[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


West wrote:

another ankle nipper. I'll deal with you later

You couldn't deal with a wet paper bag FFS !


Graham. As an alternative to wasting your time in
character assassination, which makes you angry and
the rest of us embarrassed, might I ever so 'umbly
propose that you start a new thread, on the subject
of Myths and Legends in audio.

There are so many interesting claims made, ranging
from screened mains cables and hi end speaker
cables, skin effect, etc to Shakti stones.

It would be interesting to discuss these with you, and
shoot them down in an orderly fashion without
personality bashing, flames or invective.

There is no denying that audiophiles are a pretty odd
bunch, and when they get some wild idea into their
head, it is sometimes difficult to dissuade them with
just common sense. As an experienced design engineer
you might be able to deal with these questions in a
better way.

Over to you.

Best regards
Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
West wrote:

another ankle nipper. I'll deal with you later

You couldn't deal with a wet paper bag FFS !

Graham. As an alternative to wasting your time in
character assassination, which makes you angry

Angry ? It amused me actually.

You can hardly get angry about West. His posts are like random noise in
the aether. Entirely free of any content of value.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


West wrote:

another ankle nipper. I'll deal with you later

You couldn't deal with a wet paper bag FFS !


Graham. As an alternative to wasting your time in
character assassination, which makes you angry and
the rest of us embarrassed, might I ever so 'umbly
propose that you start a new thread, on the subject
of Myths and Legends in audio.

There are so many interesting claims made, ranging
from screened mains cables and hi end speaker
cables, skin effect, etc to Shakti stones.

**There you go again. Do I really need to explain to you again that skin
effect reaches down to ALL frequencies above DC? Even power companies (whose
product operates at 50/60Hz) have to deal with skin effect. Skin effect at
20kHz is significant (approximately 0.5mm depth), given long enough cables
and low enough impedances. In any case, of FAR more more significance are
the inductive effects of speaker cables, particularly WRT long cables and/or
when using ESLs. In the case of some ESLs, even very modest cable runs (10
Metres) will benefit from using low inductance cables, rather than the very
high inductance product sold as 'zip' cable in the US. I lump all standard
cables in with this description, BTW. Cables like Goertz, standard high
power coax and others exhibit significantly lower inductance figures and may
be very beneficial with some speakers. Dismissing them, without discussing
their benefits for some listeners is just intellectual bankruptcy on your
part.

BTW: The claims made for Shakti Stones are not interesting at all. They're
just stupid.


It would be interesting to discuss these with you, and
shoot them down in an orderly fashion without
personality bashing, flames or invective.

**Not possible with you, Iain. Despite things like skin effect and and
inductance (of speaker cables) being explained to you many times, you STILL
forget the ramifications with monotonous regularity. Why is that?

Trevor Wilson

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


West wrote:

another ankle nipper. I'll deal with you later

You couldn't deal with a wet paper bag FFS !


Graham. As an alternative to wasting your time in
character assassination, which makes you angry and
the rest of us embarrassed, might I ever so 'umbly
propose that you start a new thread, on the subject
of Myths and Legends in audio.

There are so many interesting claims made, ranging
from screened mains cables and hi end speaker
cables, skin effect, etc to Shakti stones.

**There you go again. Do I really need to explain to you again that skin
effect reaches down to ALL frequencies above DC? Even power companies
(whose product operates at 50/60Hz) have to deal with skin effect. Skin
effect at 20kHz is significant (approximately 0.5mm depth), given long
enough cables and low enough impedances. In any case, of FAR more more
significance are the inductive effects of speaker cables, particularly WRT
long cables and/or when using ESLs. In the case of some ESLs, even very
modest cable runs (10 Metres) will benefit from using low inductance
cables, rather than the very high inductance product sold as 'zip' cable
in the US. I lump all standard cables in with this description, BTW.
Cables like Goertz, standard high power coax and others exhibit
significantly lower inductance figures and may be very beneficial with
some speakers. Dismissing them, without discussing their benefits for some
listeners is just intellectual bankruptcy on your part.

BTW: The claims made for Shakti Stones are not interesting at all. They're
just stupid.


It would be interesting to discuss these with you, and
shoot them down in an orderly fashion without
personality bashing, flames or invective.

**Not possible with you, Iain. Despite things like skin effect and and
inductance (of speaker cables) being explained to you many times, you
STILL forget the ramifications with monotonous regularity. Why is that?


Hi Trevor.

Please re-read carefully what I wrote.
I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance
in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests.

Your remarks about skin effect are smoke and mirrors, but
I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables,
you would wish things to be otherwise.

I was hoping that Graham, an engineer, not a BS hi-fi
salesman would start the thread.

Cordially,
Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
"Iain Churches" wrote

It would be interesting to discuss these with you, and
shoot them down in an orderly fashion without
personality bashing, flames or invective.

**Not possible with you, Iain. Despite things like skin effect and and
inductance (of speaker cables) being explained to you many times, you
STILL forget the ramifications with monotonous regularity. Why is that?


Hi Trevor.

Please re-read carefully what I wrote.
I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance
in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests.

Your remarks about skin effect are smoke and mirrors, but
I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables,
you would wish things to be otherwise.

I was hoping that Graham, an engineer, not a BS hi-fi
salesman would start the thread.

It's tempting but I'm spending some time on this tubed mic pre-amp right now.
Another time maybe ?

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

It would be interesting to discuss these with you, and
shoot them down in an orderly fashion without
personality bashing, flames or invective.


It's tempting but I'm spending some time on this tubed mic pre-amp right
now.
Another time maybe ?


Perhaps when you get the tube mic pre sorted out.
I too was thinking along the lines of Vortexion when I saw
your post.

I am sure you remember their approach, four channels
which rotary faders in a single cabinet, stackable for more
channels.

Their very good schematics are still floating about.

Regards
Iain

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


West wrote:

another ankle nipper. I'll deal with you later

You couldn't deal with a wet paper bag FFS !


Graham. As an alternative to wasting your time in
character assassination, which makes you angry and
the rest of us embarrassed, might I ever so 'umbly
propose that you start a new thread, on the subject
of Myths and Legends in audio.

There are so many interesting claims made, ranging
from screened mains cables and hi end speaker
cables, skin effect, etc to Shakti stones.

**There you go again. Do I really need to explain to you again that skin
effect reaches down to ALL frequencies above DC? Even power companies
(whose product operates at 50/60Hz) have to deal with skin effect. Skin
effect at 20kHz is significant (approximately 0.5mm depth), given long
enough cables and low enough impedances. In any case, of FAR more more
significance are the inductive effects of speaker cables, particularly WRT
long cables and/or when using ESLs. In the case of some ESLs, even very
modest cable runs (10 Metres) will benefit from using low inductance
cables, rather than the very high inductance product sold as 'zip' cable
in the US. I lump all standard cables in with this description, BTW.
Cables like Goertz, standard high power coax and others exhibit
significantly lower inductance figures and may be very beneficial with
some speakers. Dismissing them, without discussing their benefits for some
listeners is just intellectual bankruptcy on your part.

BTW: The claims made for Shakti Stones are not interesting at all. They're
just stupid.


It would be interesting to discuss these with you, and
shoot them down in an orderly fashion without
personality bashing, flames or invective.

**Not possible with you, Iain. Despite things like skin effect and and
inductance (of speaker cables) being explained to you many times, you
STILL forget the ramifications with monotonous regularity. Why is that?


Hi Trevor.

Please re-read carefully what I wrote.
I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance
in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests.

Your remarks about skin effect are smoke and mirrors, but
I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables,
you would wish things to be otherwise.

I was hoping that Graham, an engineer, not a BS hi-fi
salesman would start the thread.

It's not clear to me why you were hoping that Graham "would start the
thread"? From his posts in this newsgroup my impression of Graham is
that he apparently doesn't fully understand much of the information he
likes to regurgitate, and that as a result many of the conclusions he
draws are in correct.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote:

I was hoping that Graham, an engineer, not a BS hi-fi
salesman would start the thread.

It's not clear to me why you were hoping that Graham "would start the
thread"? From his posts in this newsgroup my impression of Graham is
that he apparently doesn't fully understand much of the information he
likes to regurgitate, and that as a result many of the conclusions he
draws are in correct.

At least any conclsions I draw are based on facts, not rumour, myths, religious
beliefs or fairy stories. That could explain a few things about why you come to
different conclusions.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


John Byrns wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote:

I was hoping that Graham, an engineer, not a BS hi-fi
salesman would start the thread.

It's not clear to me why you were hoping that Graham "would start the
thread"? From his posts in this newsgroup my impression of Graham is
that he apparently doesn't fully understand much of the information he
likes to regurgitate, and that as a result many of the conclusions he
draws are in correct.

At least any conclsions I draw are based on facts, not rumour, myths,
religious
beliefs or fairy stories. That could explain a few things about why you
come to
different conclusions.


It is precisely the differences in approach and conclusion that
would make interesting discussion. Designers, builders, company
bean-counters,hi-fi salesmen, hobby constructors, end users all
have their view.

Regards to all

Iain

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote:

I was hoping that Graham, an engineer, not a BS hi-fi
salesman would start the thread.

It's not clear to me why you were hoping that Graham "would start the
thread"? From his posts in this newsgroup my impression of Graham is
that he apparently doesn't fully understand much of the information he
likes to regurgitate, and that as a result many of the conclusions he
draws are in correct.

At least any conclsions I draw are based on facts, not rumour, myths,
religious
beliefs or fairy stories. That could explain a few things about why you come
to
different conclusions.

Many conclusions you draw appear to be based an incomplete understanding
of your subject matter, your understanding of the underlying theory
appears shallow. It also appears that your main reason for posting to
this group is not to discuss tubes in any meaningful sense, but rather
your mission appears to be to convert people to transistors. This is a
newsgroup for those interested in tubes in a positive sense, not a
newsgroup for those interested in transistor proselytizing.

For your enlightenment let me state that I do not believe tubes are
better than transistors. Tubes are simply a hobby for me, I enjoy
working with them and I enjoy the nostalgia aspect of them. However
none of that means tubes are not capable of performance levels exceeding
what is required for music recording and reproduction.

On the other hand if I were the owner of a firm producing "pro audio"
equipment I certainly wouldn't be using tubes in the products I
produced, simply because it is more cost effective to use contemporary
technology, even where tubes are perfectly suited to the job.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

It's not clear to me why you were hoping that Graham "would start the
thread"?

It was an attempt at diversionary diplomacy on my part, John.
If you didn't realise that, then it means I succeeded at least
in part:-)

The deep division within this group is, it seems to me
that many of the "anti" faction are keen on driving their
own agenda, at all costs.

For me, tube audio is a fascinating and rewarding hobby.
I spend my working days in the digital domain, and as
light relief very much enjoy building and listening to tube
amps. I devote as much time to this as I can, and
am probably one of the most active builders here.

From time to time, one comes into contact with diehard
audiophiles, whose questions (why have you not used
silver hook up wire? why are the switched Grayhill and not
Elma? etc) are difficult to reply to.

They never seem to ask "Why did you choose a mu-follower
for the first stage, but are greatly disturbed by the fact that you
have used a transistor as a CCS, and have neglected to
use Jensen capacitors in the signal path. Oh, and a
shielded mains cable is a must.

From his posts in this newsgroup my impression of Graham is
that he apparently doesn't fully understand much of the information he
likes to regurgitate, and that as a result many of the conclusions he
draws are in correct.

It seems from his reply, that Graham does not have the time
at the moment for this Myths and Legends thread. So it is
probably down to us lesser mortals.

Regards
Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

The deep division within this group is, it seems to me
that many of the "anti" faction are keen on driving their
own agenda, at all costs.

Anti - WHAT ?

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


West wrote:

another ankle nipper. I'll deal with you later

You couldn't deal with a wet paper bag FFS !


Graham. As an alternative to wasting your time in
character assassination, which makes you angry and
the rest of us embarrassed, might I ever so 'umbly
propose that you start a new thread, on the subject
of Myths and Legends in audio.

There are so many interesting claims made, ranging
from screened mains cables and hi end speaker
cables, skin effect, etc to Shakti stones.

**There you go again. Do I really need to explain to you again that skin
effect reaches down to ALL frequencies above DC? Even power companies
(whose product operates at 50/60Hz) have to deal with skin effect. Skin
effect at 20kHz is significant (approximately 0.5mm depth), given long
enough cables and low enough impedances. In any case, of FAR more more
significance are the inductive effects of speaker cables, particularly
WRT
long cables and/or when using ESLs. In the case of some ESLs, even very
modest cable runs (10 Metres) will benefit from using low inductance
cables, rather than the very high inductance product sold as 'zip' cable
in the US. I lump all standard cables in with this description, BTW.
Cables like Goertz, standard high power coax and others exhibit
significantly lower inductance figures and may be very beneficial with
some speakers. Dismissing them, without discussing their benefits for
some
listeners is just intellectual bankruptcy on your part.

BTW: The claims made for Shakti Stones are not interesting at all.
They're
just stupid.


It would be interesting to discuss these with you, and
shoot them down in an orderly fashion without
personality bashing, flames or invective.

**Not possible with you, Iain. Despite things like skin effect and and
inductance (of speaker cables) being explained to you many times, you
STILL forget the ramifications with monotonous regularity. Why is that?


Hi Trevor.

Please re-read carefully what I wrote.

**Ok, done.

I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance
in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests.

**I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a
myth. It is a real, measurable electrical effect. Even power companies need
to be concerned with it and their product is one which operates at
50Hz/60Hz. Audio signals reach 20kHz. Given long enough cables, with a
suitably low termination impedance, skin effect will be measurable and
audible. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that many exotic speaker
cables exhibit low INDUCTANCE figures. It is this characteristic which may
be very important for many users of ESLs, as even quite short cable runs (10
Metres or even less in some cases) can benefit from low inductance cables.
IMO, skin effect is not an important parameter in the vast majority of real
world systems. Inductance, OTOH, may well be very important.


Your remarks about skin effect are smoke and mirrors,

**Nope. Skin effect is a real eletrical effect. I suggest you do some
reading. It is not a mythical characteristic. It is real, measurable and
able to be demonstrated to be audible.

but
I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables,
you would wish things to be otherwise.

**Your attempt at switching from a discussion of audio equipment to
personal attack is duly noted. Let's discuss your stupidity, shall we? You
claim that skin effect is mythical. It is not. You waffle on about audio
mythology, whilst promoting silly nonsense like SET amplifiers. Ask an
engineer to explain it to you (and I don't mean those idiots you work with -
I mean REAL engineers). An engineer can explain to you that the small, but
measurable flaws with SET amplifier (like high levels of THD, poor frequency
response, poor damping factor, lousy load tolerance, etc) are the precise
things that make them audibly different to proper amplifiers (ie: Push
pull). Wanna try to get back on topic, or will you continue to engage in
shabby personal attacks, in preference to discussing facts? Silly me: I
already know the answer. Your next words will be to engage in further and
shabbier attacks.


I was hoping that Graham, an engineer, not a BS hi-fi
salesman would start the thread.

**As soon as you acquire some knowledge about electrical theory, you will be
qualified to comment on things like skin effect, inductance and other
factors that you clearly have no knowledge of.

Trevor Wilson

[mick]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:58:59 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

snip

**I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a
myth. It is a real, measurable electrical effect. Even power companies
need to be concerned with it and their product is one which operates at
50Hz/60Hz.

Quite correct.

Audio signals reach 20kHz.

Also correct.

Given long enough cables, with a
suitably low termination impedance, skin effect will be measurable and
audible.

Not necessarily. Skin effect is the tendency of the signal current to
flow at, or close to, the surface of the conductor. It isn't measurable
using any normal systems and almost certainly won't be audible. Even 2
parallel conductors, exhibiting skin effect, will appear as 2 normal
stranded or solid conductors, with the same interactions between them.
Skin effect is only of real interest where high currents (think 1500A
here) make solid copper busbars very expensive or heavy. In that case
aluminium bars with a copper coating are often used, or tubular bars
(more often on HV systems). The other main problems with skin effect
appear at VHF - but you certainly ain't gonna hear that... :-)


More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that many exotic speaker
cables exhibit low INDUCTANCE figures. It is this characteristic which
may be very important for many users of ESLs, as even quite short cable
runs (10 Metres or even less in some cases) can benefit from low
inductance cables. IMO, skin effect is not an important parameter in the
vast majority of real world systems. Inductance, OTOH, may well be very
important.


Sorry, but I'm an unbeliever in speaker cable inductance - over any sane
length anyway. For me, any speaker cable over about 3m (i.e. loop length
6m) is too long and I just can't see that anything contributed by the
cable other than resistance (which is usually swamped by the speaker
impedance & amp output impedance anyway) is going to make the slightest
difference to the sound.


--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Eeyore]

mick wrote:

Sorry, but I'm an unbeliever in speaker cable inductance

You think speaker cables don't obey the laws of physics ?

AWESOME !

You'll find good company with plenty of retarded friends in r.a.t who also
believe in fairy tales too.

Graham

[Eeyore]

mick wrote:

For me, any speaker cable over about 3m (i.e. loop length
6m) is too long

So you don't think the laws of physics apply to cables under 6m long ?

Is that right ?

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"mick" wrote in message
. uk...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:58:59 +1100, Trevor Wilson wrote:

snip

**I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a
myth. It is a real, measurable electrical effect. Even power companies
need to be concerned with it and their product is one which operates at
50Hz/60Hz.

Quite correct.

Audio signals reach 20kHz.

Also correct.

Given long enough cables, with a
suitably low termination impedance, skin effect will be measurable and
audible.

Not necessarily.

**Perhaps you missed what I wrote. Read it again. I was VERY specific with
my words. Unlike our friend Iain, I do not make blanket pronouncements which
can easily be proven incorrect.

Skin effect is the tendency of the signal current to
flow at, or close to, the surface of the conductor. It isn't measurable
using any normal systems and almost certainly won't be audible.

**Read what I wrote.

Even 2
parallel conductors, exhibiting skin effect, will appear as 2 normal
stranded or solid conductors, with the same interactions between them.
Skin effect is only of real interest where high currents (think 1500A
here) make solid copper busbars very expensive or heavy. In that case
aluminium bars with a copper coating are often used, or tubular bars
(more often on HV systems). The other main problems with skin effect
appear at VHF - but you certainly ain't gonna hear that... :-)

**For the record: I cut my teeth on HF transmission (and satellite)
transmission equipment. I am familiar with the problems and solutions. My
words stand. Iain is wrong. Skin effect is not a myth.



More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that many exotic speaker
cables exhibit low INDUCTANCE figures. It is this characteristic which
may be very important for many users of ESLs, as even quite short cable
runs (10 Metres or even less in some cases) can benefit from low
inductance cables. IMO, skin effect is not an important parameter in the
vast majority of real world systems. Inductance, OTOH, may well be very
important.


Sorry, but I'm an unbeliever in speaker cable inductance - over any sane
length anyway. For me, any speaker cable over about 3m (i.e. loop length
6m) is too long and I just can't see that anything contributed by the
cable other than resistance (which is usually swamped by the speaker
impedance & amp output impedance anyway) is going to make the slightest
difference to the sound.

**I suggest you brush up on your electrical theory. My first experience with
the effects of speaker cables was in 1978. My client had quite long cable
runs (ca. 12-15 Metres) and speakers which exhibited rather difficult HF
impedance. Substituting low inductance cable made a substantial improvement
to the system. After some considerable effort, I placed the amplifiers under
the floor, directly beneath each speaker. The improvement was even more
pronounced.

Trevor Wilson

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...


Hi Trevor.

Please re-read carefully what I wrote.

**Ok, done.

I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance
in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests.

**I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a
myth.

It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic
hi-fi installation. Your previous claim that it had, seriously
disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to
most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter.
I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-)


Your remarks about skin effect are smoke and mirrors,

but
I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables,
you would wish things to be otherwise.

**Your attempt at switching from a discussion of audio equipment to
personal attack is duly noted.

Salesmen are by definition sales orientated. This may not
always be in the best interest of the customer.

Let's discuss your stupidity, shall we? You
claim that skin effect is mythical. It is not.

Neither do I claim it to be so. It can be easily measured. In
a broadcast environment it is especially important. It
has no significance in domestic audio.

You waffle on about audio mythology, whilst promoting silly nonsense like
SET amplifiers. Ask an engineer to explain it to you (and I don't mean
those idiots you work with - I mean REAL engineers).

The idiots I work with are mainly DipEng and above.
Some have both technical and musical doctorates.
I would rather take their word for *anything*
against yours. Sorry:-(

I was talking about the musical experience from
SET. No-one who has listened to the new Russian
recordings of the Shostakovich String Quartets on
a Resnikov amp into Lowther horns has failed to be
emotionally moved. Music is all about an emotional
experience, Trevor.

Like it or not, people with high expectations and
sufficient disposable income more often than not
pick a tube amp (and sometimes a SET)
They are usually cultured and well educated people,
who make their choice after extensive periods of
listening. I know many such people.

An engineer can explain to you that the small, but measurable flaws with
SET amplifier (like high levels of THD, poor frequency response, poor
damping factor, lousy load tolerance, etc) are the precise things that
make them audibly different to proper amplifiers (ie: Push pull).

I have seen enough amplifiers measured to know
exactly the and shortcomings of SET. I have listened
to enough equipment, watched the reactions and heard
the comments of other listeners to know the strengths
of SET with the genre of music at which they
excel. The point you seem to miss (or perhaps ignore)
is that a SET with sensitive speakers is driving at a
fraction of 1W. At this kind of level the THD is very
small indeed (much to small to be heard) They are
not intended for people who want to drive their
neighbours to distraction with Metallica:-)

But the difference between us, Trevor, is that I have
nothing to sell, so I can be totally honest in my opinion.
No salesman can do that, unless he is making a choice
between two products both of which he has in stock:-)
It is understandable also that no salesman is happy to
endorse products for which he has no franchise.
This has become apparent in discussions with your
good self.

Wanna try to get back on topic, or will you continue to engage in shabby
personal attacks, in preference to discussing facts? Silly me: I already
know the answer. Your next words will be to engage in further and shabbier
attacks.

I would rather not discuss with you at all. I did not solicit your reply,
but posted to Graham who I hoped would open the thread.


Regards
Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote

**I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a
myth.

It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic
hi-fi installation. Your previous claim that it had, seriously
disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to
most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter.
I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-)

I like the mental picture I got from that.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...


Hi Trevor.

Please re-read carefully what I wrote.

**Ok, done.

I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any substance
in most of these myths. I have taken part in too many tests.

**I know. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Skin effect is not a
myth.

It has no audible effect or significance in a typical domestic
hi-fi installation.

**Read what I wrote, liar.

Your previous claim that it had, seriously
disrupted work in the Swedish Broadcast lab, due to
most of the staff being in convulsions of laughter.
I don't think we can afford to repeat that:-)

**You colleagues are morons. Skin effect is not a myth.



Your remarks about skin effect are smoke and mirrors,

but
I can see why as a salesman of high-profit bespoke cables,
you would wish things to be otherwise.

**Your attempt at switching from a discussion of audio equipment to
personal attack is duly noted.

Salesmen are by definition sales orientated. This may not
always be in the best interest of the customer.

**I note your continued attempt to sway the discussion away from facts and
into personal attack. You are worse than a liar.


Let's discuss your stupidity, shall we? You
claim that skin effect is mythical. It is not.

Neither do I claim it to be so.

**Yes, you did.

It can be easily measured. In
a broadcast environment it is especially important. It
has no significance in domestic audio.

**So? Where, PRECISELY, did I suggest that it was significant in a normal
audio system? I'll wait for your cite.


You waffle on about audio mythology, whilst promoting silly nonsense like
SET amplifiers. Ask an engineer to explain it to you (and I don't mean
those idiots you work with - I mean REAL engineers).

The idiots I work with are mainly DipEng and above.
Some have both technical and musical doctorates.
I would rather take their word for *anything*
against yours. Sorry:-(

**If they ascribe to the notion that SET amplifiers are anything but a bad
joke, then they are exactly as stupid as you.


I was talking about the musical experience from
SET.

**Irrelevant. SET amplifiers add distortion (measurable and audible) to the
signal. It is that distortion that proponents enjoy. Not the music. Which,
if you had half a brain, you would understand.

No-one who has listened to the new Russian
recordings of the Shostakovich String Quartets on
a Resnikov amp into Lowther horns has failed to be
emotionally moved. Music is all about an emotional
experience, Trevor.

**Your point being?


Like it or not, people with high expectations and
sufficient disposable income more often than not
pick a tube amp (and sometimes a SET)
They are usually cultured and well educated people,
who make their choice after extensive periods of
listening. I know many such people.

**So do I. They're deluded. What's your point?


An engineer can explain to you that the small, but measurable flaws with
SET amplifier (like high levels of THD, poor frequency response, poor
damping factor, lousy load tolerance, etc) are the precise things that
make them audibly different to proper amplifiers (ie: Push pull).

I have seen enough amplifiers measured to know
exactly the and shortcomings of SET. I have listened
to enough equipment, watched the reactions and heard
the comments of other listeners to know the strengths
of SET with the genre of music at which they
excel. The point you seem to miss (or perhaps ignore)
is that a SET with sensitive speakers is driving at a
fraction of 1W.

**So? A proper amplifier, used with sensitive speakers also operates at a
fraction of a Watt.

At this kind of level the THD is very
small indeed (much to small to be heard) They are
not intended for people who want to drive their
neighbours to distraction with Metallica:-)

**I note your deliberate avoidance of the very serious problems associated
with SET amps and your sole focus on THD.


But the difference between us, Trevor, is that I have
nothing to sell, so I can be totally honest in my opinion.

**No. You can ply your delusions anywhere you wish, without being accused of
finanical bias. BIG difference. Don't you imagine, for one millisecond, that
I could pad my income very nicely, if I were to flog SET amps? I could.
Easily. However, I do have some integrity. I also lack your delusional
nature.


No salesman can do that, unless he is making a choice
between two products both of which he has in stock:-)
It is understandable also that no salesman is happy to
endorse products for which he has no franchise.
This has become apparent in discussions with your
good self.

**You should also note that I am not deluded.


Wanna try to get back on topic, or will you continue to engage in shabby
personal attacks, in preference to discussing facts? Silly me: I already
know the answer. Your next words will be to engage in further and
shabbier
attacks.

I would rather not discuss with you at all. I did not solicit your reply,
but posted to Graham who I hoped would open the thread.

**You should have posted directly to Graham, rather than engage in stupidity
on a public forum.

Trevor Wilson

[Tynan AgviÐr]

BTW: The claims made for Shakti Stones are not interesting at all.
They're just stupid.


Speaking of Shakti Stones and things of the Ilk, I was recently sent a
sample of .P.W.B *Rainbow Electret Foil*...a product, that when cut into
strips and applied to cds, sacds, vinyl, or cassette tapes, apparently
greatly improves the sound. of course I did it, and now not only is there
no sound improvement, (of course there isnt, Tynan, you dumbass), some of
the CDs wont even play
har.

look up PWB electronics, england.
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/ref/ref.html

I DO greatly admire the audiophool's desire for better sound, and wish that
Professional sound engineers(or should I say the fat guys in suits behind
the record labels ) had as much of a drive to improve audio quality and not
just convenience/price/size... (I also wish that the audiophiles had just a
touch of sense to go with that ambition and could avoid Kool Aid, PCP, and
binges of ye old glass dick for a change)

[West]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


West wrote:

another ankle nipper. I'll deal with you later

You couldn't deal with a wet paper bag FFS !


Graham. As an alternative to wasting your time in
character assassination, which makes you angry and
the rest of us embarrassed, might I ever so 'umbly
propose that you start a new thread, on the subject
of Myths and Legends in audio.

There are so many interesting claims made, ranging
from screened mains cables and hi end speaker
cables, skin effect, etc to Shakti stones.

It would be interesting to discuss these with you, and
shoot them down in an orderly fashion without
personality bashing, flames or invective.

There is no denying that audiophiles are a pretty odd
bunch, and when they get some wild idea into their
head, it is sometimes difficult to dissuade them with
just common sense. As an experienced design engineer
you might be able to deal with these questions in a
better way.

Over to you.

Best regards
Iain

Hello Iain,
I am pleased for you comments, Iain. It's because I didn't take your advice
that I find myself embroiled in this fiasco. I am sure you know that I never
had an unkind thing to say to anyone until few months ago. I was gone from
RAT for quite a spell and then decided to pose a technical question. This
guy Peter Wieck, whom I didn't even know who he was, attacked me
relentlessly because "he didn't like my question and felt that I was trying
to take over this group" With my limited knowledge compared to a Patrick or
yourself, that would be a remarkable accomplishment. Then came along his
apparent partner in these bullying attempts who said that I should try the
experiment myself instead of bothering the group and picked up any attack
gaps that Peter left open. They didn't like it so much when I fought back.
I'm sure you remember. You advised me to simply ignore them. However their
attacks were relentless, so I gave in and started to engage and defend
myself from the countless personal insults and lies. I consider them to have
won because they accomplished in making me somewhat like themselves, dirty
and guilty of contributing to the noise level. At present, I do not like
myself and deeply regret that I didn't listen to you. Oh well as they say..
live and learn.
west

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"West" wrote in message
news:RRhij.2881$Y63.1594@trnddc03...


I am pleased for you comments, Iain. It's because I didn't take your
advice that I find myself embroiled in this fiasco. (snip)

Hi West. It is probably of little or no consolation to you,
but you are not the first, and certainly not the last person to
find themselves in your present position.

Just to cheer you up a little, I paste below an e-mail
received earlier today. It made me smile.

(Quote)
"On whom will Graham turn his attention one he has got
rid of West? It certainly wont stop there. He surely must
complete his intellectual/ethnic cleansing while he
is about it.

Starting with Patrick, - he is too much of a threat -
knows far too much, and argues with solid facts from
practical experience. He is also too tanned and too fit,
and speaks with a funny accent. He's got to go!

Then there is Andre - too well-educated and
well-traveled by far, with superior writing skills.
Besides which, he actually builds tube amps.
We can't have that! Out!

John rarely takes anything on face value, and asks too
many pertinent questions, and fiddles about with old radios.
Can't have that either.

There are too many Ians for comfort. The three letter Ian
doesn't comply or let himself be brow-beaten, and the
four-letter one with too many vowels, well he's an ex-pat,
and keeps talking about Studer and Lewo studio
consoles which as a prof audio designer Graham
should be intimately acquainted with, but is not.
So both must go.

Al must definitely go too. He actually *enjoys* tubes.

It won't take too long before there is just Graham and
Arny. They can then sit in a small room at a baize-covered
table (with heady incense from a bowl of finely crushed
MosFets burning in one corner, and Arny's born-again
Baptist tambourine propped up against an empty bottle of
Entre deux Mers in the other) lit only by the glim of a
flea-power SET tube amp, with type 666 tubes,
connected to a pair of Lowther horns.

They can then link hands in an attempt to contact
Pinky while chanting over and over again their mantra,
their Vedic hymn, their devotional incantation - their
denigration of thermionic audio.

(end of quote)

The future looks bright, West:-)
Cordially,

Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

Then there is Andre - too well-educated and
well-traveled by far, with superior writing skills.
Besides which, he actually builds tube amps.

He means "allegedly builds tube amps" of course.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

(Quote)
"On whom will Graham turn his attention one he has got
rid of West? It certainly wont stop there. He surely must
complete his intellectual/ethnic cleansing while he
is about it.

Berating the know-nothing ****wits and challenging their quasi-religious
beliefs with facts is so threatening isn't it ?

I suppose this is similar to what Darwin had to suffer.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

(Quote)
"On whom will Graham turn his attention one he has got
rid of West? It certainly wont stop there. He surely must
complete his intellectual/ethnic cleansing while he
is about it.

Berating the know-nothing ****wits and challenging their quasi-religious
beliefs with facts is so threatening isn't it ?

I suppose this is similar to what Darwin had to suffer.


Graham, my dear fellow. Please don't compare yourself with
Darwin, or anyone else of his status. You are employed by
a company which builds DJ and karaoke equipment.

What you seem to fail to understand is that this is a
recreational group in which we discuss tube audio.
The subscribers to this group come from diverse
walks of life. Few may have your experience in
electronic design, but many of us may have
knowledge and expertise in areas of
audio/music/music reproduction in which you have
little or none.

That is one of the strengths of this forum.
Please do not, in your ignorance, let your
ego-bashing trip destroy it.

Best regards
Iain

[tubegarden]

Hi RATs!

Mr. Darwin noticed some interesting patterns in his world. He did well
to describe them for others.

Perhaps he was a bit overzealous in assuming that Planet Earth is the
only place anything has ever happened, but, we all like to keep our
stories relevent, even if that does cause some incongruities.

I am old and medicated well below the level of many of the healthy
people of this planet.

Not as low as some self-glorified antagonists, but, pretty low.

Tubes, like women, may not be completely enticing to every man on
Earth. I am fortunate that I still love and serve my wife, long beyond
any simple argument or polemics. And, I still maintain cordial
communications with friends who never met that girl, nor that anyone.
Just that work ...

We are capable of joy. Perhaps some of us find it in unusal places,
perhaps we all know only a little.

I don't know that enjoying anything is a sure way to create anxiety in
some others, but, I suspect it may be.

This is the Web, which itself causes nightmares for some, on both ends
of the spectrum, and some 'naked singularities' in the central region.

I am listening to a half century old amplifier. I changed the gracious
old EL37 tubes to a hard core pair of latter day 6550. The sound is
nowhere near as wretched as in some other amps.

Perhaps talent is bringing out the best in all.

Bringing out the beast is not quite as difficult, but, all to common.

I apologize to all I have harmed. I encourage all I have insired, by
mockery or accomplishment.

I find great pleasure on many days in my life, even if it fades
quickly when I sit up, it just feels good to listen, and dream.

And, to tell the bruisers to stuff it

Happy Errors!

Al

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message

I suppose this is similar to what Darwin had to suffer.

Graham, my dear fellow. Please don't compare yourself with
Darwin, or anyone else of his status. You are employed by
a company which builds DJ and karaoke equipment.

NO. In as much as they ever built such kit (and it was only ever a sideline),
it was 'class leading' (along with the likes of RANE's stuff ) and introduced
professional norms to a market sector that was previously at least as bad as
so-called 'hi-fi'.

So, you'd damn me for designing BETTER DJ and karaoke kit ? What kind of
argument is that ?

I can only assume from that you have a value judgement fixation about certain
market segements that do not relate to the actual performance of the equipment
they employ. In short a value judgement based on a highly opinonated view of
your estimation of their musical value.

Heck, I'm no fan of modern 'dance music' but that's no reason to imply that
they use duff kit.

Get a life Iain.

Graham

[mick]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:19:59 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:

snip
They can
then sit in a small room at a baize-covered table (with heady incense
from a bowl of finely crushed MosFets burning in one corner...
snip


Brilliant! LMAO!

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Eeyore]

mick wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:19:59 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:

snip
They can
then sit in a small room at a baize-covered table (with heady incense
from a bowl of finely crushed MosFets burning in one corner...
snip

Brilliant! LMAO!

****WIT.

[mick]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:19:44 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

mick wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:19:59 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:

snip
They can
then sit in a small room at a baize-covered table (with heady incense
from a bowl of finely crushed MosFets burning in one corner...
snip

Brilliant! LMAO!



phil_mode

****WIT.

/phil_mode

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[West]

I expect Wiecked to now leave this group forever because he is a man of his
word. I promise to place no impediment along his journey and wish him a fond
farewell as he sails off into the sunset. Goodbye Peter.

Cordially,
west


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


mick wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:19:59 +0200, Iain Churches wrote:

snip
They can
then sit in a small room at a baize-covered table (with heady incense
from a bowl of finely crushed MosFets burning in one corner...
snip

Brilliant! LMAO!

****WIT.