78
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:37:05 -0700, in sci.electronics.design John
Larkin wrote: On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 03:10:55 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In article , ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin wrote: It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is usually dismissed as "an insulator." That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide batteries. D'oh! You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based on your "always wrong" baby bull****. As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous silver oxide being "reasonably conductive"? Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver oxide is more conductive than pure silver? - Don Klipstein ) Some of the audiophool sites claim that silver oxide conducts better than silver, and cite the battery thing as proof. That's probably where he picked up the notion. So, why aren't they making their cables out of silver oxide? John Well I suppose "Oxygen Free silver oxide" would not fool even the dumbest audiophool Martin |
#79
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:37:05 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 03:10:55 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin wrote: It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is usually dismissed as "an insulator." That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide batteries. D'oh! You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based on your "always wrong" baby bull****. As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous silver oxide being "reasonably conductive"? Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver oxide is more conductive than pure silver? Some of the audiophool sites claim that silver oxide conducts better than silver, and cite the battery thing as proof. That's probably where he picked up the notion. So, why aren't they making their cables out of silver oxide? Wouldn't it be a little bit on the brittle side? Thanks, Rich |
#80
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
New audiophile device brought to our attention
In article ,
says... On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:37:05 -0700, in sci.electronics.design John Larkin wrote: On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 03:10:55 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In article , ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700, John Larkin wrote: It's hard to research, at least quickly, because silver oxide is usually dismissed as "an insulator." That must be why they use it for battery anodes in silver oxide batteries. D'oh! You are dismissed as being insulated from rational thought, based on your "always wrong" baby bull****. As if this means more than doped or electrolyte-soaked-porous silver oxide being "reasonably conductive"? Is this supposed to be any support for your claim that silver oxide is more conductive than pure silver? - Don Klipstein ) Some of the audiophool sites claim that silver oxide conducts better than silver, and cite the battery thing as proof. That's probably where he picked up the notion. So, why aren't they making their cables out of silver oxide? John Well I suppose "Oxygen Free silver oxide" would not fool even the dumbest audiophool Don't count on it. They'd have Dimbulb eating out of their hand. Though, perhaps he's not an audiophool. -- Keith |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New audiophile device brought to our attention | Pro Audio | |||
McIntoshes Brought Out Of Storage | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Adobe Audition 1.5: Record from device A, play full mix through device B (while recording?) | Pro Audio | |||
ATTENTION at | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Ipod audiophile device? | High End Audio |