Monster Cables

[The Pre-Meltdown Kid]

Awl--

Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the input
signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
True, the conductivity of gold, silver is marginally better than copper, but
it's hard to imagine that it would be audible. Not even in terms of speaker
damping/ringing.
Might be able to see something on a 'scope, but maybe not even then.

Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
longevity?

Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.
--
------
Melting down as we speak

[Paul Stamler]

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
message ...

> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the
input
> signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
> True, the conductivity of gold, silver is marginally better than copper,
but
> it's hard to imagine that it would be audible. Not even in terms of
speaker
> damping/ringing.
> Might be able to see something on a 'scope, but maybe not even then.
>
> Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
> longevity?
>
> Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
> cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.

Gold-plating cables would have little or no useful effect when they were
new; it would, however, prevent oxidation as the cables aged. Of course, so
would good tinning.

Gold connectors are a different ball-game. In a non-tight connection, old
connections can corrode and create audible and measurable distortion. RCA
and banana connectors are examples of non-tight connections, and those I'd
prefer to see gold-plated for long-term reliability, particularly if it's a
connection I don't intend to unplug and replug much. On spade lugs, if
they're tightly clamped, it probably won't make much difference.

I do hear differences between high-priced cables and regular cables, and
most of the time I prefer the regulars. The makers of high-priced cables are
working on the principle that if something sounds different it must be
better, so they're jiggering the cables to make stuff happen (some early
"audiophile" speaker cables were sufficiently capacitative that they altered
the phase margins of many amplifiers, just to take a notorious example).

Peace,
Paul

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, "Paul Stamler" > wrote:
>"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
>message ...
>
>> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the
>input
>> signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
>> True, the conductivity of gold, silver is marginally better than copper,
>but
>> it's hard to imagine that it would be audible. Not even in terms of
>speaker
>> damping/ringing.
>> Might be able to see something on a 'scope, but maybe not even then.
>>
>> Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
>> longevity?
>>
>> Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
>> cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.
>
>Gold-plating cables would have little or no useful effect when they were
>new; it would, however, prevent oxidation as the cables aged. Of course, so
>would good tinning.

I can't think of one reason why I would prefer bare copper over tinning.
Every time I see bare copper and am trying to solder, I say OH NO.
Seems like all automobile wiring is tinned, and I know all boating
wiring is tinned. I bought some new shielded wire from The Home Depot
to wire up my new outside deck's LED lighting. OH NO it was bare copper.
I hope it lasts outside a while !!

greg

[Preben Friis]

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote:
>
> True, the conductivity of gold, silver is marginally better than copper,
> but it's hard to imagine that it would be audible.

Silver is a marginally better conductor than copper, but gold is actually
less conductive than copper.

/Preben Friis

[Richard Crowley]

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" wrote ...
> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the
> input signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a
> difference?

A difference in performance? No.
A difference in profitability? You bet!

> Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
> cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.

Bingo!

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Stamler > wrote:
>Gold connectors are a different ball-game. In a non-tight connection, old
>connections can corrode and create audible and measurable distortion. RCA
>and banana connectors are examples of non-tight connections, and those I'd
>prefer to see gold-plated for long-term reliability, particularly if it's a
>connection I don't intend to unplug and replug much. On spade lugs, if
>they're tightly clamped, it probably won't make much difference.

Note that a lot of consumer "gold-plated" cables are actually only lightly
flashed with gold. It gives them a nice color, but the actual plating is
not thick enough to prevent corrosion.

The real solution to these problems, of course, is to use connectors with
wiping contacts and large contact areas, rather than relying on plating.
The XLR is a whole lot more reliable than RCA crap, for instance.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Preben Friis > wrote:
>"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote:
>>
>> True, the conductivity of gold, silver is marginally better than copper,
>> but it's hard to imagine that it would be audible.
>
>Silver is a marginally better conductor than copper, but gold is actually
>less conductive than copper.

The advantage of silver also is that the silver sulfide that forms in
air when it corrodes is also very conductive. Looks ugly, but it's fine.

On the other hand, copper oxide will form a parasitic semiconductor
junction. Not fine.

Consequently, silver plate is used on a lot of connectors, like the Switchcraft
A3M and A3F, for instance.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ethan Winer]

Paul,

> I do hear differences between high-priced cables and regular cables, and
> most of the time I prefer the regulars ... they're jiggering the cables to
> make stuff happen

Right. All any wire needs to do is pass the audio unharmed, and this is
trivial to do and need not cost more than a few cents per foot.

--Ethan

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>Paul Stamler > wrote:
>>Gold connectors are a different ball-game. In a non-tight connection, old
>>connections can corrode and create audible and measurable distortion. RCA
>>and banana connectors are examples of non-tight connections, and those I'd
>>prefer to see gold-plated for long-term reliability, particularly if it's a
>>connection I don't intend to unplug and replug much. On spade lugs, if
>>they're tightly clamped, it probably won't make much difference.
>
>Note that a lot of consumer "gold-plated" cables are actually only lightly
>flashed with gold. It gives them a nice color, but the actual plating is
>not thick enough to prevent corrosion.
>
>The real solution to these problems, of course, is to use connectors with
>wiping contacts and large contact areas, rather than relying on plating.
>The XLR is a whole lot more reliable than RCA crap, for instance.
>--scott

And those silver plated switches easily clean themselves, or at least seem
to clean easier than other corroded metals.

greg

[Geoff]

The Pre-Meltdown Kid wrote:
> Awl--
>
> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of
> the input signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much
> of a difference?

No. Except in extreme cases which problems can actually be cuased by
esoteric cables !

geoff

[Eeyore]

The Pre-Meltdown Kid wrote:

> Awl--
>
> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the input
> signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
> True, the conductivity of gold, silver is marginally better than copper

Gold actually has higher resistivity than copper. It's used where one wants to
prevent tarnishing of contacts mostly.


> but it's hard to imagine that it would be audible. Not even in terms of
> speaker
> damping/ringing.
> Might be able to see something on a 'scope, but maybe not even then.

Differences between speaker cables include their capacitance and inductance too
but the effect is pretty minute.


> Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
> longevity?
>
> Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
> cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.

People are gullible. That's where Monster et al. score.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Paul Stamler wrote:

> The makers of high-priced cables are
> working on the principle that if something sounds different it must be
> better, so they're jiggering the cables to make stuff happen

You're absolutely dead right there.

Some have even taken to adding 'networks' to their cables in order to exaggerate
the difference. Don't ask me who, obviously I ignored it.

Graham

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote...

> Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
> longevity?

Not only are there no other considerations... but the ones you've
mentioned above do NOT apply. I've gotten more bad monster
patch cables off the shelf than any other cable ever purchased
(including Hosa), and I've seen an equal number of "monster"
cables tossed into the trash by 1/4" instrument cable users as
any other run-of-the-mill brand.

> Some people swear there is a difference,

Some people are easily influenced or have no clue... they hear
what they want to hear or believe what they want to believe.

> ...certainly the mfr of Monster cables

Some people just worship their pocketbooks and could care
less about yours.

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:12:28 +0000, Eeyore
> wrote:

>> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the input
>> signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
>> True, the conductivity of gold, silver is marginally better than copper
>
>Gold actually has higher resistivity than copper. It's used where one wants to
>prevent tarnishing of contacts mostly.

Yeah. So the conductivity AT THE CONTACT might be better. Is anyone
actually selling solid gold cables? I wouldn't put it past some of
the audio sharks :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
> wrote in message


> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage
> points of the input signal,

Speaker distortion affects the output sound, not the input signal.

> can gold-plated cables etc.
> really make that much of a difference?

Most gold plating, particularly in consumer audio, is eyewash.

Besides, the cables themselves aren't gold plated, its the connectors that
they gold plate. Most of the gold plating goes on the outside where it is
seen. Furthermore, gold in addition to being the opposite of cost-effective,
is also not that good of a performer when it comes to electrical contacts.


> True, the conductivity of gold, silver is marginally better than
> copper,

No, the conductivity of pure gold is worse than that of copper.

metalresistivity, nano-ohm-meter
silver 14.71
copper 15.80
gold 20.11
aluminum 25.00
zinc 54.55
iron 87.10

In connectors, remember that the metal you see is only a thin plated layer.
Because it is so thin, its conductivity is secondary. The conductivity of a
cable is most strongly dependent on the wire, not the connector, or a thin
layer of plating on the connector.

But you're right about the conductivity of silver being only marginally
better than that of copper. Rule of thumb is that one wire gauge larger
balances the books. IOW a 12 guage copper wire has about the same
conductivity as a 13 guage silver wire.

Besides, when you're talking conductivity, there's another dimension to the
equation. For example, the conductivity chart above shows conductivity
versus volume. Conductivity versus weight gives a different ranking.
Conductivity versus cost is a yet another ranking. I believe that right now
aluminum is the champ for conductivity versus weight and cost. What matters
most depends on what you are doing.

> but it's hard to imagine that it would be audible.

Same story, all over again. What is the application? The rules for speaker
cables and interconnects differ.

> Not even in terms of speaker damping/ringing.

Speaker damping is a questionable concept. The relevant parameter is the
source impedance that the loudspeaker system sees when it looks back at the
amplifier which can affect the frequency response and therefore the sound of
the speaker at all audio frequencies.

The two strongest relevant parameters of cable are resistance by a country
mile, but also inductance to some degree. Some cable manufacturers obsess
over more esoteric parameters like skin effect, but in most cases inductance
is the stronger effect.

Of course, resistance rules. But even resistance runs into the law of
diminishing returns. Once you get the series impedance of a speaker cable
down to about 1/30th of the nominal impedance of the speaker, diminishing
returns has set in, big time. Cutting the series impedance of a speaker
cable even further to 1/60th won't make it sound twice as good. In fact,
its a bit of an argument whether it will make any audible difference at all.

> Might be able to see something on a 'scope, but maybe not
> even then.

Scopes are pretty crude tools for evaluating connectors and cables.

> Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality
> construction/cable longevity?

Most cables that I've seen fail, and I see lots of failed cables, fail at
the point where a wire is attached to a connector. Gold or silver does very
little good there. It's all about mechanical design and care during
construction.

The best way to connect a wire to a connector is a well-crimped connection.
Solder runs a close second. Except in the case of special connectors that
are not frequently used for home and studio audio, solder the more reliable
method to use in the field. But neither crimping nor soldering guarantee a
reliable connection when the cable is flexed even just a modest amount. It's
all about strain relief.

Probably the biggest name in professional audio cables is Neutrik, a
connector manufacturer. Most of their connectors don't have gold plating,
and most of us would have it no other way. Neutrik have arguably built their
business on connectors with base metal contacts, overall mechanical
robustness, and easy-to-assemble but highly effective strain relief systems.

> Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the
> mfr of Monster cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and
> is apparently making millions.

Monster cable is AFAIK still a private corporation, majority stockholder
Noel Lee. They don't manufacture anything but advertising, press releases,
and other business documents. Their business model is based on evangelizing
salesmen and management of audio stores with promises of increased
profitability. They organize lavish rewards for top sellers. They sell
products that other people manufacture for them. They have a few patents,
but I don't know of any serious manufacturer of cables who worries much
about them. Monster IMO is about sizzle, not steak.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Many years ago, Merv Griffin asked me if his voice was being compressed in
his monitor feed. He felt it was not getting as much louder as he was.
The monitor was being fed from a 100W amp in the audio control room in
ABC-TVs Hollywood Palace Theater. In those times, the infrastructure
wiring all was done with 22GA shielded pairs, whether for mics OR
loudspeakers. The run to the monitor was a few hundred feet and measured
16 ohms. This meant the 16 ohm monitor was sharing half the available
power with the wiring!

I installed heavier cable in parallel with the 22GA and Merv was happy.
Resistance is the predominant factor in these matters. Monster Cable is
pure "Bose"!!!

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Arny Krueger]

"Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Speaker damping is a questionable concept. The relevant
>> parameter is the source impedance that the loudspeaker
>> system sees when it looks back at the amplifier which
>> can affect the frequency response and therefore the
>> sound of the speaker at all audio frequencies.
>
> I agree on the monster comments, but speaker damping is
> more complex. First the relevant parameter is the
> complete impedance: source + speaker(electrical +
> magnetical). Lower complete impedance will force more
> strict voice-coil movements and that would result in
> better sound if the rest of the cone would follow the
> coil exactly.

As you say, speaker damping is more complex.

The idea that having the cone follow the input waveform is the most
important thing, flys right out the window, as soon as you consider ported
designs. However, don't think that well-designed sealed boxes are exact,
just because they don't have a port.

The most important thing is that the speaker system produce the target
acoustical response.

> If e.g. the voice coil has a resistance of 4 Ohm, and the
> output impedance of the amplifier is 0,01 Ohm, it makes
> no sense to try to get a speaker cable with 0.001 Ohm
> resistance.

That's what I said.

> Speaker damping can be useful, if the magnetic system has
> sufficient quality and if the cone has sufficient
> strength. If you want speaker damping, combine amplifier
> and speaker, and make the output impedance of the
> amplifier negative.

Designers of loudspeakers designed to be used with most power amplifiers
design their speakers to be driven from a reasonably low source impedance
because that is what most power amplifiers provide.

There is a mathematical relationship between damping factor and source
impedance, but it is a function of the impedance of the loudspeaker. The
damping factor that is usually given, is a myth because it presumes that the
loudspeaker presents a fixed load impedance. Rather than waste time with a
specification that is based on a myth, it makes sense to cut to the chase
and use source impdeance.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>The idea that having the cone follow the input waveform is the most
>important thing, flys right out the window, as soon as you consider ported
>designs. However, don't think that well-designed sealed boxes are exact,
>just because they don't have a port.
>
>The most important thing is that the speaker system produce the target
>acoustical response.

Many older speakers were designed to be driven by tube amplifiers with
comparatively high output impedance. Driven by a modern amplifier, the
bass will be very restricted. A series resistor in the speaker line may
actually help things.

>Designers of loudspeakers designed to be used with most power amplifiers
>design their speakers to be driven from a reasonably low source impedance
>because that is what most power amplifiers provide.

This is the case today, but it was not always the case.

>There is a mathematical relationship between damping factor and source
>impedance, but it is a function of the impedance of the loudspeaker. The
>damping factor that is usually given, is a myth because it presumes that the
>loudspeaker presents a fixed load impedance. Rather than waste time with a
>specification that is based on a myth, it makes sense to cut to the chase
>and use source impdeance.

Consequently, actual damping changes with frequency, which is where all
the big problems come in with high source impedances.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[The Pre-Meltdown Kid]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
> > wrote in message
>
>
>> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage
>> points of the input signal,
>
> Speaker distortion affects the output sound, not the input signal.
>
>> can gold-plated cables etc.
>> really make that much of a difference?
>
> Most gold plating, particularly in consumer audio, is eyewash.
>
> Besides, the cables themselves aren't gold plated, its the connectors that
> they gold plate. Most of the gold plating goes on the outside where it is
> seen. Furthermore, gold in addition to being the opposite of
> cost-effective, is also not that good of a performer when it comes to
> electrical contacts.
>
>
>> True, the conductivity of gold, silver is marginally better than
>> copper,
>
> No, the conductivity of pure gold is worse than that of copper.
>
> metalresistivity, nano-ohm-meter
> silver 14.71
> copper 15.80
> gold 20.11
> aluminum 25.00
> zinc 54.55
> iron 87.10
>
> In connectors, remember that the metal you see is only a thin plated
> layer. Because it is so thin, its conductivity is secondary. The
> conductivity of a cable is most strongly dependent on the wire, not the
> connector, or a thin layer of plating on the connector.
>
> But you're right about the conductivity of silver being only marginally
> better than that of copper. Rule of thumb is that one wire gauge larger
> balances the books. IOW a 12 guage copper wire has about the same
> conductivity as a 13 guage silver wire.
>
> Besides, when you're talking conductivity, there's another dimension to
> the equation. For example, the conductivity chart above shows conductivity
> versus volume. Conductivity versus weight gives a different ranking.
> Conductivity versus cost is a yet another ranking. I believe that right
> now aluminum is the champ for conductivity versus weight and cost. What
> matters most depends on what you are doing.
>
>> but it's hard to imagine that it would be audible.
>
> Same story, all over again. What is the application? The rules for
> speaker cables and interconnects differ.
>
>> Not even in terms of speaker damping/ringing.
>
> Speaker damping is a questionable concept. The relevant parameter is the
> source impedance that the loudspeaker system sees when it looks back at
> the amplifier which can affect the frequency response and therefore the
> sound of the speaker at all audio frequencies.
>
> The two strongest relevant parameters of cable are resistance by a country
> mile, but also inductance to some degree. Some cable manufacturers obsess
> over more esoteric parameters like skin effect, but in most cases
> inductance is the stronger effect.
>
> Of course, resistance rules. But even resistance runs into the law of
> diminishing returns. Once you get the series impedance of a speaker cable
> down to about 1/30th of the nominal impedance of the speaker, diminishing
> returns has set in, big time. Cutting the series impedance of a speaker
> cable even further to 1/60th won't make it sound twice as good. In fact,
> its a bit of an argument whether it will make any audible difference at
> all.
>
>> Might be able to see something on a 'scope, but maybe not
>> even then.
>
> Scopes are pretty crude tools for evaluating connectors and cables.
>
>> Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality
>> construction/cable longevity?
>
> Most cables that I've seen fail, and I see lots of failed cables, fail at
> the point where a wire is attached to a connector. Gold or silver does
> very little good there. It's all about mechanical design and care during
> construction.
>
> The best way to connect a wire to a connector is a well-crimped
> connection. Solder runs a close second. Except in the case of special
> connectors that are not frequently used for home and studio audio, solder
> the more reliable method to use in the field. But neither crimping nor
> soldering guarantee a reliable connection when the cable is flexed even
> just a modest amount. It's all about strain relief.
>
> Probably the biggest name in professional audio cables is Neutrik, a
> connector manufacturer. Most of their connectors don't have gold plating,
> and most of us would have it no other way. Neutrik have arguably built
> their business on connectors with base metal contacts, overall mechanical
> robustness, and easy-to-assemble but highly effective strain relief
> systems.
>
>> Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the
>> mfr of Monster cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and
>> is apparently making millions.
>
> Monster cable is AFAIK still a private corporation, majority stockholder
> Noel Lee. They don't manufacture anything but advertising, press releases,
> and other business documents. Their business model is based on
> evangelizing salesmen and management of audio stores with promises of
> increased profitability. They organize lavish rewards for top sellers.
> They sell products that other people manufacture for them. They have a
> few patents, but I don't know of any serious manufacturer of cables who
> worries much about them. Monster IMO is about sizzle, not steak.

Yup, that was the guy on Deutsch's Big Idea, Noel Lee.
Personable fellow, who made you think his wires were the savior of all that
was Audio, that he was a prophet that no one would listen to.
With Deutsch vigorously fanning his fire.

I'm not an audio pro, but from basic principles you'd bet it was a scam.
But, I"ve been wrong before, so was just checking here.
Many of the exercise/fitness people Deutsch has on his Big Idea make effing
millions, hand over fist, on stuff that it patently bogus.

Monster Cable patents are probably worthless. Most patents are. The only
time you don't get a patent is when it infringes on the existing
literature--and even then some slip by.
That, and patents on perpetual motion. :)

One of Deutsch's pet phrases is "only in America".
Indeed. Crap wires making millions.

As far as conductivity goes, unless there are special engineering
considerations, IR drop would be the biggest concern.
Aluminum wiring was removed from most building codes because of fires.
Also, corrosion can be a factor in alum; also, alum.oxide forms *very*
quickly, and is highly resistive.
--
PMK

>
>

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:26:44 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
/Odm> wrote:

>Not only are there no other considerations... but the ones you've
>mentioned above do NOT apply. I've gotten more bad monster
>patch cables off the shelf than any other cable ever purchased
>(including Hosa), and I've seen an equal number of "monster"
>cables tossed into the trash by 1/4" instrument cable users as
>any other run-of-the-mill brand.

The "Monster" brand RCA/phono cables of all descriptions are
also famous for removing the shield connector from consumer
jacks during an as-gentle-as-possible removal of the poor
associated jack. Seen it *lots*.

Their insanely lawyered-up attitude about their name is a sad
icing on their cake.

Bitter, Moi?

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:22:35 +0100, Chel van Gennip
> wrote:

>The model of damping, or forcing exact movements of the voice coil, is
>that the voltage induced by the coil moving through the magnetic field
>equals the output voltage of the amplifier. This works best if any
>difference between these voltages result in a high current (and so a big
>force from the coil in the magnetic field). This will work best if the
>total resistance in the loop is about zero, or as the (resistive) output
>impedance of the amplifier is about the same as the resistance of the
>voice coil, but negative.
>
>Tests show indeed an improvement, especially at low frequencies, when
>you use an amplifier with a negative output impedance.

Damping is improved indefinitely with lower total (wire plus
voice coil) resistive losses.

Magnitude response is a judgement call; many would prefer a
Butterworth or some other particular response which would call
for a particular total (wire plus voice coil) series resistance.

But it is possible, with sufficiently large sealed boxes and
sufficiently large motors, to overdamp a resonant system for
someone's definition of "overdamping". So "improvement" is
specific. Just to kibbitz...

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Phildo]

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
message ...
> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the
> input signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a
> difference?

There's a reason people who fall for this sort of con-trick are known in the
professional sound world as audiophools.

Phildo

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:06:04 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> wrote:

>associated jack.

Duh. PLUG. PLUG. PLUG.

Doesn't matter so much I guess, unless it's your personal
expensive widget that gets yanked apart by a brand M jack.

Seen it too often in the gear of too nice folks,

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:07:57 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> wrote:

> a brand M jack.

PLUG!!!!

I give up. Good night. Apparently the mind fails at age 57.
I have only hours to go. I'll miss y'all. Come see me in the home.
I won't remember ya though...


Chris Hornbeck

[Paul Stamler]

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
message ...

> One of Deutsch's pet phrases is "only in America".
> Indeed. Crap wires making millions.

Actually the whole fancy-wire business, like the single-ended triode
business, started out in France.

Peace,
Paul

[Eeyore]

Chel van Gennip wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
>
> >> Speaker damping can be useful, if the magnetic system has
> >> sufficient quality and if the cone has sufficient
> >> strength. If you want speaker damping, combine amplifier
> >> and speaker, and make the output impedance of the
> >> amplifier negative.
> >
> > Designers of loudspeakers designed to be used with most power amplifiers
> > design their speakers to be driven from a reasonably low source impedance
> > because that is what most power amplifiers provide.
> >
> > There is a mathematical relationship between damping factor and source
> > impedance, but it is a function of the impedance of the loudspeaker. The
> > damping factor that is usually given, is a myth because it presumes that the
> > loudspeaker presents a fixed load impedance. Rather than waste time with a
> > specification that is based on a myth, it makes sense to cut to the chase
> > and use source impdeance.
>
> The model of damping, or forcing exact movements of the voice coil, is
> that the voltage induced by the coil moving through the magnetic field
> equals the output voltage of the amplifier. This works best if any
> difference between these voltages result in a high current (and so a big
> force from the coil in the magnetic field). This will work best if the
> total resistance in the loop is about zero, or as the (resistive) output
> impedance of the amplifier is about the same as the resistance of the
> voice coil, but negative.
>
> Tests show indeed an improvement, especially at low frequencies, when
> you use an amplifier with a negative output impedance.

It also shows that cable resistance is almost completely irrelevant using typical
decent cable.

If the DCR of a speaker is say 6 ohms, whether you add add say 0.1 ohms of cable
resistance or 0.4 ohms of cable resistance in series will make very little
difference to the outcome.

It puzzles me that such great claims are made for ultra-large conductor cables in
respect of 'bass firmness' when the science seems to say it's of almost no
importance.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> Damping is improved indefinitely with lower total (wire plus
> voice coil) resistive losses.

The loop resistance consists of the amplifier's output resistance (say
20-100 milliohms for a solid state amp), the cable resistance (say 100-400
milliohms) and the speaker voice coil resistance (say 6 ohms).

The cable is playing a VERY minor role in all this.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Stamler > wrote:
>"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
>message ...
>
>> One of Deutsch's pet phrases is "only in America".
>> Indeed. Crap wires making millions.
>
>Actually the whole fancy-wire business, like the single-ended triode
>business, started out in France.

I thought the single-ended thing started in Japan? It sure caught on
here fast, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore > wrote:
>Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>
>> Damping is improved indefinitely with lower total (wire plus
>> voice coil) resistive losses.
>
>The loop resistance consists of the amplifier's output resistance (say
>20-100 milliohms for a solid state amp), the cable resistance (say 100-400
>milliohms) and the speaker voice coil resistance (say 6 ohms).
>
>The cable is playing a VERY minor role in all this.

This changes in a PA application where you may have a hundred foot cable
run. And cheapskates who want to buy #14 when they should be buying #10.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phildo]

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
message ...
>> Monster cable is AFAIK still a private corporation, majority stockholder
>> Noel Lee. They don't manufacture anything but advertising, press
>> releases, and other business documents. Their business model is based on
>> evangelizing salesmen and management of audio stores with promises of
>> increased profitability. They organize lavish rewards for top sellers.
>> They sell products that other people manufacture for them. They have a
>> few patents, but I don't know of any serious manufacturer of cables who
>> worries much about them. Monster IMO is about sizzle, not steak.
>
> Yup, that was the guy on Deutsch's Big Idea, Noel Lee.
> Personable fellow, who made you think his wires were the savior of all
> that was Audio, that he was a prophet that no one would listen to.
> With Deutsch vigorously fanning his fire.
>
> I'm not an audio pro, but from basic principles you'd bet it was a scam.
> But, I"ve been wrong before, so was just checking here.
> Many of the exercise/fitness people Deutsch has on his Big Idea make
> effing millions, hand over fist, on stuff that it patently bogus.
>
> Monster Cable patents are probably worthless. Most patents are. The only
> time you don't get a patent is when it infringes on the existing
> literature--and even then some slip by.
> That, and patents on perpetual motion. :)
>
> One of Deutsch's pet phrases is "only in America".
> Indeed. Crap wires making millions.

Can't happen in the UK so much. We have "The Advertising Standards
Authority" and if a company advertises that their £10,000 per foot cable
"makes the sound more transparent, the bass fuller and cures your genital
warts at the same time" then it damn well better do exactly that or the
company receives heavy fines. I've taken great pleasure in filing a couple
of complaints over audiophool equipment myself and funnily enough those
adverts never appeared again. The consumer has way more rights in the UK
than in the US although we certainly pay for it in the amount we get taxed.

Phildo

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> >
> >> Damping is improved indefinitely with lower total (wire plus
> >> voice coil) resistive losses.
> >
> >The loop resistance consists of the amplifier's output resistance (say
> >20-100 milliohms for a solid state amp), the cable resistance (say 100-400
> >milliohms) and the speaker voice coil resistance (say 6 ohms).
> >
> >The cable is playing a VERY minor role in all this.
>
> This changes in a PA application where you may have a hundred foot cable
> run. And cheapskates who want to buy #14 when they should be buying #10.

The physics doesn't change. You might get a 2ohm cable. It's still a lot less
than the voice coil resistance.

Graham

[Paul Stamler]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...

> > >The cable is playing a VERY minor role in all this.
> >
> > This changes in a PA application where you may have a hundred foot cable
> > run. And cheapskates who want to buy #14 when they should be buying
#10.
>
> The physics doesn't change. You might get a 2ohm cable. It's still a lot
less
> than the voice coil resistance.

Plot what happens in a voltage divider when shunt element is a loudspeaker
(extremely non-constant impedance, ranging from 6 to perhaps 20 ohms at
various frequencies) and the series element is a resistance of 2 ohms. The
resulting changes in frequency response will certainly be audible. Heavy
cable makes a difference in long runs, as Scott said, unless the speaker's
impedance is wholly resistive. And the only speakers I know which present a
wholly resistive load are home speakers, not PA speakers.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Stamler > wrote:
> >"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
> >message ...
> >
> >> One of Deutsch's pet phrases is "only in America".
> >> Indeed. Crap wires making millions.
> >
> >Actually the whole fancy-wire business, like the single-ended triode
> >business, started out in France.
>
> I thought the single-ended thing started in Japan? It sure caught on
> here fast, though.

You may be right about the single-ended stuff; the French were the first
westerners to pick it up in that case.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >Chris Hornbeck wrote:
>> >
>> >> Damping is improved indefinitely with lower total (wire plus
>> >> voice coil) resistive losses.
>> >
>> >The loop resistance consists of the amplifier's output resistance (say
>> >20-100 milliohms for a solid state amp), the cable resistance (say 100-400
>> >milliohms) and the speaker voice coil resistance (say 6 ohms).
>> >
>> >The cable is playing a VERY minor role in all this.
>>
>> This changes in a PA application where you may have a hundred foot cable
>> run. And cheapskates who want to buy #14 when they should be buying #10.
>
>The physics doesn't change. You might get a 2ohm cable. It's still a lot less
>than the voice coil resistance.

The physics don't change, but 2 ohms is a hell of a large percentage of
the voice coil inductance.

Another place where this becomes a big issue is with speakers that have
bizarre impedance curves. The Scintillas, for instance, dip down very
low at one frequency.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[The Pre-Meltdown Kid]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message
...
> "The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>> One of Deutsch's pet phrases is "only in America".
>> Indeed. Crap wires making millions.
>
> Actually the whole fancy-wire business, like the single-ended triode
> business, started out in France.

As did Perrier.
Perrier came from a bet of French Big Bidniss Biggies, on a Fri. nite at a
local Left-Bank speakeasy, that Merkins would be stupid enough to buy
bottled water.
They were right, and the craze never lost momentum.
'course, not even the French were able to anticipate the Pet Rock amongst
Merkin consumers.
--
PMK


>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

[Paul Stamler]

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
message ...
> > Actually the whole fancy-wire business, like the single-ended triode
> > business, started out in France.
>
> As did Perrier.
> Perrier came from a bet of French Big Bidniss Biggies, on a Fri. nite at a
> local Left-Bank speakeasy, that Merkins would be stupid enough to buy
> bottled water.
> They were right, and the craze never lost momentum.

I'm not sure I buy that; I first visited Europe in 1960, and remember that
bottled water was everywhere. We went to France, Italy & Czechoslovakia, and
in all three places bottled water was not only served in the hotels and
restaurants but also sold by vendors on trains. Presumably this was partly a
response to bad water, particularly in areas where there had been extensive
war damage (I remember there were still bombed-out ruins from WWII
standing), but Europeans also had a taste for acqua minerale, with or
without bubbles. Perrier's spread to the US may have simply been market
expansion.

Peace,
Paul

[The Pre-Meltdown Kid]

"Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:26:44 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> /Odm> wrote:
>
>>Not only are there no other considerations... but the ones you've
>>mentioned above do NOT apply. I've gotten more bad monster
>>patch cables off the shelf than any other cable ever purchased
>>(including Hosa), and I've seen an equal number of "monster"
>>cables tossed into the trash by 1/4" instrument cable users as
>>any other run-of-the-mill brand.
>
> The "Monster" brand RCA/phono cables of all descriptions are
> also famous for removing the shield connector from consumer
> jacks during an as-gentle-as-possible removal of the poor
> associated jack. Seen it *lots*.
>
> Their insanely lawyered-up attitude about their name is a sad
> icing on their cake.

"Lawyered-up" how?? Anyone using "monster", etc.?
>
> Bitter, Moi?

All conjobs are annoying, esp. when well-buttressed, legally.
Hey, how bout our Congress?
--
PMK


>
> Much thanks, as always,
>
> Chris Hornbeck

[videochas www.locoworks.com]

On Dec 22, 10:20�am, "Paul Stamler" > wrote:
> "The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
> ...
>
> > > Actually the whole fancy-wire business, like the single-ended triode
> > > business, started out in France.
>
> > As did Perrier.
> > Perrier came from a bet of French Big Bidniss Biggies, on a Fri. nite at a
> > local Left-Bank speakeasy, that Merkins would be stupid enough to buy
> > bottled water.
> > They were right, and the craze never lost momentum.
>
> I'm not sure I buy that; I first visited Europe in 1960, and remember that
> bottled water was everywhere. We went to France, Italy & Czechoslovakia, and
> in all three places bottled water was not only served in the hotels and
> restaurants but also sold by vendors on trains. Presumably this was partly a
> response to bad water, particularly in areas where there had been extensive
> war damage (I remember there were still bombed-out ruins from WWII
> standing), but Europeans also had a taste for acqua minerale, with or
> without bubbles. Perrier's spread to the US may have simply been market
> expansion.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

During the 60's I was working on a documentary in a town called Diano
Marina on the Italian Riviera. We stayed in one of the resort hotels
on the beach. My litre bottle of Aqua Minerale was outfitted with a
fancy necklace showing my room number, and was set at my place at
every meal.

Very cool, like cheese for dessert!

[Richard Crowley]

"The Pre-Meltdown Kid" wrote ...
> "Paul Stamler" wrote ...
>> "The Pre-Meltdown Kid" wrote ...
>>
>>> One of Deutsch's pet phrases is "only in America".
>>> Indeed. Crap wires making millions.
>>
>> Actually the whole fancy-wire business, like the single-ended triode
>> business, started out in France.
>
> As did Perrier.
> Perrier came from a bet of French Big Bidniss Biggies, on a Fri. nite
> at a local Left-Bank speakeasy, that Merkins would be stupid enough to
> buy bottled water.
> They were right, and the craze never lost momentum.
> 'course, not even the French were able to anticipate the Pet Rock
> amongst Merkin consumers.

Since I don't drink alcohol or carbonated stuff, I rather
like the trend, even though it may be a "craze". I was
quite impressed to see bottled water vending machines
in the Paris Metro (subway system), so apparently it is
not just stupid 'Mericans who appreciate the convienence.

[Eeyore]

Paul Stamler wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
>
> > > >The cable is playing a VERY minor role in all this.
> > >
> > > This changes in a PA application where you may have a hundred foot cable
> > > run. And cheapskates who want to buy #14 when they should be buying
> > > #10.
> >
> > The physics doesn't change. You might get a 2ohm cable. It's still a lot
> > less than the voice coil resistance.
>
> Plot what happens in a voltage divider when shunt element is a loudspeaker
> (extremely non-constant impedance, ranging from 6 to perhaps 20 ohms at
> various frequencies) and the series element is a resistance of 2 ohms. The
> resulting changes in frequency response will certainly be audible. Heavy
> cable makes a difference in long runs, as Scott said, unless the speaker's
> impedance is wholly resistive. And the only speakers I know which present a
> wholly resistive load are home speakers, not PA speakers.

This is a somewhat different issue to the the classic 'damping factor' claims
for 'tightening up bass' though. The series 2 ohms could result in frequency
response aberrations of several dB yet the DF is still barely only very slightly
changed..

Not that I would run 2 ohm leads myself of course.

Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:14:43 -0500, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
> wrote:

>> Their insanely lawyered-up attitude about their name is a sad
>> icing on their cake.
>
>"Lawyered-up" how?? Anyone using "monster", etc.?

Yeah, including mom-n-pop's with *no* relation to audio, anywhere
in America.

Slimeballs.


All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

[[email protected]]

On 2007-12-23 said:
>>> Their insanely lawyered-up attitude about their name is a sad
>>> icing on their cake.
>>"Lawyered-up" how?? Anyone using "monster", etc.?
>Yeah, including mom-n-pop's with *no* relation to audio, anywhere
>in America.
I'm surprised they haven't gone after the little mExican
restaurant in a strip mall local to me due to their "monster
burrito."



Richard webb,
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Amazing how much tape is on a 10" reel when it's not.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Paul Stamler wrote:

>> As did Perrier.
>> Perrier came from a bet of French Big Bidniss Biggies, on a Fri.
>> nite at a local Left-Bank speakeasy, that Merkins would be stupid
>> enough to buy bottled water.
>> They were right, and the craze never lost momentum.

> I'm not sure I buy that; I first visited Europe in 1960, and remember
> that bottled water was everywhere. We went to France, Italy &
> Czechoslovakia, and in all three places bottled water was not only
> served in the hotels and restaurants but also sold by vendors on
> trains. Presumably this was partly a response to bad water,
> particularly in areas where there had been extensive war damage (I
> remember there were still bombed-out ruins from WWII standing), but
> Europeans also had a taste for acqua minerale, with or without
> bubbles. Perrier's spread to the US may have simply been market
> expansion.

It is simple culture to know what water is best for drinking on its own to a
good dinner and what is best for altering the alcohol percentage of peat
juice or the hue of a red wine. The answer would be a different water for
each purpose. The aqua minerale thing probably started with various bath's
selling their water bottled to increase profits.

In the above context it makes perfect sense, but when it comes to area
covering replacements of quality tap water there is something seriously
wrong and the resource math gets horrible. Fix the tap water instead. Doing
that is generally about doing something about what it is permitted to spread
out on the ground either where you leave or upstream.

I live right on top of the water mains entry in this building here in
Copenhagen, it is better water than most of the bottled stuff.

> Paul


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>I'm surprised they haven't gone after the little mExican
>restaurant in a strip mall local to me due to their "monster
>burrito."

No, legally they can't go after that one at all, because it's made with
real monsters.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 11:51*am, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
> Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
> longevity?
>
> Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
> cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.



Wanna know what Monster Cable is all about?


See the link at the bottom of page below.

http://monstervintage.com/


Hilarious summary of the situation

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/monster-monsters.php


Long list of links about Monster Cable.

http://www.monstergreed.com/Index%20with%20info%20about%20MC.htm

[The Pre-Meltdown Kid]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message
...
> "The Pre-Meltdown Kid" > wrote in
> message ...
>> > Actually the whole fancy-wire business, like the single-ended triode
>> > business, started out in France.
>>
>> As did Perrier.
>> Perrier came from a bet of French Big Bidniss Biggies, on a Fri. nite at
>> a
>> local Left-Bank speakeasy, that Merkins would be stupid enough to buy
>> bottled water.
>> They were right, and the craze never lost momentum.
>
> I'm not sure I buy that; I first visited Europe in 1960, and remember that
> bottled water was everywhere. We went to France, Italy & Czechoslovakia,
> and
> in all three places bottled water was not only served in the hotels and
> restaurants but also sold by vendors on trains. Presumably this was partly
> a
> response to bad water, particularly in areas where there had been
> extensive
> war damage (I remember there were still bombed-out ruins from WWII
> standing), but Europeans also had a taste for acqua minerale, with or
> without bubbles. Perrier's spread to the US may have simply been market
> expansion.

Well, how bout Perrier et al w/ "PWS" on the label.
Makes it sort of a Monster Cable.
Public Water Supply. :)
--
PMK




>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:17:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>Wanna know what Monster Cable is all about?
>
>
>See the link at the bottom of page below.
>
>http://monstervintage.com/
>
>
>Hilarious summary of the situation
>
>http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/monster-monsters.php

One of the rotating advirtisment links at the bottom of that page
leads to:
http://www.jpslabs.com/index.shtml

:-)

[Paul Stamler]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...

> > Plot what happens in a voltage divider when shunt element is a
loudspeaker
> > (extremely non-constant impedance, ranging from 6 to perhaps 20 ohms at
> > various frequencies) and the series element is a resistance of 2 ohms.
The
> > resulting changes in frequency response will certainly be audible. Heavy
> > cable makes a difference in long runs, as Scott said, unless the
speaker's
> > impedance is wholly resistive. And the only speakers I know which
present a
> > wholly resistive load are home speakers, not PA speakers.
>
> This is a somewhat different issue to the the classic 'damping factor'
claims
> for 'tightening up bass' though. The series 2 ohms could result in
frequency
> response aberrations of several dB yet the DF is still barely only very
slightly
> changed..

Well, if the amp has an output impedance of 0.2 ohms, say, and the speaker
is 6 ohms, then the damping factor is 30. Add 2ohms of cable resistance, and
your damping factor is down to 3. That's more than a slight change.

I don't like damping factor as a spec, though, and prefer output impedance
instead, at the speaker terminals.

Take a typical closed-box speaker. Its cabinet alignment is (let's say)
Butterworth, with Qtc = 0.707 (Qtc is the Q of the speaker in the box).
Typically the speaker designer would assume 1 ohm total series resistance
(SR), from the power amplifier's output Z, the cables and the DC resistance
of the crossover inductor.

Let's say the speaker's DC resistance (DCR) is 6 ohms. The free-air Q is
increased by the factor (DCR + SR) / DCR, in this case 7/6, or 1.167; this
implies that the speaker system, if driven from a 0 ohm source (no crossover
inductor or cable resistance, and an amp with zero output impedance) would
have a Qtc of 0.857 x 0.707, or about .606. Well and good.

What if you add 2 ohms to the SR? Assuming 1 ohm additional SR from the
crossover coil and amplifier output Z, SR now equals 3, and (DCR + SR) / DCR
= 9 / 6 = 1.5. Qtc now equals 0.606 * 1.5, or .909. This will exhibit a
small bass rise compared with a Butterworth system, and also exhibit more
overshoot, giving a flabbier bass sound. Add the more significant bass rise
relative to the rest of the spectrum (from the voltage divider effect and
the large hump in the impedance at system resonance), and you get a
significantly boomier system.

Vented boxes are more complex; basically the resonances which are supposed
to fit together properly for good response don't anymore, but the principle
is the same: higher series resistance means higher driver Q.

> Not that I would run 2 ohm leads myself of course.

And that's why.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

The Pre-Meltdown Kid > wrote:
>
>Well, how bout Perrier et al w/ "PWS" on the label.
>Makes it sort of a Monster Cable.
>Public Water Supply. :)

From Perrier? No, I think it all comes from Source Perrier. The French
would never allow it to be sold if it were. Like Vichy water (which sadly
is not allowed to be sold in the US any longer since the mineral content
is too high), it's name-controlled, just like French wines and cheeses.

The French take these things seriously. You can go to jail for 35 years
in France for selling Hershey's bars as chocolate.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:57:49 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
> wrote:

>Well, if the amp has an output impedance of 0.2 ohms, say, and the speaker
>is 6 ohms, then the damping factor is 30. Add 2ohms of cable resistance, and
>your damping factor is down to 3. That's more than a slight change.

That may be what that salesman's interpretation of the numbers says,
but it isn't what happens. The actual damping factor of a speaker is
the equivalent inductive (or capacitive) reactance of the speaker at
resonance divided by the total resistance. That is voice coil plus
leads plus amplifier. Adding a couple of ohms to six already present
degrades damping by a third or so. That is a long way from the ten to
one you quote above.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Paul Stamler]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:57:49 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
> > wrote:
>
> >Well, if the amp has an output impedance of 0.2 ohms, say, and the
speaker
> >is 6 ohms, then the damping factor is 30. Add 2ohms of cable resistance,
and
> >your damping factor is down to 3. That's more than a slight change.
>
> That may be what that salesman's interpretation of the numbers says,
> but it isn't what happens. The actual damping factor of a speaker is
> the equivalent inductive (or capacitive) reactance of the speaker at
> resonance divided by the total resistance. That is voice coil plus
> leads plus amplifier. Adding a couple of ohms to six already present
> degrades damping by a third or so. That is a long way from the ten to
> one you quote above.

As is often the case, Don is using the language differently from much of the
world. The generally accepted usage of the term "damping factor" is the
resistive component of the speaker's impedance divided by the impedance
driving it. By that definition, which is how the term is used by the
majority of the audio world, my numbers are correct. It's not a term I
particularly like, but it's one that's used by an awful lot of people, and
used in the way I've used it.

If Don can cite a reference from the professional literature where damping
factor is defined the way he's using the term, I would be obliged to him.

Peace,
Paul

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:26:22 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:57:49 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Well, if the amp has an output impedance of 0.2 ohms, say, and the
>speaker
>> >is 6 ohms, then the damping factor is 30. Add 2ohms of cable resistance,
>and
>> >your damping factor is down to 3. That's more than a slight change.
>>
>> That may be what that salesman's interpretation of the numbers says,
>> but it isn't what happens. The actual damping factor of a speaker is
>> the equivalent inductive (or capacitive) reactance of the speaker at
>> resonance divided by the total resistance. That is voice coil plus
>> leads plus amplifier. Adding a couple of ohms to six already present
>> degrades damping by a third or so. That is a long way from the ten to
>> one you quote above.
>
>As is often the case, Don is using the language differently from much of the
>world. The generally accepted usage of the term "damping factor" is the
>resistive component of the speaker's impedance divided by the impedance
>driving it. By that definition, which is how the term is used by the
>majority of the audio world, my numbers are correct. It's not a term I
>particularly like, but it's one that's used by an awful lot of people, and
>used in the way I've used it.
>
>If Don can cite a reference from the professional literature where damping
>factor is defined the way he's using the term, I would be obliged to him.
>
Damping factor is the ratio of the reactive to resistive impedance of
a resonant system,. Always has been and always will be. It defines the
reciprocal of the Q of the resonant system. It is the amplifier
manufacturers (or more probably the marketing department) who managed
to foul it up and try to make it something else. This is why we now
have the ratio of the resistive terms of the speaker and amplifier
described as damping factor. This is not and has never been a measure
of damping.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 05:09:53 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>Damping factor is the ratio of the reactive to resistive impedance of
>a resonant system,. Always has been and always will be.

Actually, that's "Q", but we know what you mean.


>It defines the
>reciprocal of the Q of the resonant system. It is the amplifier
>manufacturers (or more probably the marketing department) who managed
>to foul it up and try to make it something else. This is why we now
>have the ratio of the resistive terms of the speaker and amplifier
>described as damping factor. This is not and has never been a measure
>of damping.

Sure it (wa)s. And Q itself is a term from the 1920's, originally
used in describing the "quality factor" of reactive elements.

Language is specific but fluid; we may argue about historical
terms, but we can't simply rewrite history.

"Damping Factor" is an *amplifier* specification from back in the
bad old days. It has nothing specific to do with loudspeaker
driver damping, although they're kissing cousins. (Couldn't marry,
even here in Arkansas.)


Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 05:46:19 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 05:09:53 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
>>Damping factor is the ratio of the reactive to resistive impedance of
>>a resonant system,. Always has been and always will be.
>
>Actually, that's "Q", but we know what you mean.
>
>
>>It defines the
>>reciprocal of the Q of the resonant system. It is the amplifier
>>manufacturers (or more probably the marketing department) who managed
>>to foul it up and try to make it something else. This is why we now
>>have the ratio of the resistive terms of the speaker and amplifier
>>described as damping factor. This is not and has never been a measure
>>of damping.
>
>Sure it (wa)s. And Q itself is a term from the 1920's, originally
>used in describing the "quality factor" of reactive elements.
>
>Language is specific but fluid; we may argue about historical
>terms, but we can't simply rewrite history.
>

I would rather say we need not perpetuate errors.

>"Damping Factor" is an *amplifier* specification from back in the
>bad old days. It has nothing specific to do with loudspeaker
>driver damping, although they're kissing cousins. (Couldn't marry,
>even here in Arkansas.)
>
OK, so according to modern usage, what damping does it measure?

>
>Much thanks, as always,
>
>Chris Hornbeck

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 05:52:58 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>>"Damping Factor" is an *amplifier* specification from back in the
>>bad old days. It has nothing specific to do with loudspeaker
>>driver damping, although they're kissing cousins. (Couldn't marry,
>>even here in Arkansas.)
>>
>OK, so according to modern usage, what damping does it measure?

Wellllllll, back in the bad old days, "damping factor" was
actually a useful number. Low driving (source) impedances
were actually reasonably difficult to provide. A ratio of
ten was pretty darned good and pretty well accepted as OK.

In modern terms, an amplifier that doesn't provide wideband
"negligible" output impedance has a lot to answer for. So
in modern usage, it doesn't measure much of anything interesting.

In *some* historical contexts, it didn't either, but we have
the great luxury of modern perspective from which to be
critical. And the Thiele-Small vantage point - everything
looks different after you can see it as a filter.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:20:40 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 05:52:58 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
>>>"Damping Factor" is an *amplifier* specification from back in the
>>>bad old days. It has nothing specific to do with loudspeaker
>>>driver damping, although they're kissing cousins. (Couldn't marry,
>>>even here in Arkansas.)
>>>
>>OK, so according to modern usage, what damping does it measure?
>
>Wellllllll, back in the bad old days, "damping factor" was
>actually a useful number. Low driving (source) impedances
>were actually reasonably difficult to provide. A ratio of
>ten was pretty darned good and pretty well accepted as OK.
>
Sure a useful umber, but nothing to do with damping factor. My
question remains. What damping is the term damping factor a measure of
in current usage?

>In modern terms, an amplifier that doesn't provide wideband
>"negligible" output impedance has a lot to answer for. So
>in modern usage, it doesn't measure much of anything interesting.
>
It still measures output impedance. As a ratio of speaker impedance it
is sort of useful in telling you how much power loss to expect as a
result, and how the frequency response may change as a result. But you
are right, output impedance should be extremely low in any competent
amplifier.

But suppose we had two amplifiers, one of .001 ohms, and another of
..01 ohms. That would be a ten to one difference damping factor
according to current usage. In practice of course the difference in
performance would be almost unmeasurable.

>In *some* historical contexts, it didn't either, but we have
>the great luxury of modern perspective from which to be
>critical. And the Thiele-Small vantage point - everything
>looks different after you can see it as a filter.
>

The problem with T-S, which you can, as you say view as a filter is
that it describes only one very tiny aspect of speaker behaviour. It
is interesting that people accept the T-S parameters as gospel. When
the BBC were designing their LS 3-5 monitor, KEF supplied the drivers
because they were about the best around. They had to select units
specially to guarantee Fr within 5Hz of the design spec.

>Much thanks, as always,
>
>Chris Hornbeck

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:41:28 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>The problem with T-S, which you can, as you say view as a filter is
>that it describes only one very tiny aspect of speaker behaviour. It
>is interesting that people accept the T-S parameters as gospel. When
>the BBC were designing their LS 3-5 monitor, KEF supplied the drivers
>because they were about the best around. They had to select units
>specially to guarantee Fr within 5Hz of the design spec.

The real world is fundamentally unknowable and messy. And smells
bad. We must, however, perservere.

Sorting and selecting loudspeaker drivers will either instill
or remove the deep tenants of religion from the best of us. I've
done some; it sure ain't pretty.


Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:07:57 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
> > wrote:
>
> > a brand M jack.
>
> PLUG!!!!
>
> I give up. Good night. Apparently the mind fails at age 57.
> I have only hours to go. I'll miss y'all. Come see me in the home.
> I won't remember ya though...


What do you prefer.... checkers or shuffleboard?

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in
message
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:22:35 +0100, Chel van Gennip
> > wrote:
>
>> The model of damping, or forcing exact movements of the
>> voice coil, is that the voltage induced by the coil
>> moving through the magnetic field equals the output
>> voltage of the amplifier. This works best if any
>> difference between these voltages result in a high
>> current (and so a big force from the coil in the
>> magnetic field). This will work best if the total
>> resistance in the loop is about zero, or as the
>> (resistive) output impedance of the amplifier is about
>> the same as the resistance of the voice coil, but
>> negative.

>> Tests show indeed an improvement, especially at low
>> frequencies, when you use an amplifier with a negative
>> output impedance.

Depends on how you define "improvement".

> Damping is improved indefinitely with lower total (wire
> plus voice coil) resistive losses.

Yes, but cutting voice coil resistance beyond a certain point isn't easy.

> Magnitude response is a judgement call; many would prefer
> a Butterworth or some other particular response which
> would call for a particular total (wire plus voice coil)
> series resistance.

Which magnitude is that? Most listeners judge speakers about acoustic
performance in a real-world listening room. The transfer function from the
speaker to the ear is usually such that the speaker response is only
peripherally responsible for the final result. IOW, if you put different
speakers in the same room, you get results that are far more similar than
the same speaker in different rooms.

> But it is possible, with sufficiently large sealed boxes
> and sufficiently large motors, to overdamp a resonant
> system for someone's definition of "overdamping". So
> "improvement" is specific. Just to kibbitz...

There's a current school of thought for building woofers that says that you
build a horrifically overdamped speaker, because that's what you get with a
speaker with a good sized magnet in a tiny box. You want the good magnet
for modest efficiency. Then equalize it for the desired response. The
equalizer obviously trashes the damping in the bass because its a big
resonant bass boost network. But, you get the desired bass response.

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> in message ...
>
>>>> The cable is playing a VERY minor role in all this.
>>>
>>> This changes in a PA application where you may have a
>>> hundred foot cable run. And cheapskates who want to
>>> buy #14 when they should be buying #10.
>>
>> The physics doesn't change. You might get a 2ohm cable.
>> It's still a lot less than the voice coil resistance.
>
> Plot what happens in a voltage divider when shunt element
> is a loudspeaker (extremely non-constant impedance,
> ranging from 6 to perhaps 20 ohms at various frequencies)
> and the series element is a resistance of 2 ohms.

At speaker Z = 6 ohms the cable's loss is -2.5 dB. At 20 ohms it is about
0.8 dB

>The
> resulting changes in frequency response will certainly be
> audible.

If it happens over a fractional octave in the bass range, not so audible.

> Heavy cable makes a difference in long runs, as
> Scott said, unless the speaker's impedance is wholly
> resistive. And the only speakers I know which present a
> wholly resistive load are home speakers, not PA speakers.

Even those home speakers that are like big resistors usually have passive
crossovers, that cause impedance changes in the midrange, where they are
more audible.

That's why I pooh-pooh damping factor. Bass speaker damping in a range where
the ear is not so sensitive.

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message


> I'm not sure I buy that; I first visited Europe in 1960,
> and remember that bottled water was everywhere.

Ditto for 1968 when I was there as a guest of our mutual Uncle.

> We went
> to France, Italy & Czechoslovakia, and in all three
> places bottled water was not only served in the hotels
> and restaurants but also sold by vendors on trains.

I was kinda stuck in Germany, but...

> Presumably this was partly a response to bad water,
> particularly in areas where there had been extensive war
> damage (I remember there were still bombed-out ruins from
> WWII standing), but Europeans also had a taste for acqua
> minerale, with or without bubbles. Perrier's spread to
> the US may have simply been market expansion.

The Europeans seemed to had a slightly different spin on the word sanitary
then we did when I was there. Not like Mexico, but still different. When I
went to large stores or other places where there were lots of people in
Germany, my nose told the tale. Other parts of Europe (other trips) seemed
not dissimilar.

If you lived there long enough, drinking the water would get to you sooner
or later. The first thing that seemed to happen to everybody who lived there
for a while, was that a week or three in, the digestive system sort went
through some err changes, while you get used to the new biological regime.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>> But it is possible, with sufficiently large sealed boxes
>> and sufficiently large motors, to overdamp a resonant
>> system for someone's definition of "overdamping". So
>> "improvement" is specific. Just to kibbitz...
>
>There's a current school of thought for building woofers that says that you
>build a horrifically overdamped speaker, because that's what you get with a
>speaker with a good sized magnet in a tiny box. You want the good magnet
>for modest efficiency. Then equalize it for the desired response. The
>equalizer obviously trashes the damping in the bass because its a big
>resonant bass boost network. But, you get the desired bass response.

Yes, but the impulse response... well, it's a little funny when you do that.

Back in the old days, you'd find speakers that were deliberately overdamped
mechanically because they were expected to be driven with an amplifier with
a comparatively high-Z source, often through long cables. Drive that A-7 with
a modern amplifier and the bass response is not right.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>> But it is possible, with sufficiently large sealed boxes
>>> and sufficiently large motors, to overdamp a resonant
>>> system for someone's definition of "overdamping". So
>>> "improvement" is specific. Just to kibbitz...
>>
>> There's a current school of thought for building woofers
>> that says that you build a horrifically overdamped
>> speaker, because that's what you get with a speaker with
>> a good sized magnet in a tiny box. You want the good
>> magnet for modest efficiency. Then equalize it for the
>> desired response. The equalizer obviously trashes the
>> damping in the bass because its a big resonant bass
>> boost network. But, you get the desired bass response.
>
> Yes, but the impulse response... well, it's a little
> funny when you do that.

Impulse response is almost always a little funny when you do crazy things
like listen to speakers in real-world rooms. Actually, its usually not funny
at all.

> Back in the old days, you'd find speakers that were
> deliberately overdamped mechanically because they were
> expected to be driven with an amplifier with
> a comparatively high-Z source, often through long cables.
> Drive that A-7 with a modern amplifier and the bass
> response is not right. --scott

IMO the bass response of an A-7 was never right. A4s were much better, and
A2s were even better. ;-)

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
> > Back in the old days, you'd find speakers that were
> > deliberately overdamped mechanically because they were
> > expected to be driven with an amplifier with
> > a comparatively high-Z source, often through long cables.
> > Drive that A-7 with a modern amplifier and the bass
> > response is not right. --scott
>
> IMO the bass response of an A-7 was never right. A4s were much better,
> and A2s were even better. ;-)

I found the overall sound of the Altec A-7 to be horrible! We used it as a
playback or orchestra feed monitor on the Tom Jones TV show. The boom mic
was a Beyer M160. Tom's voice sounded great, the A-7 was ghastly, or
worse! And that was with driven by a transformer-coupled McCurdy AM43
solid-state amp through a few hundred feet of too-small wire.

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>I found the overall sound of the Altec A-7 to be horrible! We used it as a
>playback or orchestra feed monitor on the Tom Jones TV show. The boom mic
>was a Beyer M160. Tom's voice sounded great, the A-7 was ghastly, or
>worse! And that was with driven by a transformer-coupled McCurdy AM43
>solid-state amp through a few hundred feet of too-small wire.

There are tricks that can actually make the A-7 usable. First, the
horn comes off, and gets covered with a mix of sand and roofing tar
so that it doesn't go clang when you hit it. Secondly, the dust screen
in the driver comes out, and the diaphragm gets replaced with a Radian.

Thirdly, the cabinet needs some severe reinforcing, and in a pinch
that can mean a bunch of 2X4s nailed to it. If you run a 20 Hz signal
into an unmodified A-7, you can literally see the cabinet bulging in
out. That's not a recipe for good sound.

Fourthly, the crossover needs to go. The original network is only first
order on the top, second order on the bottom, and because the system can
never be phase coherent off-axis, you want to minimize the amount of overlap
between the two drivers. A high order crossover helps enormously. And it
also gets that crappy inductor out of there.

I might add the McCurdy probably did not help....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2007-12-24 (ScottDorsey) said:
>Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>>I found the overall sound of the Altec A-7 to be horrible! We
>>used it as a playback or orchestra feed monitor on the Tom Jones
>>TV show.
<snip>
>There are tricks that can actually make the A-7 usable. First, the
>horn comes off, and gets covered with a mix of sand and roofing tar
>so that it doesn't go clang when you hit it. Secondly, the dust
>screen in the driver comes out, and the diaphragm gets replaced
>with a Radian.
A guy I worked with did the first of these two, he might
have replaced the hf driver as well.
tHen we totally eliminated the internal crossover and
biamped the system.
didn't sound quite as bad after all that.



Richard webb,
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

[Eeyore]

Paul Stamler wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> Paul Stamler wrote:
> > > Plot what happens in a voltage divider when shunt element is a
> > > loudspeaker (extremely non-constant impedance, ranging from 6 to perhaps
> 20 ohms at
> > > various frequencies) and the series element is a resistance of 2 ohms.
> > > The resulting changes in frequency response will certainly be audible.
> Heavy
> > > cable makes a difference in long runs, as Scott said, unless the
> > > speaker's impedance is wholly resistive. And the only speakers I know
> which
> > > present a wholly resistive load are home speakers, not PA speakers.
> >
> > This is a somewhat different issue to the the classic 'damping factor'
> >claims for 'tightening up bass' though. The series 2 ohms could result in
> > frequency response aberrations of several dB yet the DF is still barely only
> very
> > slightly changed..
>
> Well, if the amp has an output impedance of 0.2 ohms, say, and the speaker
> is 6 ohms, then the damping factor is 30. Add 2ohms of cable resistance, and
> your damping factor is down to 3. That's more than a slight change.

This is because damping factor is erroneously or misleadingly specified.

Where we have an amplifier driving a loudspeaker and we want to control it
accurately, we need to control the influence of the back emf generated by the
speaker's voice coil. The total resistance between these two will affect how
well that can be done.

If we draw the equivalent circuit of this we have 2 perfect (i.e. zero source
resistance/impedance) voltage generators connected by a wire of DC resistance X
ohms (ignore any LC component impedance of this that applies only for HF), the
amplifier's output resistance / impedance and the voice coil's DC resistance and
impedance.

Lump together (as you can in equivalent circuit analysis) all those series Rs
and impedances and the influence of both the amp's output impedance and the
cable resistance is very small.

Let's say the amp's output resistance is 100 miiliohms, the 'good cable' is 300
miliohms, the bad cable is 2 ohms and the speaker DCR is 6 ohms.

With the 'good cable' the total series R is 6.4 ohms. With the 'bad cable' the
series R is 8.1 ohms. This will affect the ability of the amplifier to 'damp'
the speaker in a ratio of 8.1/6.4 or 1.26:1 NOT the bogus 10:1 times that the
accepted damping factor calculation suggests.

Think about it. The equivalent circuit tells it all.

What's intereting about this is that it flies in the face of accepted ideas
about damping factor, yet is the scientific truth. It seems to suggest that the
obsession with very high damping factors was an early example of snake oil /
audiophoolery.

Graham

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Roy W. Rising > wrote:
> >I found the overall sound of the Altec A-7 to be horrible! We used it as
a
> >playback or orchestra feed monitor on the Tom Jones TV show. The boom
mic
> >was a Beyer M160. Tom's voice sounded great, the A-7 was ghastly, or
> >worse! And that was with driven by a transformer-coupled McCurdy AM43
> >solid-state amp through a few hundred feet of too-small wire.
>
> There are tricks that can actually make the A-7 usable. First, the
> horn comes off, and gets covered with a mix of sand and roofing tar
> so that it doesn't go clang when you hit it.

A treatment which is much less unpleasant to use than roofing tar & sand is
"stainless putty". This is a non-hardening putty sold in the plumbing
department of large hardware stores; it does an excellent job of damping
down the clang of a metal horn. I used it on the horns of a pair of Klipsch
Heresies, and they stopped going clang when you hit them. Sounded a whole
lot better when you played music through them, too. It also works on ringing
woofer baskets. And it has almost no smell.

Peace,
Paul

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 24 Dec 2007 10:08:13 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>> But it is possible, with sufficiently large sealed boxes
>>> and sufficiently large motors, to overdamp a resonant
>>> system for someone's definition of "overdamping". So
>>> "improvement" is specific. Just to kibbitz...
>>
>>There's a current school of thought for building woofers that says that you
>>build a horrifically overdamped speaker, because that's what you get with a
>>speaker with a good sized magnet in a tiny box. You want the good magnet
>>for modest efficiency. Then equalize it for the desired response. The
>>equalizer obviously trashes the damping in the bass because its a big
>>resonant bass boost network. But, you get the desired bass response.
>
>Yes, but the impulse response... well, it's a little funny when you do that.

I have a real treat for you both. Seigfried Linkwitz has a little
single-inverting-op-amp circuit that converts any f-sub-C and
Q-sub-C to any other f-sub-C and Q-sub-C.

Want an f-sub-C of 8Hz and a Q-sub-C of 0.5? (I do.) Can do, if
you have the excursion.

It was published in his 1980 Speaker Builder series that expanded
on his earlier WW paper. It's now on his website; bounce me back
if ye can't find it easily and I'll dig out the link.

It's great ****. Much thanks, and Merry Christmas as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Roy W. Rising > wrote:
> > >I found the overall sound of the Altec A-7 to be horrible! We used it
> > >as a playback or orchestra feed monitor on the Tom Jones TV show. The
> > >boom mic was a Beyer M160. Tom's voice sounded great, the A-7 was
> > >ghastly, or worse! And that was with driven by a transformer-coupled
> > >McCurdy AM430 solid-state amp through a few hundred feet of too-small
> > >wire.
> >
> > There are tricks that can actually make the A-7 usable. First, the
> > horn comes off, and gets covered with a mix of sand and roofing tar
> > so that it doesn't go clang when you hit it.
>
> A treatment which is much less unpleasant to use than roofing tar & sand
> is "stainless putty". This is a non-hardening putty sold in the plumbing
> department of large hardware stores; it does an excellent job of damping
> down the clang of a metal horn. I used it on the horns of a pair of
> Klipsch Heresies, and they stopped going clang when you hit them. Sounded
> a whole lot better when you played music through them, too. It also works
> on ringing woofer baskets. And it has almost no smell.
>
> Peace,
> Paul


Thanks, Paul and Scott, I needed that! ... about 38 years ago! Merry
Christmas!

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>
>Thanks, Paul and Scott, I needed that! ... about 38 years ago! Merry
>Christmas!

Hey, you never know when you might need it again! We still have a few
theatres around here running 'em, not to mention a college auditorium
with A5s soffit-mounted in the front wall.

The Byrd Theatre up in Richmond got rid of their Altec X-1 system, though,
and put some modern JBL cabinets back there, I think.

Merry Christmas!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[RichD]

Eeyore wrote:
> > Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the input
> > signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
>
> Differences between speaker cables include their capacitance and
> inductance too but the effect is pretty minute.
>
> > Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
> > longevity?
> >
> > Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
> > cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.
>
> People are gullible. That's where Monster et al. score.

Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?


I attended a Stereophile conference about 15 years ago.
They compared 2 amps, blind, randomly switched to a
variety of short music samples. One $3000, the other
$700; neither a tube amp, as I recall. The audience
voted on their individual score sheets. The final
tally: indistinguishable.


--
Rich

[RichD]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The real solution to these problems, of course, is to use connectors with
> wiping contacts and large contact areas, rather than relying on plating.
> The XLR is a whole lot more reliable than RCA crap, for instance.

What is the difference between wiping and plating?

--
Rich

[Eeyore]

RichD wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > The real solution to these problems, of course, is to use connectors with
> > wiping contacts and large contact areas, rather than relying on plating.
> > The XLR is a whole lot more reliable than RCA crap, for instance.
>
> What is the difference between wiping and plating?

Wiping refers to the self-cleaning action of 2 contacts as they move against
each other.

Plating refers to the surface metal used as the contact.

Graham

[Eeyore]

RichD wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > > Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the input
> > > signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
> >
> > Differences between speaker cables include their capacitance and
> > inductance too but the effect is pretty minute.
> >
> > > Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
> > > longevity?
> > >
> > > Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
> > > cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.
> >
> > People are gullible. That's where Monster et al. score.
>
> Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
>

UK professional audio magazine Studio Sound performed a test of various *speaker*
cables several decades ago. I have no idea if it was blind or double blind but its
conclusion backs the technically driven analysis. They found that large conductor
(i.e. low DC resistance) cables performed best.

I can't imagine any serious publication performing tests on standard equipment
interconnects since it would be about as meaningful as proving that white is white.


> I attended a Stereophile conference about 15 years ago.
> They compared 2 amps, blind, randomly switched to a
> variety of short music samples. One $3000, the other
> $700; neither a tube amp, as I recall. The audience
> voted on their individual score sheets. The final
> tally: indistinguishable.

No great surprise.

Graham

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:41:09 -0800 (PST), RichD
> wrote:

>> The real solution to these problems, of course, is to use connectors with
>> wiping contacts and large contact areas, rather than relying on plating.
>> The XLR is a whole lot more reliable than RCA crap, for instance.
>
>What is the difference between wiping and plating?

Wiping refers to the self-cleaning action as contacts slide across
each other. You know what plating is.

[Scott Dorsey]

RichD > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> The real solution to these problems, of course, is to use connectors with
>> wiping contacts and large contact areas, rather than relying on plating.
>> The XLR is a whole lot more reliable than RCA crap, for instance.
>
>What is the difference between wiping and plating?

Plating is a (presumably inert) metal that goes over top of the surface,
usually to prevent corrosion.

A wiping contact is a design by which when you plug it in, the friction
of the contact surfaces scrapes off all the corrosion from the surface.
That is, they are designed to wear in order to self-clean.

The venerable 1/4" phone plug is probably the first wiping contact design
ever, dating back to the late 19th century.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Guy Macon]

RichD wrote:

>Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?

You know what would be really great? what if there was a web page
that searched the web for other web pages, so that all you had to
do was to type in [ speaker cables double blind ] and click on a
button labeled "search." If only such a "search engine" web page
existed, it would lead you to these webpages:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/10/01/james-randi-calls-ou.html
http://www.edn.com/blog/1700000170/post/1150015315.html
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/10/hear_hear_james.html
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/speaker-cables/
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/speaker-cables/7250-speaker-cables-turn-you-into-a-dancin-fool-302478.php
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/transparent-opus-speaker-cables-bring-you-audio-nirvana-for-43000
-a-pair-303825.php
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-bull****/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-
cables-are-better-305549.php
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/double-blind/pear-cable-ceo-calls-james-randis-1-million-offer-a-hoax-307473.php
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-bull****/updated-journalist-accepts-1-million-challenge-do-7250-cables-sound
-better-or-not-311034.php
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pear-cable-freaks-out/pear-cable-withdraws-from-james-randis-1m-challenge-313361.php
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/roundup/the-gadget-wars-who-wonlost-last-week-315963.php
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4
http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=27
http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/121/27/#i6
http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11
http://machinadynamica.com/machina44.htm



Alas, such a "search engine" was never invented, so all we can do is
to ask random strangers on USENET newsgroups. :(


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> The venerable 1/4" phone plug is probably the first wiping contact design
> ever, dating back to the late 19th century.
> --scott

Were these used for AC before the two-prong standard was established? Was
there much arcing? ;-)

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> The venerable 1/4" phone plug is probably the first wiping contact design
>> ever, dating back to the late 19th century.
>
>Were these used for AC before the two-prong standard was established? Was
>there much arcing? ;-)

Telegraph circuits. Thanks to Elisha Gray and the Gray Switchboard Company,
the distant predecessor of today's Graybar Electric.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The venerable 1/4" phone plug is probably the first wiping contact design
> ever, dating back to the late 19th century.

And a fairly ineffective one at that (for pro-audio purposes) !

Never had to polish any brass phone jacks ?

Graham

[[email protected]]

On 2007-12-26 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>> The venerable 1/4" phone plug is probably the first wiping
>>>contact design ever, dating back to the late 19th century.
>>Were these used for AC before the two-prong standard was
>>established? Was there much arcing? ;-)
>Telegraph circuits. Thanks to Elisha Gray and the Gray Switchboard
>Company, the distant predecessor of today's Graybar Electric.
I knew they were used in telegraph circuits but not able to
recall the company. Was going to answer to the first part
anyway. GLad I waited.

You're a fount of knowledge SCott. WE apppreciate you <g>.



Richard webb,
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

[RichD]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> >> The real solution to these problems, of course, is to use connectors with
> >> wiping contacts and large contact areas, rather than relying on plating.
> >> The XLR is a whole lot more reliable than RCA crap, for instance.
> >
> >What is the difference between wiping and plating?
>
> Wiping refers to the self-cleaning action as contacts slide across
> each other.

But if you're talking about audio interconnects, the owner
installs his system, then doesn't touch it for years - how
does the wiping occur?

How does self-cleaning work, anyhow? From a
chemical/mechanical viewpoint. I mean, usually
'wear' implies 'tear'... which does not normally
imply 'improve'...


--
Rich

..

[Frank Stearns]

RichD > writes:

>Laurence Payne wrote:
>> >> The real solution to these problems, of course, is to use connectors with
>> >> wiping contacts and large contact areas, rather than relying on plating.
>> >> The XLR is a whole lot more reliable than RCA crap, for instance.
>> >
>> >What is the difference between wiping and plating?
>>
>> Wiping refers to the self-cleaning action as contacts slide across
>> each other.

>But if you're talking about audio interconnects, the owner
>installs his system, then doesn't touch it for years - how
>does the wiping occur?

It doesn't. The connections need to be undone/redone a few times every so often to
shake loose the crud. How often depends on the quality of the metals, the "quality"
of the previous contact "make", surface area of the contacts, and the
environment.

I've often surmized that when someone raves about how much better cable A sounds
than cable B it's 99% due to the fact that they busted away the oxidation and other
junk when they installed cable B. If they went back to A (once the "honeymoon" wore
off), they'd be surprised to learn that A and B really sounded the same after all!

>How does self-cleaning work, anyhow? From a
>chemical/mechanical viewpoint. I mean, usually
>'wear' implies 'tear'... which does not normally
>imply 'improve'...

You've hopefully got several hundred -- if not several thousand --
connect/disconnect cycles before things start to degrade much at all.

Assuming reasonably good alloys, and if you do that cycle say twice 4 times a year,
you should have at least a good 50 years, perhaps several hundred, of being able
to remake good, clean connections.

But, I'm not a metals or contact expert. Others here may have different experiences.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:29:03 -0800 (PST), RichD
> wrote:

>> Wiping refers to the self-cleaning action as contacts slide across
>> each other.
>
>But if you're talking about audio interconnects, the owner
>installs his system, then doesn't touch it for years - how
>does the wiping occur?

It doesn't. Which is why, if you think interconnects are critical (or
even if you don't) it's a good idea to "twiddle" your connections now
and again. And might go some way toward explaining the "new is
better" effect when installing a different cable.

People who REALLY think connections matter wouldn't be running
unbalanced through RCA jacks of course. Though, in practice, they're
OK for domestic installations with no severe interference problems
from ajdacent equipment.


>How does self-cleaning work, anyhow? From a
>chemical/mechanical viewpoint. I mean, usually
>'wear' implies 'tear'... which does not normally
>imply 'improve'...

You're just playing with words. Contacts need cleaning occasionally.
Whether you do this manually or automatically, a bit of surface will
be lost. Eventually it will wear out. But not in your lifetime, in a
domestic audio setup :-)

If audiophiles REALLY cared about connections, they'd make soldered
joints or buy a wire-wrap tool. Both would be satisfyingly
inconvenient, and I'm sure an enterprising supplier would soon develop
a system that was satisfyingly expensive :-)

[Eeyore]

Frank Stearns wrote:

> RichD writes:
> >Laurence Payne wrote:
>
> >> >> The real solution to these problems, of course, is to use connectors with
> >> >> wiping contacts and large contact areas, rather than relying on plating.
> >> >> The XLR is a whole lot more reliable than RCA crap, for instance.
> >> >
> >> >What is the difference between wiping and plating?
> >>
> >> Wiping refers to the self-cleaning action as contacts slide across
> >> each other.
>
> >But if you're talking about audio interconnects, the owner
> >installs his system, then doesn't touch it for years - how
> >does the wiping occur?
>
> It doesn't. The connections need to be undone/redone a few times every so often to
> shake loose the crud.

Or of course, if they're gold plated you don't get any (ideally) crud in the first
place.

Graahm

[RichD]

Guy Macon wrote:
> Alas, such a "search engine" was never invented, so all we can do is
> to ask random strangers on USENET newsgroups. :(


How does random strangers differ from mere strangers?

--
Rich

[William Sommerwerck]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...

> Or of course, if they're gold plated you don't get any (ideally)
> crud in the first place.

I wonder. When you put Caig ProGold on a gold-plated surface, let it sit
briefly, then wipe it off, there's _something_ on the cloth. But whether
it's loosened crud or the darkened ProGold, I don't know.

[Mickey]

On 2007-12-27, RichD > wrote:
> Guy Macon wrote:
>> Alas, such a "search engine" was never invented, so all we can do is
>> to ask random strangers on USENET newsgroups. :(
>
>
> How does random strangers differ from mere strangers?
>

They are stranger.

--
Mickey
Be patient. God isn't finished with me yet. -- unknown

[Scott Dorsey]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:29:03 -0800 (PST), RichD
> wrote:
>
>> Wiping refers to the self-cleaning action as contacts slide across
>> each other.
>
>But if you're talking about audio interconnects, the owner
>installs his system, then doesn't touch it for years - how
>does the wiping occur?

It doesn't. But if it's a well-designed connector like the XLR, the
connection is gas-tight so after the contact surface is cleaned by
wiping, it stays clean.

If it's some worthless piece of crap designed to be made cheaply out
of stamped metal, like the RCA connector, it corrodes on the contact
areas. That's why pro audio gear doesn't use RCA connectors.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Or of course, if they're gold plated you don't get any (ideally)
>> crud in the first place.
>
>I wonder. When you put Caig ProGold on a gold-plated surface, let it sit
>briefly, then wipe it off, there's _something_ on the cloth. But whether
>it's loosened crud or the darkened ProGold, I don't know.

Note that some of those "gold plated" surfaces are only very lightly
gold-flashed and there is still plenty of base metal on the surface.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> >But if you're talking about audio interconnects, the owner
> >installs his system, then doesn't touch it for years - how
> >does the wiping occur?
>
> It doesn't. But if it's a well-designed connector like the XLR, the
> connection is gas-tight so after the contact surface is cleaned by
> wiping, it stays clean.
>
> If it's some worthless piece of crap designed to be made cheaply out
> of stamped metal, like the RCA connector, it corrodes on the contact
> areas. That's why pro audio gear doesn't use RCA connectors.

Along with the fact that when you pull an RCA plug halfway out of the jack
by accident, the hot connector is still connected while the ground is not,
so the amplifier puts out full-power hum into the speaker, which fries. XLR
plugs are usually locking, so they don't pull halfway out to begin with, but
if they do, the ground pin remains connected after the hot pins (the ground
pin is longer) so no BRAAAAP.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Stamler > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> >But if you're talking about audio interconnects, the owner
>> >installs his system, then doesn't touch it for years - how
>> >does the wiping occur?
>>
>> It doesn't. But if it's a well-designed connector like the XLR, the
>> connection is gas-tight so after the contact surface is cleaned by
>> wiping, it stays clean.
>>
>> If it's some worthless piece of crap designed to be made cheaply out
>> of stamped metal, like the RCA connector, it corrodes on the contact
>> areas. That's why pro audio gear doesn't use RCA connectors.
>
>Along with the fact that when you pull an RCA plug halfway out of the jack
>by accident, the hot connector is still connected while the ground is not,
>so the amplifier puts out full-power hum into the speaker, which fries. XLR
>plugs are usually locking, so they don't pull halfway out to begin with, but
>if they do, the ground pin remains connected after the hot pins (the ground
>pin is longer) so no BRAAAAP.

Well, in the case of the RCA connector, it was intended only for internal
use inside radio-phonographs and was never intended to be plugged and
unplugged by the user, so the notion of the ground making before the signal
wasn't really in the design spec.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message
...

> Along with the fact that when you pull an RCA plug halfway out of the jack
> by accident, the hot connector is still connected while the ground is not,
> so the amplifier puts out full-power hum into the speaker, which fries.
XLR
> plugs are usually locking, so they don't pull halfway out to begin with,
but
> if they do, the ground pin remains connected after the hot pins (the
ground
> pin is longer) so no BRAAAAP.

"Audiophile" RCA plubgs sometimes have a "long" collar that maintains
contact until the pin is fully out.

[jwvm]

On Dec 27, 6:01 am, Laurence Payne <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com>
wrote:

<snip>

> If audiophiles REALLY cared about connections, they'd make soldered
> joints or buy a wire-wrap tool. Both would be satisfyingly
> inconvenient, and I'm sure an enterprising supplier would soon develop
> a system that was satisfyingly expensive :-)

Actually, even audiophiles have limits. After they spend hours
cleaning their LP, adjusting their turntable and then resoldering
their interconnects to remove any possible corrosion, they would
probably run out of time to actually listen to music.

BTW, wire wrapping is an especially cruel and profitable suggestion.
After a few wraps and unwraps, the wire will break and need to be
restripped. After a number of such cycles, the cable will get too
short and a new cable will be needed. All that would be needed would
be a good source of solid 24 gauge audiophile-grade wire. I am selling
such wire at the special holiday price of $500/foot ($5000/foot after
January 1 so hurry) that can be purchased at this web site:

www.totalAudiophileRipoff.com

[[email protected]]

On Dec 20, 8:51*am, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
> wrote:
> Awl--
>
> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the input
> signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
> True, the conductivity of gold, silver is marginally better than copper, but
> it's hard to imagine that it would be audible. *Not even in terms of speaker
> damping/ringing.
> Might be able to see something on a 'scope, but maybe not even then.
>
> Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
> longevity?
>
> Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
> cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.
> --
> ------
> Melting down as we speak

expensive cables look nice but as far as i can tell they are just
thicker, not serving any purpose other than adding to signal loss. im
sure that monster "jazz" and "bass" cables are great for playing jazz
or bass because i could see how they would possibly cut some unwanted
frequencies. to me, even anything along the lines of G.C.'s cheapies
will give off the truest sound from the pickup to the amp. and with
some nice switchcraft endings and proper soder work i think u can
easily notice a pleasant, lively, and possibly brighter difference in
tone, especially if u are running through a pedal, etc..

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>expensive cables look nice but as far as i can tell they are just
>thicker, not serving any purpose other than adding to signal loss. im
>sure that monster "jazz" and "bass" cables are great for playing jazz
>or bass because i could see how they would possibly cut some unwanted
>frequencies. to me, even anything along the lines of G.C.'s cheapies
>will give off the truest sound from the pickup to the amp. and with
>some nice switchcraft endings and proper soder work i think u can
>easily notice a pleasant, lively, and possibly brighter difference in
>tone, especially if u are running through a pedal, etc..

Oh, with high-Z guitar lines it is VERY easy to make cables that change
the frequency response with shunt capacitance and series inductance.

And if you like that for your tone, that's fine.

But the Monster cables fail. And there's nothing worse than having
an instrument cable fail on stage.

Well, actually, you can have stoned audience members jump on on stage
and start urinating into your amp. That's worse. But only a little bit,
and it's less embarassing to you personally even though it might be very
embarassing to the audience member when his drugs wear off.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
> Oh, with high-Z guitar lines it is VERY easy to make cables that change
> the frequency response with shunt capacitance and series inductance.
>
> And if you like that for your tone, that's fine.
>
> But the Monster cables fail. And there's nothing worse than having
> an instrument cable fail on stage.
>
> Well, actually, you can have stoned audience members jump on on stage
> and start urinating into your amp. That's worse. But only a little bit,
> and it's less embarassing to you personally even though it might be very
> embarassing to the audience member when his drugs wear off.

If he does it into the business end of a tubed amp, he may never be
embarrassed again.

Peace,
Paul

[James Beck]

In article >,
says...
> On 2007-12-27, RichD > wrote:
> > Guy Macon wrote:
> >> Alas, such a "search engine" was never invented, so all we can do is
> >> to ask random strangers on USENET newsgroups. :(
> >
> >
> > How does random strangers differ from mere strangers?
> >
>
> They are stranger.
>
>
Or ist that even stranger........

[William Sommerwerck]

> Even audiophiles have limits. After they spend hours cleaning
> their LP, adjusting their turntable and then resoldering their
> interconnects to remove any possible corrosion, they would
> probably run out of time to actually listen to music.

When CDs came in, J Gordon Holt predicted that audiophiles would reject
them, because they didn't require any pre-play fussing.

Gordon and I have a running joke, which goes something like this...

"Gordon, last night I did something really sick and perverted."

"Yes...?"

"I sat down and actually listened to music!"

[Mark Thorson]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Note that some of those "gold plated" surfaces are only very lightly
> gold-flashed and there is still plenty of base metal on the surface.

If you see base metal on the surface, it probably
means there wasn't a barrier layer below the gold.
You should never plate gold directly over most
metals, such as copper, because the metals will
diffuse into each other. A nickel barrier layer
will prevent this.

This is one of the reasons Illiac IV was so
unreliable.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ProgrammingTheIlliac

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul Stamler > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>
>> Well, actually, you can have stoned audience members jump on on stage
>> and start urinating into your amp. That's worse. But only a little bit,
>> and it's less embarassing to you personally even though it might be very
>> embarassing to the audience member when his drugs wear off.
>
>If he does it into the business end of a tubed amp, he may never be
>embarrassed again.

Sadly he didn't, although he did get my mike splitter. And I was out in
the truck listening to a rough stage mix when all of a sudden folks start
screaming profanity and then channels start dropping out....
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark Thorson > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Note that some of those "gold plated" surfaces are only very lightly
>> gold-flashed and there is still plenty of base metal on the surface.
>
>If you see base metal on the surface, it probably
>means there wasn't a barrier layer below the gold.
>You should never plate gold directly over most
>metals, such as copper, because the metals will
>diffuse into each other. A nickel barrier layer
>will prevent this.

It's not a matter of diffusion so much as that the layer of gold is only
a couple atoms thick and is only there to look good. It provides no
actual protection and is only cosmetic.

You can't even call that stuff "gold plated," only "gold colored."

Recently I got some "audiophile" grade resistors from Parts Express, since
they were 10W non-inductives for a buck each. Unfortunately they had leads
plated with some kind of metal and then lightly sputtered with gold to make
them look cool, but bending the leads caused the plating to flake right off.
I wound up having to scrape all the fake gold crap off before using them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"RichD" > wrote in message

> Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>> The real solution to these problems, of course, is to
>>>> use connectors with wiping contacts and large contact
>>>> areas, rather than relying on plating. The XLR is a
>>>> whole lot more reliable than RCA crap, for instance.
>>>
>>> What is the difference between wiping and plating?
>>
>> Wiping refers to the self-cleaning action as contacts
>> slide across each other.
>
> But if you're talking about audio interconnects, the owner
> installs his system, then doesn't touch it for years - how
> does the wiping occur?

Obviously there is no additional wiping.

Ideally, when you mate the connectors their contacts wipe each other,
exposing a clean metal surface. There is enough pressure on the points of
contact that a gas-tight seal is created. The clean metal stays clean.

> How does self-cleaning work, anyhow? From a
> chemical/mechanical viewpoint. I mean, usually
> 'wear' implies 'tear'... which does not normally
> imply 'improve'...

Production-grade connectors that are intended to be mated frequently are
usually made of harder, non-oxidizing metals.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that some of those "gold plated" surfaces are only
>>> very lightly gold-flashed and there is still plenty of
>>> base metal on the surface.
>>
>> If you see base metal on the surface, it probably
>> means there wasn't a barrier layer below the gold.
>> You should never plate gold directly over most
>> metals, such as copper, because the metals will
>> diffuse into each other. A nickel barrier layer
>> will prevent this.
>
> It's not a matter of diffusion so much as that the layer
> of gold is only
> a couple atoms thick and is only there to look good. It
> provides no
> actual protection and is only cosmetic.
>
> You can't even call that stuff "gold plated," only "gold
> colored."
>
> Recently I got some "audiophile" grade resistors from
> Parts Express, since they were 10W non-inductives for a
> buck each. Unfortunately they had leads plated with some
> kind of metal and then lightly sputtered with gold to
> make them look cool, but bending the leads caused the
> plating to flake right off. I wound up having to scrape
> all the fake gold crap off before using them. --scott

IME these resistors have a pretty strong temperature coefficient.

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message


> Along with the fact that when you pull an RCA plug
> halfway out of the jack by accident, the hot connector is
> still connected while the ground is not, so the amplifier
> puts out full-power hum into the speaker, which fries.

TRS connectors are prone to s similar fault.

> XLR plugs are usually locking, so they don't pull halfway
> out to begin with, but if they do, the ground pin remains
> connected after the hot pins (the ground pin is longer)
> so no BRAAAAP.

Also, XLR connectors have mechanical shields around the pins/sockets so you
can step on them without much chance of damage. Now try stepping on a RCA
male connector!

[Arny Krueger]

"RichD" > wrote in message

> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Given that speaker distortion amounts to full
>>> percentage points of the input signal, can gold-plated
>>> cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
>>
>> Differences between speaker cables include their
>> capacitance and inductance too but the effect is pretty
>> minute.
>>
>>> Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality
>>> construction/cable longevity?
>>>
>>> Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the
>>> mfr of Monster cables, who appeared on The Big Idea,
>>> and is apparently making millions.
>>
>> People are gullible. That's where Monster et al. score.
>
> Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?

Larry Greenhill did something like that about 25 years ago. I recollect that
it was reported in The Audio Amateur. Results? Random guessing.

> I attended a Stereophile conference about 15 years ago.
> They compared 2 amps, blind, randomly switched to a
> variety of short music samples. One $3000, the other
> $700; neither a tube amp, as I recall. The audience
> voted on their individual score sheets. The final
> tally: indistinguishable.

Everybody who is surprised can find themselves a pointed hat and sit in a
corner! ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>> Recently I got some "audiophile" grade resistors from
>> Parts Express, since they were 10W non-inductives for a
>> buck each. Unfortunately they had leads plated with some
>> kind of metal and then lightly sputtered with gold to
>> make them look cool, but bending the leads caused the
>> plating to flake right off. I wound up having to scrape
>> all the fake gold crap off before using them. --scott
>
>IME these resistors have a pretty strong temperature coefficient.

Dunno, we'll find out. I put fifty of them in a paint can full of
transformer oil, to make 50 ohm load. Cold, it looks pretty
good on the network analyzer, We'll throw a couple kilowatts into
it at 790 KHz next week and measure it hot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phildo]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message
...
>> Well, actually, you can have stoned audience members jump on on stage
>> and start urinating into your amp. That's worse. But only a little bit,
>> and it's less embarassing to you personally even though it might be very
>> embarassing to the audience member when his drugs wear off.
>
> If he does it into the business end of a tubed amp, he may never be
> embarrassed again.

Warning - graphic content - http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6xpuut2&s=1

Phildo

[[email protected]]

On Dec 26, 1:37 am, RichD > wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > > Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the input
> > > signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
>
> > Differences between speaker cables include their capacitance and
> > inductance too but the effect is pretty minute.
>
> > > Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
> > > longevity?
>
> > > Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
> > > cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.
>
> > People are gullible. That's where Monster et al. score.
>
> Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
>
> I attended a Stereophile conference about 15 years ago.
> They compared 2 amps, blind, randomly switched to a
> variety of short music samples. One $3000, the other
> $700; neither a tube amp, as I recall. The audience
> voted on their individual score sheets. The final
> tally: indistinguishable.
>
> --
> Rich

If this is the meeting held during CES, you recollection isn't
entirely accurate. Yes, the goal was to tell if something had changed.
However, some in the audience not only could tell the difference, but
could identify which amp was being used. One amp was from VTL, but I
recall several brands being tested in this manner.

The gold contacts are to prevent corrosion which can lead to
rectification. Not likely, but it could happen.

I don't bash Monster Cable, though I don't bow down to it either.
Prior to Monster coming on scene, audio cables were very poorly
constructed. [I'm not talking pro cables with canon connectors, but
the crude used in consumer gear.] Monster made phono connectors that
actually gripped. They had strain relief. It was worth paying a bit
extra. Then things got out of hand, AKA the birth of the wire bandits.
Speaker wire based on fibonacci sequences, high purity copper oxygen
free copper, stuff like that.

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

"RichD" > wrote in message
...
>
> Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
>

The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their owners happier. Indeed
the monster cables serve quite well for this purpose. Only bores and geeks
care for the tests because they are having fun by spoiling the pleasure of
somebody else. But does this make them happy?

VLV

[Paul Stamler]

> wrote in message
...
> If this is the meeting held during CES, you recollection isn't
> entirely accurate. Yes, the goal was to tell if something had changed.
> However, some in the audience not only could tell the difference, but
> could identify which amp was being used. One amp was from VTL, but I
> recall several brands being tested in this manner.
>
> The gold contacts are to prevent corrosion which can lead to
> rectification. Not likely, but it could happen.

I've observed it. I have a Heathkit Audio Analyzer, the old IM-22, which
measures intermodulation distortion. For a while I used it with
double-banana-plug cables; when I wasn't using it I plugged the output into
the input to keep the cables out of the way. The plugs were cheap surplus
jobs.

One time I didn't use it for a month or so. When I turned it on, I did my
routine residual distortion test, and got about 0.75% distortion at 0dBu.
"Oh, really?" I said, or words to that effect, and unplugged the cables,
then plugged them back in again. The residual distortion dropped to 0.07%,
its normal figure. It was at that point that I decided bananas were not a
good way to connect things (low pressure, not particularly gas-tight) unless
they were gold plated, and the plating was real plating. Or you pulled them
out and plugged them in again fairly often.

Peace,
Paul

[Robert Baer[_2_]]

Mickey wrote:

> On 2007-12-27, RichD > wrote:
>
>>Guy Macon wrote:
>>
>>>Alas, such a "search engine" was never invented, so all we can do is
>>>to ask random strangers on USENET newsgroups. :(
>>
>>
>>How does random strangers differ from mere strangers?
>>
>
>
> They are stranger.
>
No, they did not RUN and are not DUMB ...

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:08:52 -0500, Frank Stearns wrote
(in article >):

>> But if you're talking about audio interconnects, the owner
>> installs his system, then doesn't touch it for years - how
>> does the wiping occur?
>
> It doesn't. The connections need to be undone/redone a few times every so
> often to shake loose the crud. How often depends on the quality of the
> metals, the "quality" of the previous contact "make", surface area of the
> contacts, and the environment.

I have cured any number of electrical problems by "exercising the
connection"; patchbays and circuit boards. I don't know that it changed the
frequency response of anything, but it allowed current flow where enough
schmutz had built up to stop current flow.

Richard and I are comparing two types of guitar cable right now, to see if
there is a difference. I have the electric guitar samples ready and will soon
have the acoustic guitar samples.

So far, I think I can tell a difference while recording, but hearing that
difference in playback seem more difficult. Dunno. Not enough time on the
project yet.

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=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.[_2_]]

Guy Macon wrote:
>
> RichD wrote:
>
> >Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
>
> You know what would be really great? what if there was a web page
> that searched the web for other web pages, so that all you had to
> do was to type in [ speaker cables double blind ] and click on a
> button labeled "search." If only such a "search engine" web page
> existed, it would lead you to these webpages:

You are in luck! Such a page has been developed:

http://www.just****inggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=speaker+cables+double+blind

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
>
> "RichD" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
> >
>
> The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their owners happier. Indeed
> the monster cables serve quite well for this purpose.

They also serve the purpose for which they were intended (fleecing
the stupid). I hardly think this is a good thing.

> Only bores and geeks
> care for the tests because they are having fun by spoiling the pleasure of
> somebody else. But does this make them happy?

Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster cable does. If
I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy. I'll try to save others
money too, if I can. Monster cable is a fraud and Monster deserves
to be shown for what they are. Hopefully their customers will then
have the CEO drawn and quartered, or worse. I doubt it'll happen
though, too many of their customers are terminally stupid.

Then there is BestBuy, et. al., and their highway robbery on cables
($60 for HDMI cables?!). I suppose they make nothing on the TVs
and pay the light bill with extended warranties and HDMI cables.

--
Keith

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

krw wrote:


>>
>>>Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
>>>
>>
>>The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their owners happier. Indeed
>>the monster cables serve quite well for this purpose.
>
> They also serve the purpose for which they were intended (fleecing
> the stupid). I hardly think this is a good thing.

I have the question:
What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?

>>Only bores and geeks
>>care for the tests because they are having fun by spoiling the pleasure of
>>somebody else.

> Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster cable does. If
> I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy.

Sure. Buy at Walmart, eat at McDonalds. A $10 chinese replica is as good
as the original Rolex, right?

> I'll try to save others
> money too, if I can.

Did they ask you?

> Monster cable is a fraud and Monster deserves
> to be shown for what they are.

Where is the border line between fraud and not fraud?

> Hopefully their customers will then
> have the CEO drawn and quartered, or worse. I doubt it'll happen
> though, too many of their customers are terminally stupid.

You should thank them for inventing a safe trick to make the idiots work
for nothing. People just want to be different.

> Then there is BestBuy, et. al., and their highway robbery on cables
> ($60 for HDMI cables?!).

Why don't make and sell the cables of your own then?

> I suppose they make nothing on the TVs
> and pay the light bill with extended warranties and HDMI cables.

Could be. Why not, if it works.


VLV

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:20:12 GMT, Vladimir Vassilevsky
> wrote:

>> Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster cable does. If
>> I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy.
>
>Sure. Buy at Walmart, eat at McDonalds. A $10 chinese replica is as good
>as the original Rolex, right?

Dead right it is! If the job is telling the time. What job do
cables do?

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>> Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster cable does. If
>>> I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy.
>>
>>Sure. Buy at Walmart, eat at McDonalds. A $10 chinese replica is as good
>>as the original Rolex, right?
>
> Dead right it is! If the job is telling the time. What job do
> cables do?

Good one! :-)

[Richard Crowley]

"Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?

Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables
are about?

>> I'll try to save others money too, if I can.
>
> Did they ask you?

OK, so you don't believe in helping others even when they don't
know they need help. I'll keep that in mind next time I read one
of your posts.

>> Monster cable is a fraud and Monster deserves to be shown for what
>> they are.
>
> Where is the border line between fraud and not fraud?

Making unsubstantiated statemets (what they used to call
"lying").

>> Hopefully their customers will then have the CEO drawn and quartered,
>> or worse. I doubt it'll happen though, too many of their customers
>> are terminally stupid.
>
> You should thank them for inventing a safe trick to make the idiots
> work for nothing. People just want to be different.

Fine, send me your money. Is that "different" enough for you?
I'll even send you a $10 cable for $100 if it will make you
feel any better about it.

>> Then there is BestBuy, et. al., and their highway robbery on cables
>> ($60 for HDMI cables?!).
>
> Why don't make and sell the cables of your own then?

Plenty of people sell excellent cables at sensible prices.
Or are you suggesting becoming another schyster like
the botique cable vendors?

>> I suppose they make nothing on the TVs and pay the light bill with
>> extended warranties and HDMI cables.
>
> Could be. Why not, if it works.

And people rob banks. "It works."
Your logic leaves me cold.

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
>
>> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
>
> Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables
> are about?

Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.

>>> I'll try to save others money too, if I can.
>> Did they ask you?
>
> OK, so you don't believe in helping others even when they don't
> know they need help. I'll keep that in mind next time I read one
> of your posts.

Certainly. You can't help under compulsion.

>> You should thank them for inventing a safe trick to make the idiots
>> work for nothing. People just want to be different.
>
>
> Fine, send me your money. Is that "different" enough for you?

Every day they ask me to send money on TV and in email spams. What is
different about your proposition?

> I'll even send you a $10 cable for $100 if it will make you
> feel any better about it.

If it would make me feel any better, I would certainly buy it. But I am
not obsessed with cables so I'd rather buy a bottle of good cognac.

>
>>> Then there is BestBuy, et. al., and their highway robbery on cables
>>> ($60 for HDMI cables?!).
>>
>> Why don't make and sell the cables of your own then?
>
> Plenty of people sell excellent cables at sensible prices.
> Or are you suggesting becoming another schyster like
> the botique cable vendors?

I suggest to quit whinning about the unfair life.

>>> I suppose they make nothing on the TVs and pay the light bill with
>>> extended warranties and HDMI cables.
>>
>> Could be. Why not, if it works.
>
> And people rob banks. "It works."

As long as robbing banks could be economically profitable for some
people (considering all tradeoffs), they will keep robbing banks.

> Your logic leaves me cold.

My logic is logical.

VLV

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
>
>
> krw wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>>Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
> >>>
> >>
> >>The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their owners happier. Indeed
> >>the monster cables serve quite well for this purpose.
> >
> > They also serve the purpose for which they were intended (fleecing
> > the stupid). I hardly think this is a good thing.
>
> I have the question:

Shoot.

> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?

Gold is money, diamonds are female bait. I'm not sure what the
purpose of most "art" is.

> >>Only bores and geeks
> >>care for the tests because they are having fun by spoiling the pleasure of
> >>somebody else.
>
> > Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster cable does. If
> > I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy.
>
> Sure. Buy at Walmart, eat at McDonalds.

I do, and I do.

> A $10 chinese replica is as good as the original Rolex, right?

Your example; my opinion? Yes. I have no use for a Rolex, or the
Chinese knock-off for that matter. I can't wear watches.

> > I'll try to save others
> > money too, if I can.
>
> Did they ask you?

They do. If they don't want help they don't have to listen. I'd
prefer they not whine though; weenies whine.

> > Monster cable is a fraud and Monster deserves
> > to be shown for what they are.
>
> Where is the border line between fraud and not fraud?

It's a pretty bright line, unlike some.

> > Hopefully their customers will then
> > have the CEO drawn and quartered, or worse. I doubt it'll happen
> > though, too many of their customers are terminally stupid.
>
> You should thank them for inventing a safe trick to make the idiots work
> for nothing. People just want to be different.

Why should I thank them for waste? Did I say that I didn't like
fraud?

> > Then there is BestBuy, et. al., and their highway robbery on cables
> > ($60 for HDMI cables?!).
>
> Why don't make and sell the cables of your own then?

Why? I can buy them, without the impenetrable plastic wrapping,
for $10.

> > I suppose they make nothing on the TVs
> > and pay the light bill with extended warranties and HDMI cables.
>
> Could be. Why not, if it works.

....and you bitch about McDonalds and WallyWorld.

--
Keith

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
>
>
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> >
> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> >
> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables
> > are about?
>
> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.

I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to
wonder about your sanity.

> >>> I'll try to save others money too, if I can.
> >> Did they ask you?
> >
> > OK, so you don't believe in helping others even when they don't
> > know they need help. I'll keep that in mind next time I read one
> > of your posts.
>
> Certainly. You can't help under compulsion.

Is that a bet?

> >> You should thank them for inventing a safe trick to make the idiots
> >> work for nothing. People just want to be different.
> >
> >
> > Fine, send me your money. Is that "different" enough for you?
>
> Every day they ask me to send money on TV and in email spams. What is
> different about your proposition?

Nothing. Fraud is fraud.

> > I'll even send you a $10 cable for $100 if it will make you
> > feel any better about it.
>
> If it would make me feel any better, I would certainly buy it. But I am
> not obsessed with cables so I'd rather buy a bottle of good cognac.

So you do agree that Monster cables are a fraud.

> >>> Then there is BestBuy, et. al., and their highway robbery on cables
> >>> ($60 for HDMI cables?!).
> >>
> >> Why don't make and sell the cables of your own then?
> >
> > Plenty of people sell excellent cables at sensible prices.
> > Or are you suggesting becoming another schyster like
> > the botique cable vendors?
>
> I suggest to quit whinning about the unfair life.

Good plan. Go fer it.

> >>> I suppose they make nothing on the TVs and pay the light bill with
> >>> extended warranties and HDMI cables.
> >>
> >> Could be. Why not, if it works.
> >
> > And people rob banks. "It works."
>
> As long as robbing banks could be economically profitable for some
> people (considering all tradeoffs), they will keep robbing banks.

So you have no issues with it?

> > Your logic leaves me cold.
>
> My logic is logical.

Perhaps, but your assumptions are out in left hyperspace.

--
Keith

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

"krw" > wrote in message
t...
>
> I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to
> wonder about your sanity.

I wonder how did you made it through my plonk filter?
....Ahhh. Never mind. It is fixed already.

Aside from the usual trolls and spammers, I plonk skyback, macon, sloman,
mpm, terrel, bloggs, donkey, jamie, slaughter, bored, neopax and you, of
course. There is nothing personal. The S.E.D. traffic is too high to be
manageable; so I have to select the sources with the higher SNR. This
brings it down to somewhat 30 messages per day. From those the 1-2 messages
are worth reading.

Have a good time.

VLV

[Richard Crowley]

"krw" wrote ...
> "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
>> >
>> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
>> >
>> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables
>> > are about?
>>
>> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
>
> I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to
> wonder about your sanity.

Some of us have moved beyond doubt.

[Benj]

On Dec 28, 6:56 pm, krw > wrote:

> Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster cable does. If
> I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy. I'll try to save others
> money too, if I can. Monster cable is a fraud and Monster deserves
> to be shown for what they are. Hopefully their customers will then
> have the CEO drawn and quartered, or worse. I doubt it'll happen
> though, too many of their customers are terminally stupid.

I think calling Monster cables a fraud is going too far. Not my idea
of a cable I'd plunk down for, but still VERY nice well-made cables. I
can assure you that with any listening ability at all, you don't need
a double blind test to see that zip cord sucks! Heavy wire much
improves speaker damping and can be heard. The question of if that
small difference in sound is WORTH it to you is quite another.
Personally, I make my own cables. I like gold plating because it
prevents corrosion and tends to improve contact. I use as heavy a
conductor as possible because it does make a difference. I try to
include a really strong strain relief because eventually cables get
used and things break and pull out. Monster, of course does all of
this for you. And yes, they charge like mad for the service. Is it
worth it? Not to me. But maybe it is to you. That is for you to
decide.

But as someone else noted Monster has done a lot to raise cable
awareness. I remember when many supposedly "quality" systems came with
some thin hookup wire as cables. Feh. ANYONE can hear that suck. So if
you root around now you can easily find quite a few decent cables for
sale cheap with nice connectors, heavy-ass wire and all the rest. Who
needs a "name" brand? If you want some "ultimate" cable then wire
your system with 1 inch copper tubing! Not very flexible but lots of
copper.

Where I draw the line is when cable makers start doing the sales pitch
like designating which direction the signals have to go through the
wires or having some cables for "jazz" and other cables for "rock".
Yeah sure, I believe that...NOT!

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Benj wrote:

Great to see you post, I recall from recent googling for suggested mods for
the MCA SP1 that your moniker was in that context somehow. I found a link to
the diagram, but it leads to nowhere ....


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:56:25 -0500, krw wrote:
> sci.electronics.design, says...
>> "RichD" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
>> >
>> The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their owners happier.
>> Indeed the monster cables serve quite well for this purpose.
>
> They also serve the purpose for which they were intended (fleecing the
> stupid). I hardly think this is a good thing.

Nobody's holding the customers at gunpoint.

Did you know that it is morally wrong to allow a fool to keep his
money? What I wonder is, if they're _that_ stupid, how did they
get all of that money in the first place?

Thanks,
Rich

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
> sci.electronics.design, says...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
>> >
>> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
>> >
>> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are about?
>>
>> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
>
> I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to wonder
> about your sanity.

You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.

Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
the same?

They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
"better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.

Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:13:12 -0500, krw wrote:

.... I'm not sure what the purpose
> of most "art" is.

How terribly sad.

Have a nice day.
Rich

[Richard Crowley]

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote ...
> Did you know that it is morally wrong to allow a fool to keep his
> money? What I wonder is, if they're _that_ stupid, how did they
> get all of that money in the first place?

It was left to them by inheritance.
(Minus the government's take.)

[William Sommerwerck]

> Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia
> looks just the same?

It doesn't. Diamond has relatively low dispersion, and the difference is
plainly visible.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Richard Crowley wrote:
>
> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote ...
> > Did you know that it is morally wrong to allow a fool to keep his
> > money? What I wonder is, if they're _that_ stupid, how did they
> > get all of that money in the first place?
>
> It was left to them by inheritance.
> (Minus the government's take.)


Or they took it from people who were even dumber.


--
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

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
>
> "krw" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to
> > wonder about your sanity.
>
> I wonder how did you made it through my plonk filter?
> ...Ahhh. Never mind. It is fixed already.

Your loss...

> Aside from the usual trolls and spammers, I plonk skyback, macon, sloman,
> mpm, terrel, bloggs, donkey, jamie, slaughter, bored, neopax and you, of
> course. There is nothing personal. The S.E.D. traffic is too high to be
> manageable; so I have to select the sources with the higher SNR. This
> brings it down to somewhat 30 messages per day. From those the 1-2 messages
> are worth reading.

Good, why not plonk the rest of SED as well?

> Have a good time.

Conservatives always do. It's part of their character.


--
Keith

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
> "krw" wrote ...
> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> >> Richard Crowley wrote:
> >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> >> >
> >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> >> >
> >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables
> >> > are about?
> >>
> >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
> >
> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to
> > wonder about your sanity.
>
> Some of us have moved beyond doubt.

So I see.

--
Keith

[krw[_2_]]

In article <3828dc02-43d5-4b5a-a334-a58c40bcd5f4
@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>, sci.electronics.design,
says...
> On Dec 28, 6:56 pm, krw > wrote:
>
> > Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster cable does. If
> > I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy. I'll try to save others
> > money too, if I can. Monster cable is a fraud and Monster deserves
> > to be shown for what they are. Hopefully their customers will then
> > have the CEO drawn and quartered, or worse. I doubt it'll happen
> > though, too many of their customers are terminally stupid.
>
> I think calling Monster cables a fraud is going too far. Not my idea
> of a cable I'd plunk down for, but still VERY nice well-made cables. I
> can assure you that with any listening ability at all, you don't need
> a double blind test to see that zip cord sucks!

You're 100% wrong. You can't beat 16ga. (or 14, if you insist) zip
cord for speaker wire. All Monster cable is is zip cord in drag.

> Heavy wire much improves speaker damping and can be heard.

Horse ****.

> The question of if that
> small difference in sound is WORTH it to you is quite another.

Lie.

> Personally, I make my own cables. I like gold plating because it
> prevents corrosion and tends to improve contact. I use as heavy a
> conductor as possible because it does make a difference.

Corrosion isn't an issue. Tighten the damned things if you're
worried about it, or buy decent connectors. Gold ends into a tin
receptacle isn't going to help anything. Heavy conductors are
fine, but 14ga. zip cord is easy to find and dirt cheap. 16ga. is
plenty for any reasonable lengths (lengths where Bill Gates could
afford Monster cable).

> I try to
> include a really strong strain relief because eventually cables get
> used and things break and pull out.

Irrelevant.

> Monster, of course does all of
> this for you. And yes, they charge like mad for the service. Is it
> worth it? Not to me. But maybe it is to you. That is for you to
> decide.

Fraud is fraud and has nothing to do with pretty packaging.

> But as someone else noted Monster has done a lot to raise cable
> awareness. I remember when many supposedly "quality" systems came with
> some thin hookup wire as cables. Feh. ANYONE can hear that suck. So if
> you root around now you can easily find quite a few decent cables for
> sale cheap with nice connectors, heavy-ass wire and all the rest. Who
> needs a "name" brand? If you want some "ultimate" cable then wire
> your system with 1 inch copper tubing! Not very flexible but lots of
> copper.

You're being stupid now.

> Where I draw the line is when cable makers start doing the sales pitch
> like designating which direction the signals have to go through the
> wires or having some cables for "jazz" and other cables for "rock".
> Yeah sure, I believe that...NOT!

You mean line Monster cable? Go to The Home Despot a and buy a
spool of heavy zip cord, cut to length, and be done with it.

--
Keith

[krw[_2_]]

In article <55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01>, sci.electronics.design,
says...
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
> > sci.electronics.design, says...
> >> Richard Crowley wrote:
> >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> >> >
> >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> >> >
> >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are about?
> >>
> >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
> >
> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to wonder
> > about your sanity.
>
> You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.

Oh, that's plain enough. It is great fun twitting them though.

> Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
> the same?

It doesn't and they know you're a cheap prick. I don't give
either, I'm safe. ;-) (actually I gave sapphires this Christmas).

> They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
> "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.

No, they don't "perceive" any difference, other than the price.

> Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
> logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)
>
....and back we go to the bank robbery argument.

--
Keith

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
> >
> > "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote ...
> > > Did you know that it is morally wrong to allow a fool to keep his
> > > money? What I wonder is, if they're _that_ stupid, how did they
> > > get all of that money in the first place?
> >
> > It was left to them by inheritance.
> > (Minus the government's take.)
>
>
> Or they took it from people who were even dumber.

Or they bought Monster cables and are waiting for me to buy their
health insurance.


--
Keith

[Richard Henry[_2_]]

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in message
news:nWwdj.645$Je6.41@trnddc01...
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:56:25 -0500, krw wrote:
> > sci.electronics.design, says...
> >> "RichD" > wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
> >> >
> >> The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their owners happier.
> >> Indeed the monster cables serve quite well for this purpose.
> >
> > They also serve the purpose for which they were intended (fleecing the
> > stupid). I hardly think this is a good thing.
>
> Nobody's holding the customers at gunpoint.
>
> Did you know that it is morally wrong to allow a fool to keep his
> money? What I wonder is, if they're _that_ stupid, how did they
> get all of that money in the first place?

Mommy.

[Richard Henry[_2_]]

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in message
news:55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01...
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
> > sci.electronics.design, says...
> >> Richard Crowley wrote:
> >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> >> >
> >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> >> >
> >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are about?
> >>
> >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
> >
> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to wonder
> > about your sanity.
>
> You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.
>
> Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
> the same?
>
> They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
> "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
>
> Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
> logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)

What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?

[Michael A. Terrell]

Richard Henry wrote:
>
> What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?


That you're hopelessly stupid?


--
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

[Robert Baer[_2_]]

Richard Henry wrote:

> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in message
> news:55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01...
>
>>On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
>>
>>>sci.electronics.design, says...
>>>
>>>>Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
>>>>>
>>>>>Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are about?
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
>>>
>>>I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to wonder
>>>about your sanity.
>>
>>You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.
>>
>>Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
>>the same?
>>
>>They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
>>"better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
>>
>>Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
>>logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)
>
>
> What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?
>
>
Greed.

[Eeyore]

krw wrote:

> says...
>
> > They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
> > "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
>
> No, they don't "perceive" any difference, other than the price.

Aside from speaker cables, which are an entirely 'nother matter, there is no
actual difference to perceive apart from how pretty they look (and the price
of course).

Graham

[Eeyore]

krw wrote:

> says...
> > Richard Crowley wrote:
> > > "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote ...
> > >
> > > > Did you know that it is morally wrong to allow a fool to keep his
> > > > money? What I wonder is, if they're _that_ stupid, how did they
> > > > get all of that money in the first place?
> > >
> > > It was left to them by inheritance.
> > > (Minus the government's take.)
> >
> >
> > Or they took it from people who were even dumber.
>
> Or they bought Monster cables and are waiting for me to buy their
> health insurance.

A good reason for 'banning' fraudulent cables. They increase the cost of
living even for those who don't buy them.

Graham

[Benj]

On Dec 29, 5:20 am, "Peter Larsen" > wrote:
> Benj wrote:
>
> Great to see you post, I recall from recent googling for suggested mods for
> the MCA SP1 that your moniker was in that context somehow. I found a link to
> the diagram, but it leads to nowhere ....
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

No, it was that I took time to trace the circuit of my MCA SP1s and
provided it for people who were interested in the Dorsey mod. However,
as my schematic showed the SP1s "sort of" already had it built in. In
other words they didn't use the cheapo transformer coupling and the
circuit was very similar to Scott's. I'm sure that link has been down
for a long time. I'm not even sure where my original files are!
Probably on some backup CD by now! Great to see fan mail! :-)

Benj

[Benj]

On Dec 29, 6:49 pm, krw > wrote:

> You mean line Monster cable? Go to The Home Despot a and buy a
> spool of heavy zip cord, cut to length, and be done with it.
>
> --
> Keith

Hey Keith, with your tin ear, why waste money on zip cord? I mean
some nice 24 gauge bell wire ought to get the sound you are looking
for!

Does daddy know you are on his computer?

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Benj wrote:

> Probably on some backup CD by now! Great to see fan mail! :-)

Thank you for the feedback!

> Benj


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Tim Williams[_2_]]

Hehe, audiophools are such fun.

Double blind tests are, for some reason, invalid.

If you can't hear xxx, you have tin ears QED.

Etc.

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Benj" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 29, 6:49 pm, krw > wrote:
>
> > You mean line Monster cable? Go to The Home Despot a and buy a
> > spool of heavy zip cord, cut to length, and be done with it.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>
> Hey Keith, with your tin ear, why waste money on zip cord? I mean
> some nice 24 gauge bell wire ought to get the sound you are looking
> for!
>
> Does daddy know you are on his computer?
>
>
>
>

[Laurence Payne]

>What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?

At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
backup if things went wrong. Less necessary now, when any woman who
has spent two consecutive nights in your bed seems legally entitled to
walk away with everything you own.

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> >What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?
>
> At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
> backup if things went wrong. Less necessary now, when any woman who
> has spent two consecutive nights in your bed seems legally entitled to
> walk away with everything you own.

Yet prostitution is illegal in most places.

A strange world it is !

Graham

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:09:01 +0000, Eeyore
> wrote:

>Yet prostitution is illegal in most places.

Actually, it's not prohibited in many countries. The restrictions are
on soliciting.

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>>What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?
>
>At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
>backup if things went wrong. Less necessary now, when any woman who
>has spent two consecutive nights in your bed seems legally entitled to
>walk away with everything you own.

"Boy, you'd better work on
Something better than a zircon
'Cause your diamonds are this girl's worst friend."
-- Eartha Kitt
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phildo]

"Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
...
>
>>What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?
>
> At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
> backup if things went wrong. Less necessary now, when any woman who
> has spent two consecutive nights in your bed seems legally entitled to
> walk away with everything you own.

Yeah, far easier these days to just find a woman you don't like and buy her
a house. Saves a whole lot of hassle.

Phildo

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 06:41:06 +0000, the renowned Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>krw wrote:
>
>> says...
>> > Richard Crowley wrote:
>> > > "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote ...
>> > >
>> > > > Did you know that it is morally wrong to allow a fool to keep his
>> > > > money? What I wonder is, if they're _that_ stupid, how did they
>> > > > get all of that money in the first place?
>> > >
>> > > It was left to them by inheritance.
>> > > (Minus the government's take.)
>> >
>> >
>> > Or they took it from people who were even dumber.
>>
>> Or they bought Monster cables and are waiting for me to buy their
>> health insurance.
>
>A good reason for 'banning' fraudulent cables. They increase the cost of
>living even for those who don't buy them.
>
>Graham

You're forgetting that the fraudsters and their families have enough
money to buy health insurance and pay for $100 haircuts, hookers etc.
so that all *they* can afford to pay their bills.


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

[Paul Stamler]

"Benj" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 29, 6:49 pm, krw > wrote:
>
> > You mean line Monster cable? Go to The Home Despot a and buy a
> > spool of heavy zip cord, cut to length, and be done with it.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>
> Hey Keith, with your tin ear, why waste money on zip cord? I mean
> some nice 24 gauge bell wire ought to get the sound you are looking
> for!
>
> Does daddy know you are on his computer?

Please take your flame wars out of rec.audio.pro. Thank you.

Peace,
Paul

[Joel Koltner]

"Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
...
> At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
> backup if things went wrong.

Seems as though giving cash would have been better. If you buy a diamond for
$1000 and give it to someone, in all likelihood the most they'd be able to
sell it for would be $250 or so, wouldn't it?

[Scott Dorsey]

Joel Koltner > wrote:
>"Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
...
>> At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
>> backup if things went wrong.
>
>Seems as though giving cash would have been better. If you buy a diamond for
>$1000 and give it to someone, in all likelihood the most they'd be able to
>sell it for would be $250 or so, wouldn't it?

These days that is the case. There was a time not too long ago when diamonds
were a convenient negotiable currency, before DeBeers started jacking retail
prices up half a century ago.

24k gold still is today... I know a lot of folks in Asia who buy 24k jewelry
because they know they can always sell it for what they paid and consider it
a convenient way to store money in a place where banks may not be trustworthy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:55:39 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
> wrote:

>> At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
>> backup if things went wrong.
>
>Seems as though giving cash would have been better. If you buy a diamond for
>$1000 and give it to someone, in all likelihood the most they'd be able to
>sell it for would be $250 or so, wouldn't it?

Indeed.

[Richard Henry[_2_]]

"Joel Koltner" > wrote in message
...
> "Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> ...
> > At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
> > backup if things went wrong.
>
> Seems as though giving cash would have been better. If you buy a diamond
for
> $1000 and give it to someone, in all likelihood the most they'd be able to
> sell it for would be $250 or so, wouldn't it?

If you're lucky.

I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like transistors.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Henry > wrote:
>
>If you're lucky.
>
>I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like transistors.

There's not enough demand and the process is still too expensive. I'm
still waiting for diamond film fabrication to get cheap enough for
lifetime razor blades.

It's only been five years or so that we've been able to make gem quality
diamonds at all. Give it some time.

Hopefully the carbon deposition stuff will also allow in-situ fabrication
of weird shapes... like Shibata and van den Hul styli!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Henry[_2_]]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Henry > wrote:
> >
> >If you're lucky.
> >
> >I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like transistors.
>
> There's not enough demand and the process is still too expensive. I'm
> still waiting for diamond film fabrication to get cheap enough for
> lifetime razor blades.
>
> It's only been five years or so that we've been able to make gem quality
> diamonds at all. Give it some time.
>
> Hopefully the carbon deposition stuff will also allow in-situ fabrication
> of weird shapes... like Shibata and van den Hul styli!

I have already seen propaganda from de Beers and the like about the
desirability of "natural diamonds". Inclusions that were once seen as
defects are now valuable distinctions.

[Geoff]

Ty Ford wrote:

> Richard and I are comparing two types of guitar cable right now, to
> see if there is a difference. I have the electric guitar samples
> ready and will soon have the acoustic guitar samples.
>
> So far, I think I can tell a difference while recording, but hearing
> that difference in playback seem more difficult. Dunno. Not enough
> time on the project yet.

What I have trouble with is believing that a performance or other action can
be repeated with sufficient accuracy (ie identical) to enable a meaningful
result. Or that the equipment added to enable a similtaneous recording
doesn't alter some meaningful parameter (Z).

The factor Iwould expect to be meaningful with a passive guitar are cable
micrphony , shunt C, and sheilding. None of these being particularly exotic
or difficult.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like transistors.

> There's not enough demand and the process is still too expensive.
> I'm still waiting for diamond film fabrication to get cheap enough for
> lifetime razor blades.

> It's only been five years or so that we've been able to make gem
> quality diamonds at all. Give it some time.

> Hopefully the carbon deposition stuff will also allow in-situ fabrication
> of weird shapes... like Shibata and van den Hul styli!

About 20 years ago I had a sudden insight... If single-crystal silicon could
be created by silane reactions... why not diamond?

I mentioned this to a friend who knew a few physicists, and he found out
that I was not the first to think of it. Turns out that the thermodynamics
did not support single-crystal diamonds, but multi-crystal diamond layers
could be deposited. My memory is that a number of audio products, including
pickups, used multi-crystal diamond layering.

Synthetic diamonds have been around for more than 50 years; GE was the first
to produce them. They were not of gem quality, but fine for industrial saws
and drills, and GE did use them for phono styli. They developed a process to
"grow" gem-quality diamonds from a melt of liquefied diamonds, but it wasn't
efficient.

Most of the current crop of synthetic diamonds are made in Russia (I don't
remember the process), and they're yellow because of nitrogen inclusion.
This problem will eventually be solved, and we will have pure-white
synthetic diamonds at a fraction of the cost of natural diamonds. Not
surprisingly, DeBeers is shaking in its corporate boots.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Richard Henry wrote:
>
> "Joel Koltner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
> > > backup if things went wrong.
> >
> > Seems as though giving cash would have been better. If you buy a diamond
> for
> > $1000 and give it to someone, in all likelihood the most they'd be able to
> > sell it for would be $250 or so, wouldn't it?
>
> If you're lucky.
>
> I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like transistors.


You can't impress a woman with a SOT-23 diamond.


--
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

[Richard Henry]

On Dec 30, 3:13*pm, "Michael A. Terrell" >
wrote:
> Richard Henry wrote:
>
> > "Joel Koltner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > "Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
> > > > backup if things went wrong.
>
> > > Seems as though giving cash would have been better. *If you buy a diamond
> > for
> > > $1000 and give it to someone, in all likelihood the most they'd be able to
> > > sell it for would be $250 or so, wouldn't it?
>
> > If you're lucky.
>
> > I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like transistors.
>
> * *You can't impress a woman with a SOT-23 diamond.
>
> --
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But if I could, I'd keep her.

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
>
> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in message
> news:55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01...
> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
> > > sci.electronics.design, says...
> > >> Richard Crowley wrote:
> > >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> > >> >
> > >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> > >> >
> > >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are about?
> > >>
> > >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
> > >
> > > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to wonder
> > > about your sanity.
> >
> > You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.
> >
> > Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
> > the same?
> >
> > They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
> > "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
> >
> > Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
> > logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)
>
> What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?

DeBeers?

--
Keith

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
>
> "Joel Koltner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
> > > backup if things went wrong.
> >
> > Seems as though giving cash would have been better. If you buy a diamond
> for
> > $1000 and give it to someone, in all likelihood the most they'd be able to
> > sell it for would be $250 or so, wouldn't it?
>
> If you're lucky.
>
> I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like transistors.

They are.

--
Keith

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
> Hehe, audiophools are such fun.
>
> Double blind tests are, for some reason, invalid.
>
> If you can't hear xxx, you have tin ears QED.
>
> Etc.

You forgot, "presence" and "ambiance" and the billion other
marketing-speak words used by audiophools.

--
Keith

[krw[_2_]]

In article <16b39972-4cce-4a0c-b937-
>, sci.electronics.design,
says...
> On Dec 29, 6:49 pm, krw > wrote:
>
> > You mean line Monster cable? Go to The Home Despot a and buy a
> > spool of heavy zip cord, cut to length, and be done with it.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>
> Hey Keith, with your tin ear, why waste money on zip cord? I mean
> some nice 24 gauge bell wire ought to get the sound you are looking
> for!

Nope. My ears are fine, as is my wallet.

> Does daddy know you are on his computer?

Daddy has been dead for over forty years, kid.

--
Keith

[videochas www.locoworks.com]

On Dec 30, 11:55�am, "Joel Koltner" >
wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > At one time, luxury gifts to a woman gave her some degree of financial
> > backup if things went wrong.
>
> Seems as though giving cash would have been better. �If you buy a diamond for
> $1000 and give it to someone, in all likelihood the most they'd be able to
> sell it for would be $250 or so, wouldn't it?

In a lecture I attended the speaker pulled a $5 gold piece out of his
pocket and said, "When this coin was minted you could buy a nice suit
with it. You can still do that today."

[Tim Williams[_2_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
. ..
> Most of the current crop of synthetic diamonds are made in Russia (I
don't
> remember the process), and they're yellow because of nitrogen inclusion.

IIRC, the process consists of putting a graphite crucible inside a huge
assed press and induction heating it. The graphite crucible isn't
transmuted; it contains a molten iron bath, which becomes saturated with
carbon. Thanks to a temperature gradient, carbon is deposited on a diamond
seed crystal for a while.

It's my understanding that atmospheric nitrogen diffuses through this
apparatus and dopes the crystal, coloring it yellow. Fortunately, yellow
diamonds are also the most expensive type, so it's not all bad.

I don't see why they can't put the thing inside a vacuum chamber and
exclude nitrogen, or use nitrogen-free elements to assemble the apparatus
(which includes the metal, which can be nitrided; how much in atmosphere, I
don't know).

Heh, even cooler would be modulating the impurities, to make a banded
diamond. To hell with tourmaline!

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

[Phildo]

"Tim Williams" > wrote in message
...
> It's my understanding that atmospheric nitrogen diffuses through this
> apparatus and dopes the crystal, coloring it yellow. Fortunately, yellow
> diamonds are also the most expensive type, so it's not all bad.
>
> I don't see why they can't put the thing inside a vacuum chamber and
> exclude nitrogen, or use nitrogen-free elements to assemble the apparatus
> (which includes the metal, which can be nitrided; how much in atmosphere,
> I
> don't know).

They can. There are numerous colours of manufactured diamonds available in
the jewellery market or on the way in the near future. I did a week of
lectures on gemstones a couple of months ago which was quite enlightening.

Phildo

[Eeyore]

krw wrote:

> says...
>
> > Hehe, audiophools are such fun.
> >
> > Double blind tests are, for some reason, invalid.
> >
> > If you can't hear xxx, you have tin ears QED.
> >
> > Etc.
>
> You forgot, "presence" and "ambiance" and the billion other
> marketing-speak words used by audiophools.

Presence and ambience are perfectly valid terms when used correctly
unlike terms like speed, pace and darkness so beloved of idiot
reviewers.

Graham

[anahata]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Richard Henry > wrote:
>>I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like transistors.
>
>
> There's not enough demand and the process is still too expensive.

If diamonds became too cheap, something else would replace them as a
ludicrously expensive token of appreciation to give the love of your life.

I'm reminded of the once-astronomic value of aluminum:

"In the mid-1800s aluminum was more valuable than gold. Napoléon III's
most important guests were given aluminum cutlery, while those less
worthy dined with mere silver; fashionable and wealthy women wore
jewelry crafted of aluminum."

http://tinyurl.com/38tepe

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[William Sommerwerck]

"anahata" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Richard Henry > wrote:
> >>I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like transistors.

>> There's not enough demand and the process is still too expensive.

> If diamonds became too cheap, something else would replace them as a
> ludicrously expensive token of appreciation to give the love of your life.


Do people wear diamonds because they're expensive, or because they're
beautiful?

My understanding is that high-quality natural rubies and emeralds currently
fetch more than diamonds.

It's interesting that synthetic ruby and emerald aren't common, as they're
made from aluminum oxide. I think.

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:56:29 -0800, the renowned "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"anahata" > wrote in message
...
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > Richard Henry > wrote:
>> >>I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like transistors.
>
>>> There's not enough demand and the process is still too expensive.
>
>> If diamonds became too cheap, something else would replace them as a
>> ludicrously expensive token of appreciation to give the love of your life.
>
>
>Do people wear diamonds because they're expensive, or because they're
>beautiful?
>
>My understanding is that high-quality natural rubies and emeralds currently
>fetch more than diamonds.
>
>It's interesting that synthetic ruby and emerald aren't common, as they're
>made from aluminum oxide. I think.

Do you think they use natural ruby stones to make jewel bearings?


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Spehro Pefhany > wrote:
>>
>>It's interesting that synthetic ruby and emerald aren't common, as they're
>>made from aluminum oxide. I think.
>
>Do you think they use natural ruby stones to make jewel bearings?

No, they used to use natural sapphires, though, back in the days before
good cheap synthetics. I have an old 35mm projector with sapphire gate guides
and of course Ampex used sapphire tape guides for years. These days, of
course, the synthetics are very cheap.

Synthetic diamonds are still pretty expensive, though. Although a lot of
cutting diamonds are synthetic today, the fine diamond paste you use for
lapping work is usually mostly natural.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John W. Kennedy]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> My understanding is that high-quality natural rubies and emeralds currently
> fetch more than diamonds.

I can't speak to the exact state of the market this afternoon, but, yes,
that's generally true. High-quality natural rubies and emeralds are a
good deal rarer than high-quality natural diamonds.

--
John W. Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> > It's interesting that synthetic ruby and emerald aren't common, as they're
> > made from aluminum oxide. I think.
>
> Don't know your definition of common, but you can get lab created emeralds
> and rubies is most any jewelery store for at least the last 5 years or so.
> The emeralds are generally much more attractive than most of the natural
> ones that are available (granted, I'm going to places like Kay's &
> Helzberg, not Tiffany's).

I bought my wife some sapphire jewelry this year. It's nice
looking stuff, but the stones are manufactured. Reasonably large
stones easily affordable.

> I think a jeweler told me once that ruby is carborundum.

Rubies and sapphires are corundum (Al2O3) not carborundum (Silicon
Carbide - CSi). Rubies are red, sapphires are blue (actually,
anything but red, but it sounded better my way ;). Rubies and
sapphires are different only in their impurities.

--
Keith

[Tim Williams[_2_]]

"Agent 86" > wrote in message
...
> > It's interesting that synthetic ruby and emerald aren't common, as
they're
> > made from aluminum oxide. I think.

Ruby (and sapphire, and...) is made from aluminum oxide, with traces of
stuff, e.g., Cr2O3 (red, oddly enough), Ti2O3 (blue), etc.

Emerald is the green form of beryl, beryllium aluminum silicate.

> I think a jeweler told me once that ruby is carborundum.

Heh, nah, that's artificial diamond. Moissianite, if I spelled it right.
Makes good schottky diodes, evidently.

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

[William Sommerwerck]

"krw" > wrote in message
t...

> I bought my wife some sapphire jewelry this year. It's nice-
> looking stuff, but the stones are manufactured. Reasonably
> large stones are easily affordable.

Inasmuch people presumably buy jewelry for its looks, why would anyone
purchase "natural" stones when synthetic stones are so much less expensive?
They're chemically and optically identical.

[No Name]

In rec.audio.pro Richard Henry > wrote:
>
> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in message
> news:55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01...
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
>> > sci.electronics.design, says...
>> >> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
>> >> >
>> >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
>> >> >
>> >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are about?
>> >>
>> >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
>> >
>> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to wonder
>> > about your sanity.
>>
>> You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.
>>
>> Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
>> the same?
>>
>> They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
>> "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
>>
>> Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
>> logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)
>
> What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?

Rarity.

--
Aaron

LagerHaus5 - for all your classic rock needs.
http://www.myspace.com/lagerhaus5

[No Name]

In rec.audio.pro Benj > wrote:
> On Dec 29, 6:49 pm, krw > wrote:
>
>> You mean line Monster cable? Go to The Home Despot a and buy a
>> spool of heavy zip cord, cut to length, and be done with it.
>>
>> --
>> Keith
>
> Hey Keith, with your tin ear, why waste money on zip cord? I mean
> some nice 24 gauge bell wire ought to get the sound you are looking
> for!
>
> Does daddy know you are on his computer?

Are you honestly trying to claim that 14AWG zip cord doesn't
carry electrical signals at audio frequencies just as well as
14AWG "Monster" cable?

--
Aaron

LagerHaus5 - for all your classic rock needs.
http://www.myspace.com/lagerhaus5

[Richard Crowley]

> wrote ...
> In rec.audio.pro Benj wrote:
>> krw wrote:
>>
>>> You mean line Monster cable? Go to The Home Despot a and buy a
>>> spool of heavy zip cord, cut to length, and be done with it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Keith
>>
>> Hey Keith, with your tin ear, why waste money on zip cord? I mean
>> some nice 24 gauge bell wire ought to get the sound you are looking
>> for!
>>
>> Does daddy know you are on his computer?
>
> Are you honestly trying to claim that 14AWG zip cord doesn't
> carry electrical signals at audio frequencies just as well as
> 14AWG "Monster" cable?

Honesty is not synnonymous with sanity.

[Richard Henry[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.pro Richard Henry > wrote:
> >
> > "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in message
> > news:55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01...
> >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
> >> > sci.electronics.design, says...
> >> >> Richard Crowley wrote:
> >> >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are about?
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
> >> >
> >> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to wonder
> >> > about your sanity.
> >>
> >> You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.
> >>
> >> Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
> >> the same?
> >>
> >> They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
> >> "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
> >>
> >> Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
> >> logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)
> >
> > What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?
>
> Rarity.

Not really. The market is controlled by deBeers to give the illusion of
rarity.

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.audio.pro Richard Henry > wrote:
> > >
> > > "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in message
> > > news:55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01...
> > >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
> > >> > sci.electronics.design, says...
> > >> >> Richard Crowley wrote:
> > >> >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are about?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
> > >> >
> > >> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to wonder
> > >> > about your sanity.
> > >>
> > >> You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.
> > >>
> > >> Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
> > >> the same?
> > >>
> > >> They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
> > >> "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
> > >>
> > >> Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
> > >> logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)
> > >
> > > What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?
> >
> > Rarity.
>
> Not really. The market is controlled by deBeers to give the illusion of
> rarity.

You *did* say "symbolize".

BTW, are you married? Does you wife think the same? Really?!

--
Keith

[Richard Henry[_2_]]

"krw" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> sci.electronics.design, says...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In rec.audio.pro Richard Henry > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in
message
> > > > news:55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01...
> > > >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
> > > >> > sci.electronics.design, says...
> > > >> >> Richard Crowley wrote:
> > > >> >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are
about?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to
wonder
> > > >> > about your sanity.
> > > >>
> > > >> You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
> > > >> the same?
> > > >>
> > > >> They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
> > > >> "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
> > > >> logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?
> > >
> > > Rarity.
> >
> > Not really. The market is controlled by deBeers to give the illusion of
> > rarity.
>
> You *did* say "symbolize".
>
> BTW, are you married? Does you wife think the same? Really?!

She already has some CZ jewelry and imitation dsigner luggage. On the other
hand is a genuine Mercedes Benz and a rental house in California.

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
>
> "krw" > wrote in message
> t...
> > In article >,
> > sci.electronics.design, says...
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In rec.audio.pro Richard Henry > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > news:55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01...
> > > > >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
> > > > >> > sci.electronics.design, says...
> > > > >> >> Richard Crowley wrote:
> > > > >> >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are
> about?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to
> wonder
> > > > >> > about your sanity.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
> > > > >> the same?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
> > > > >> "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
> > > > >> logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?
> > > >
> > > > Rarity.
> > >
> > > Not really. The market is controlled by deBeers to give the illusion of
> > > rarity.
> >
> > You *did* say "symbolize".
> >
> > BTW, are you married? Does you wife think the same? Really?!
>
> She already has some CZ jewelry and imitation dsigner luggage. On the other
> hand is a genuine Mercedes Benz and a rental house in California.

Why the CZ jewelry? Does she think it's "real"? What good does
the rental house in CA do her? I wouldn't give my wife a Merc.
Overpriced **** cars. Might just as well buy her a PT Cruiser.

--
Keith

[Richard Henry[_2_]]

"krw" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> sci.electronics.design, says...
> >
> > "krw" > wrote in message
> > t...
> > > In article >,
> > > sci.electronics.design, says...
> > > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In rec.audio.pro Richard Henry > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > news:55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01...
> > > > > >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
> > > > > >> > sci.electronics.design, says...
> > > > > >> >> Richard Crowley wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables
are
> > about?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning
to
> > wonder
> > > > > >> > about your sanity.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks
just
> > > > > >> the same?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables
are
> > > > > >> "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
> > > > > >> logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rarity.
> > > >
> > > > Not really. The market is controlled by deBeers to give the
illusion of
> > > > rarity.
> > >
> > > You *did* say "symbolize".
> > >
> > > BTW, are you married? Does you wife think the same? Really?!
> >
> > She already has some CZ jewelry and imitation dsigner luggage. On the
other
> > hand is a genuine Mercedes Benz and a rental house in California.
>
> Why the CZ jewelry? Does she think it's "real"? What good does
> the rental house in CA do her? I wouldn't give my wife a Merc.
> Overpriced **** cars. Might just as well buy her a PT Cruiser.

She has the new MB, two years old. The only problem so far is that the
battery in the keyfob aged out - replaced for free by the dealer. It's
coming up on needing new tires.

I have her old one, 1994 vintage, with about 228,000 miles on it. It's
coming up on needing new tires again. When I inherited the car from her, I
took it to the dealer for an oil change and checkup. They loaned me a new
MB for 2 days, no charge.

[ehsjr]

wrote:
> In rec.audio.pro Benj > wrote:
>
>>On Dec 29, 6:49 pm, krw > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You mean line Monster cable? Go to The Home Despot a and buy a
>>>spool of heavy zip cord, cut to length, and be done with it.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Keith
>>
>>Hey Keith, with your tin ear, why waste money on zip cord? I mean
>>some nice 24 gauge bell wire ought to get the sound you are looking
>>for!
>>
>>Does daddy know you are on his computer?
>
>
> Are you honestly trying to claim that 14AWG zip cord doesn't
> carry electrical signals at audio frequencies just as well as
> 14AWG "Monster" cable?
>

I think the Monster cable is a better fit than zip cord
for the FuelMaster.
http://moremiles4u.com/

*True* audiophools should investigate the use of FuelMaster
for audio. Undoubtedly, the magnetic field would remove
clustered audio resonances for purer deceptive perceptions
within the audio spectrum. But the damn thing won't fit zip
cord, so ya gotta go with Monster stuff.

Ed

[Joel Koltner]

"ehsjr" > wrote in message
news:C7afj.18643$oh5.8046@trndny08...
> *True* audiophools should investigate the use of FuelMaster
> for audio. Undoubtedly, the magnetic field would remove
> clustered audio resonances for purer deceptive perceptions
> within the audio spectrum. But the damn thing won't fit zip
> cord, so ya gotta go with Monster stuff.

Good points, you're absolutely correct!

Man, those fuel line magnets have been around ever since I can remember...
probably ever since some of our more senior members such as Jim can remember
do!

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, "Joel Koltner" > wrote:
>"ehsjr" > wrote in message
>news:C7afj.18643$oh5.8046@trndny08...
>> *True* audiophools should investigate the use of FuelMaster
>> for audio. Undoubtedly, the magnetic field would remove
>> clustered audio resonances for purer deceptive perceptions
>> within the audio spectrum. But the damn thing won't fit zip
>> cord, so ya gotta go with Monster stuff.
>
>Good points, you're absolutely correct!
--

I figured you could get up to about 30% milage increae if you bought
all the JC Whitney devices for economy and performance. What
the heck were those spark plugs called ?

greg

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
> In article >, "Joel Koltner" > wrote:
> >"ehsjr" > wrote in message
> >news:C7afj.18643$oh5.8046@trndny08...
> >> *True* audiophools should investigate the use of FuelMaster
> >> for audio. Undoubtedly, the magnetic field would remove
> >> clustered audio resonances for purer deceptive perceptions
> >> within the audio spectrum. But the damn thing won't fit zip
> >> cord, so ya gotta go with Monster stuff.
> >
> >Good points, you're absolutely correct!
> --
>
> I figured you could get up to about 30% milage increae if you bought
> all the JC Whitney devices for economy and performance. What
> the heck were those spark plugs called ?

You can even get more mileage if you burn H2O2. <rdh>

--
Keith

[Michael A. Terrell]

Joel Koltner wrote:
>
> "ehsjr" > wrote in message
> news:C7afj.18643$oh5.8046@trndny08...
> > *True* audiophools should investigate the use of FuelMaster
> > for audio. Undoubtedly, the magnetic field would remove
> > clustered audio resonances for purer deceptive perceptions
> > within the audio spectrum. But the damn thing won't fit zip
> > cord, so ya gotta go with Monster stuff.
>
> Good points, you're absolutely correct!
>
> Man, those fuel line magnets have been around ever since I can remember...
> probably ever since some of our more senior members such as Jim can remember
> do!


Big deal! Jim barely remembers the first steam engine, and his first
pet was a dinosaur. ;-)


--
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

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw wrote:
>
> You can even get more mileage if you burn H2O2. <rdh>


And bleach your hair at the same time. IDRDOH


--
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

[MooseFET]

On Jan 3, 5:34 pm, krw > wrote:
> In article >,
> sci.electronics.design, says...
>
> > In article >, "Joel Koltner" > wrote:
> > >"ehsjr" > wrote in message
> > >news:C7afj.18643$oh5.8046@trndny08...
> > >> *True* audiophools should investigate the use of FuelMaster
> > >> for audio. Undoubtedly, the magnetic field would remove
> > >> clustered audio resonances for purer deceptive perceptions
> > >> within the audio spectrum. But the damn thing won't fit zip
> > >> cord, so ya gotta go with Monster stuff.
>
> > >Good points, you're absolutely correct!
> > --
>
> > I figured you could get up to about 30% milage increae if you bought
> > all the JC Whitney devices for economy and performance. What
> > the heck were those spark plugs called ?
>
> You can even get more mileage if you burn H2O2. <rdh>

If you increase the compression ratio, you can do even better just
burning H2.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>
>>> Recently I got some "audiophile" grade resistors from
>>> Parts Express, since they were 10W non-inductives for a
>>> buck each. Unfortunately they had leads plated with
>>> some kind of metal and then lightly sputtered with gold
>>> to make them look cool, but bending the leads caused the
>>> plating to flake right off. I wound up having to scrape
>>> all the fake gold crap off before using them. --scott
>>
>> IME these resistors have a pretty strong temperature
>> coefficient.

> Dunno, we'll find out. I put fifty of them in a paint
> can full of transformer oil, to make 50 ohm load. Cold,
> it looks pretty
> good on the network analyzer, We'll throw a couple
> kilowatts into it at 790 KHz next week and measure it hot.

My experiences with paint cans, oil, forced air cooling, and resistors with
appreciable tempcos made me into a happy customer of Arco. The near-zero
tempcos of their NI wirewounds are a sight to see! I think the retailer was
Mouser.

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" > wrote in message

> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> Richard and I are comparing two types of guitar cable
>> right now, to see if there is a difference. I have the
>> electric guitar samples ready and will soon have the
>> acoustic guitar samples. So far, I think I can tell a difference while
>> recording,
>> but hearing that difference in playback seem more
>> difficult. Dunno. Not enough time on the project yet.
>
> What I have trouble with is believing that a performance
> or other action can be repeated with sufficient accuracy
> (ie identical) to enable a meaningful result.

If by that you mean human performance, then amen brother. That was the fly
in the ointment of a series of CDs that we were chattering about here a few
years back.

I notice that there's an AES conference paper where the bad news is the
not-credible statistical analysis, and the good news is the interesting use
of mechanical sounds that were presumably repeatable.

> Or that
> the equipment added to enable a similtaneous recording
> doesn't alter some meaningful parameter (Z).

If the recorders are digital, they are highly consistent and repeatable. If
they are analog, all bets are off unless there was some impressive
baby-sitting.

> The factor Iwould expect to be meaningful with a passive
> guitar are cable micrphony , shunt C, and sheilding. None of these being
> particularly exotic or difficult.

Cable microphony, shunt C, and microphony are IME very easy to evaluate with
measurements, or controlled listening tests.

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message

> > wrote in message
> ...
>> If this is the meeting held during CES, you recollection
>> isn't entirely accurate. Yes, the goal was to tell if
>> something had changed. However, some in the audience not
>> only could tell the difference, but could identify which
>> amp was being used. One amp was from VTL, but I recall
>> several brands being tested in this manner.
>>
>> The gold contacts are to prevent corrosion which can
>> lead to rectification. Not likely, but it could happen.
>
> I've observed it. I have a Heathkit Audio Analyzer, the
> old IM-22, which measures intermodulation distortion. For
> a while I used it with double-banana-plug cables; when I
> wasn't using it I plugged the output into the input to
> keep the cables out of the way. The plugs were cheap
> surplus jobs.
>
> One time I didn't use it for a month or so. When I turned
> it on, I did my routine residual distortion test, and got
> about 0.75% distortion at 0dBu. "Oh, really?" I said, or
> words to that effect, and unplugged the cables, then
> plugged them back in again. The residual distortion
> dropped to 0.07%, its normal figure. It was at that point
> that I decided bananas were not a good way to connect
> things (low pressure, not particularly gas-tight) unless
> they were gold plated, and the plating was real plating.
> Or you pulled them out and plugged them in again fairly
> often.

I saw similiar things going on an order or so lower, using the later Heath
SS THD analyzer.

However, the banana plugs in question had become visibly worn, and
replacement with new Pomonas made a big difference. You got to watch the
springiness of the leaves and the integrity of the plating. If you see
yellow, time to replace!

[Arny Krueger]

"Vladimir Vassilevsky" > wrote
in message
. net
> krw wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>> Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their
>>> owners happier. Indeed the monster cables serve quite
>>> well for this purpose.
>>
>> They also serve the purpose for which they were intended
>> (fleecing the stupid). I hardly think this is a good
>> thing.
>
> I have the question:
> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
>
>>> Only bores and geeks
>>> care for the tests because they are having fun by
>>> spoiling the pleasure of somebody else.
>
>> Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster
>> cable does. If I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy.

> Sure. Buy at Walmart, eat at McDonalds. A $10 chinese
> replica is as good as the original Rolex, right?

IME there is far less difference between a $600 speaker cable and a $6
commodity 12 gauge speaker cable from Home Depot; then there is between a
$5 burger at McDonalds, and an $7 real-meat, real-cheese, real-bread
sandwich from Arby's (not the Arby's with the processed roast beef).

So, you'll pardon me while I blow the $594 I saved by not buying Monster
Cable on just 297 far tastier and probably more healthful real sandwich
lunches at Arbys. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"anahata" > wrote in message

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Richard Henry > wrote:
>>> I don't understand why diamonds aren't churned out like
>>> transistors.
>>
>>
>> There's not enough demand and the process is still too
>> expensive.
>
> If diamonds became too cheap, something else would
> replace them as a ludicrously expensive token of
> appreciation to give the love of your life.
> I'm reminded of the once-astronomic value of aluminum:
>
> "In the mid-1800s aluminum was more valuable than gold.
> Napoléon III's most important guests were given aluminum
> cutlery, while those less worthy dined with mere silver;
> fashionable and wealthy women wore jewelry crafted of aluminum."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/38tepe

The tip of the Washington Monument is aluminum, fashioned in that day by
Tiffany, due to the cost of the raw material.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Spehro Pefhany > wrote:
>>>
>>> It's interesting that synthetic ruby and emerald aren't
>>> common, as they're made from aluminum oxide. I think.
>>
>> Do you think they use natural ruby stones to make jewel
>> bearings?
>
> No, they used to use natural sapphires, though, back in
> the days before
> good cheap synthetics. I have an old 35mm projector with
> sapphire gate guides and of course Ampex used sapphire
> tape guides for years. These days, of course, the
> synthetics are very cheap.
>
> Synthetic diamonds are still pretty expensive, though.
> Although a lot of cutting diamonds are synthetic today,
> the fine diamond paste you use for lapping work is
> usually mostly natural. --scott

IME, the price of diamond-enhanced saw blades has dropped like a stone.
I'm using a highly-effective 7 inch diamond blade to dry-cut and demolish
some tub enclosure walls of mortar, steel mesh, and tile. About $18 at
Lowes. The $60 wet saw I use to cut tile to set, uses a $13 blade. This
stuff is dirt cheap but durable enough to last out several jobs, and highly
effective.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
> "krw" > wrote in message
> t...
>
>> I bought my wife some sapphire jewelry this year. It's
>> nice- looking stuff, but the stones are manufactured.
>> Reasonably large stones are easily affordable.
>
> Inasmuch people presumably buy jewelry for its looks, why
> would anyone purchase "natural" stones when synthetic
> stones are so much less expensive? They're chemically and
> optically identical.

Usually, they can be distinguished by snall variations in specific gravity
or refractive index.

The reason to buy natural stones should be familiar to people who have
worked the audiophile trade - bragging rights.

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Vladimir Vassilevsky" > wrote
> in message

>>>>The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their
>>>>owners happier. Indeed the monster cables serve quite
>>>>well for this purpose. Only bores and geeks
>>>>care for the tests because they are having fun by
>>>>spoiling the pleasure of somebody else.
>>
>>>Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster
>>>cable does. If I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy.
>
>>Sure. Buy at Walmart, eat at McDonalds. A $10 chinese
>>replica is as good as the original Rolex, right?
>
> IME there is far less difference between a $600 speaker cable and a $6
> commodity 12 gauge speaker cable from Home Depot; then there is between a
> $5 burger at McDonalds, and an $7 real-meat, real-cheese, real-bread
> sandwich from Arby's (not the Arby's with the processed roast beef).

No, No, No! Arby's is the fraud! The calorie content is exactly the
same. No test can find any difference :)

> So, you'll pardon me while I blow the $594 I saved by not buying Monster
> Cable on just 297 far tastier and probably more healthful real sandwich
> lunches at Arbys. ;-)

Everyone can believe in whatever he wants to believe as long as it is
his free and conscious choice. I am against the so-called wars for
education.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Benj" > wrote in message


> I think calling Monster cables a fraud is going too far.

Depends how you define fraud.

> Not my idea of a cable I'd plunk down for, but still VERY
> nice well-made cables.

Not always.

>I can assure you that with any
> listening ability at all, you don't need a double blind
> test to see that zip cord sucks!

Actually, blind listening tests say that zip code of appropriate wire gauge
works as good as anything with any competently designed speaker.

> Heavy wire much
> improves speaker damping and can be heard.

Zip cord as large as 12 guage is as close as your nearest competent hardware
store. 10 and 8 gauge zip cord takes a little shopping, but is on the right
shelf, usually related to the automotive sound trade.

> The question
> of if that small difference in sound is WORTH it to you
> is quite another.

The difference is usualy essentially zero, both electrically and audibly.

> Personally, I make my own cables.

I have a roll of 12 guage zip cord for that purpose.

> I
> like gold plating because it prevents corrosion and tends
> to improve contact.

In professional circles - gold is a sign of dilettante.

> I use as heavy a conductor as
> possible because it does make a difference.

Not always. Do some engineering.

>I try to
> include a really strong strain relief because eventually
> cables get used and things break and pull out.

Strain relief is often what separates serioius connectors from jewelry. Can
you spell Neutrik?

> Monster,
> of course does all of this for you.

Not always.

> And yes, they charge
> like mad for the service. Is it worth it? Not to me. But
> maybe it is to you. That is for you to decide.

In many cases, all you have to do is wait until MCM remainders out the
Monster.

> But as someone else noted Monster has done a lot to raise
> cable awareness.

Their most sucessful sales tools involve bribing salesmen and other retail
staff in marginally legal ways.

> I remember when many supposedly
> "quality" systems came with some thin hookup wire as
> cables.

I remember when they came with cables that were effective. I got 16 feet of
12 gauge zip in two pieces with a pair of speakers back in the 70s.

> Feh. ANYONE can hear that suck.

Most of that suck is all about prejudice.

> So if you root
> around now you can easily find quite a few decent cables
> for sale cheap with nice connectors, heavy-ass wire and
> all the rest. Who needs a "name" brand? If you want some
> "ultimate" cable then wire your system with 1 inch copper
> tubing! Not very flexible but lots of copper.

Actually, 1 inch copper tubing has pretty thin walls.

Nominal 1 inch copper tubing has 0.065 inch wall thickness. That's 0.230
square inches of copper.

A wire with a center conductor 0.54" diameter has the same conductivity.
That's equivalent to 2 each 1 gauge wires, which if stranded can be bent far
more readily and is therefore easier to use.


> Where I draw the line is when cable makers start doing
> the sales pitch like designating which direction the
> signals have to go through the wires or having some
> cables for "jazz" and other cables for "rock". Yeah sure,
> I believe that...NOT!

Good for you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
message
> krw wrote:
>>
>> You can even get more mileage if you burn H2O2. <rdh>
>
>
> And bleach your hair at the same time. IDRDOH

A slight fuel leak and you and your troubles will be dissolved. ;-)

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > One time I didn't use it for a month or so. When I turned
> > it on, I did my routine residual distortion test, and got
> > about 0.75% distortion at 0dBu. "Oh, really?" I said, or
> > words to that effect, and unplugged the cables, then
> > plugged them back in again. The residual distortion
> > dropped to 0.07%, its normal figure. It was at that point
> > that I decided bananas were not a good way to connect
> > things (low pressure, not particularly gas-tight) unless
> > they were gold plated, and the plating was real plating.
> > Or you pulled them out and plugged them in again fairly
> > often.
>
> I saw similiar things going on an order or so lower, using the later Heath
> SS THD analyzer.
>
> However, the banana plugs in question had become visibly worn, and
> replacement with new Pomonas made a big difference. You got to watch the
> springiness of the leaves and the integrity of the plating. If you see
> yellow, time to replace!

There bananas were about a year old, light use, but cheap.

Peace,
Paul

[joseph2k]

On Jan 2, 11:32 am, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> > wrote ...
>
>
>
> > In rec.audio.pro Benj wrote:
> >> krw wrote:
>
> >>> You mean line Monster cable? Go to The Home Despot a and buy a
> >>> spool of heavy zip cord, cut to length, and be done with it.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Keith
>
> >> Hey Keith, with your tin ear, why waste money on zip cord? I mean
> >> some nice 24 gauge bell wire ought to get the sound you are looking
> >> for!
>
> >> Does daddy know you are on his computer?
>
> > Are you honestly trying to claim that 14AWG zip cord doesn't
> > carry electrical signals at audio frequencies just as well as
> > 14AWG "Monster" cable?
>
> Honestyis not synnonymous with sanity.

True, but they do correlate well. The saner the person,
the more open and honest they are. They just may not
disclose "everything" to everybody; for the very rational
reason that they do not want the less rational using the
information against them.

[No Name]

In rec.audio.pro Richard Henry > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.audio.pro Richard Henry > wrote:
>> >
>> > "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" > wrote in message
>> > news:55xdj.647$Je6.362@trnddc01...
>> >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:42 -0500, krw wrote:
>> >> > sci.electronics.design, says...
>> >> >> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> >> >> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Beauty. Is that what you think snake-oil botique cables are about?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Exactly. I see no conceptual difference.
>> >> >
>> >> > I didn't know cables were a thing of beauty. I'm beginning to wonder
>> >> > about your sanity.
>> >>
>> >> You don't know the point of view of the audiophool.
>> >>
>> >> Why should I buy my girl a diamond, when cubic zirconia looks just
>> >> the same?
>> >>
>> >> They like the difference they perceive. To them, those cables are
>> >> "better" by enough that they're willing to pay money for them.
>> >>
>> >> Why do you want to stand in their way? Wouldn't it be much more
>> >> logical to get a piece of the action? ;-)
>> >
>> > What does a diamond symbolize that a zircon cannot?
>>
>> Rarity.
>
> Not really. The market is controlled by deBeers to give the illusion of
> rarity.

Even that isn't nearly as true as it was before the breakup of the
USSR... but rarity is rarity, whether the lack of supply is caused
by real or artificial means.

--
Aaron

LagerHaus5 - for all your classic rock needs.
http://www.myspace.com/lagerhaus5

[z]

On Dec 28 2007, 1:28*am, "Paul Stamler" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > If this is the meeting held during CES, you recollection isn't
> > entirely accurate. Yes, the goal was to tell if something had changed.
> > However, some in the audience not only could tell the difference, but
> > could identify which amp was being used. One amp was from VTL, but I
> > recall several brands being tested in this manner.
>
> > The gold contacts are to prevent corrosion which can lead to
> > rectification. Not likely, but it could happen.
>
> I've observed it. I have a Heathkit Audio Analyzer, the old IM-22, which
> measures intermodulation distortion. For a while I used it with
> double-banana-plug cables; when I wasn't using it I plugged the output into
> the input to keep the cables out of the way. The plugs were cheap surplus
> jobs.
>
> One time I didn't use it for a month or so. When I turned it on, I did my
> routine residual distortion test, and got about 0.75% distortion at 0dBu.
> "Oh, really?" I said, or words to that effect, and unplugged the cables,
> then plugged them back in again. The residual distortion dropped to 0.07%,
> its normal figure. It was at that point that I decided bananas were not a
> good way to connect things (low pressure, not particularly gas-tight) unless
> they were gold plated, and the plating was real plating. Or you pulled them
> out and plugged them in again fairly often.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

banana plugs, phono plugs, phone plugs; they all get sucky, at least
in the atmosphere here in the northeast. phono plugs are the worst, so
of course we use them for the lowest level signals. then we get to buy
fancy ones that don't suck as bad, for big $$.

My cable lesson was learned when I saw a pair of medium grade fancy
interconnects used for a decent price so I decided to give them a shot
between preamp and power amp. of course, in those days I used to leave
the power amp on all the time with the preamp on mute. one day the
****ty phono plugs on the expensive interconnects finally degraded far
enough to spontaneously start humming loud enough to convert the
crossover on one speaker into charcoal bricquets when i wasn't home.
Frankly, I think a person who was really concerned would do better to
just solder the cables into the components than get fancy cables. Lots
of people have a hot solder iron at all times anyway. Or maybe just
solder the interconnects to one component, if they wanted instant
unpluggability.

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
> krw wrote:
> >
> > You can even get more mileage if you burn H2O2. <rdh>
>
>
> And bleach your hair at the same time. IDRDOH

Wouldn't bleach mine, though any H2O2 pure enough for fuel would do
a bit worse.

--
Keith

[krw[_2_]]

In article >,
sci.electronics.design, says...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "Vladimir Vassilevsky" > wrote
> > in message
>
> >>>>The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their
> >>>>owners happier. Indeed the monster cables serve quite
> >>>>well for this purpose. Only bores and geeks
> >>>>care for the tests because they are having fun by
> >>>>spoiling the pleasure of somebody else.
> >>
> >>>Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster
> >>>cable does. If I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy.
> >
> >>Sure. Buy at Walmart, eat at McDonalds. A $10 chinese
> >>replica is as good as the original Rolex, right?
> >
> > IME there is far less difference between a $600 speaker cable and a $6
> > commodity 12 gauge speaker cable from Home Depot; then there is between a
> > $5 burger at McDonalds, and an $7 real-meat, real-cheese, real-bread
> > sandwich from Arby's (not the Arby's with the processed roast beef).
>
> No, No, No! Arby's is the fraud! The calorie content is exactly the
> same. No test can find any difference :)
>
> > So, you'll pardon me while I blow the $594 I saved by not buying Monster
> > Cable on just 297 far tastier and probably more healthful real sandwich
> > lunches at Arbys. ;-)
>
> Everyone can believe in whatever he wants to believe as long as it is
> his free and conscious choice. I am against the so-called wars for
> education.

Yeah, so-called wars are the pits. Cut the PC crap. If you're
going to have a war, break things and kill people. That's that
they're for!

--
Keith

[videochas www.locoworks.com]

>
> Actually, 1 inch copper tubing has pretty thin walls.
>

But what if you fill it with salt water?

[Richard Henry]

On Jan 5, 6:36*am, "videochas www.locoworks.com" >
wrote:
> > Actually, 1 inch copper tubing has pretty thin walls.
>
> But what if you fill it with salt water?

Why not fill it with stranded silver wires?

[James Beck]

In article >,
says...
> "Vladimir Vassilevsky" > wrote
> in message
> . net
> > krw wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>> Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their
> >>> owners happier. Indeed the monster cables serve quite
> >>> well for this purpose.
> >>
> >> They also serve the purpose for which they were intended
> >> (fleecing the stupid). I hardly think this is a good
> >> thing.
> >
> > I have the question:
> > What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
> >
> >>> Only bores and geeks
> >>> care for the tests because they are having fun by
> >>> spoiling the pleasure of somebody else.
> >
> >> Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster
> >> cable does. If I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy.
>
> > Sure. Buy at Walmart, eat at McDonalds. A $10 chinese
> > replica is as good as the original Rolex, right?
>
> IME there is far less difference between a $600 speaker cable and a $6
> commodity 12 gauge speaker cable from Home Depot; then there is between a
> $5 burger at McDonalds, and an $7 real-meat, real-cheese, real-bread
> sandwich from Arby's (not the Arby's with the processed roast beef).
>
> So, you'll pardon me while I blow the $594 I saved by not buying Monster
> Cable on just 297 far tastier and probably more healthful real sandwich
> lunches at Arbys. ;-)
>

I see MCM is dumping their Monster Cable Home Theater Kit, normally
$100US for $30 if you buy online and $15 if you are on their email
mailing list. So, it seems that diamond was really cubic zirconia after
all.

http://www.mcminone.com/product.asp?product_id=58-10450
&catalog_name=MCMProducts

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.[_2_]]

RichD wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?

I don't know about blind, but deaf seems likely.

--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.

[jeffjean]

Check out LAT international in NJ. Their cables are silver coated or even
pure (= $ though) and they have other goodies at very good prices. Some of
the cheapie Audioquest cables are very cool too and unless you're running
$30K speakers and power amps, you can't tell much difference from their far
more expensive lines.


"James Beck" > wrote in message
th.net...
> In article >,
> says...
>> "Vladimir Vassilevsky" > wrote
>> in message
>> . net
>> > krw wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>> Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The ultimate purpose of those cables is making their
>> >>> owners happier. Indeed the monster cables serve quite
>> >>> well for this purpose.
>> >>
>> >> They also serve the purpose for which they were intended
>> >> (fleecing the stupid). I hardly think this is a good
>> >> thing.
>> >
>> > I have the question:
>> > What is the purpose of gold, diamonds, pieces of art?
>> >
>> >>> Only bores and geeks
>> >>> care for the tests because they are having fun by
>> >>> spoiling the pleasure of somebody else.
>> >
>> >> Spending $2 on zip cord rather than $100 on Monster
>> >> cable does. If I can save 98% on anything, I'm happy.
>>
>> > Sure. Buy at Walmart, eat at McDonalds. A $10 chinese
>> > replica is as good as the original Rolex, right?
>>
>> IME there is far less difference between a $600 speaker cable and a $6
>> commodity 12 gauge speaker cable from Home Depot; then there is between
>> a
>> $5 burger at McDonalds, and an $7 real-meat, real-cheese, real-bread
>> sandwich from Arby's (not the Arby's with the processed roast beef).
>>
>> So, you'll pardon me while I blow the $594 I saved by not buying Monster
>> Cable on just 297 far tastier and probably more healthful real sandwich
>> lunches at Arbys. ;-)
>>
>
> I see MCM is dumping their Monster Cable Home Theater Kit, normally
> $100US for $30 if you buy online and $15 if you are on their email
> mailing list. So, it seems that diamond was really cubic zirconia after
> all.
>
> http://www.mcminone.com/product.asp?product_id=58-10450
> &catalog_name=MCMProducts
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"jeffjean" > wrote in message

> Check out LAT international in NJ. Their cables are
> silver coated or even pure (= $ though) and they have
> other goodies at very good prices. Some of the cheapie
> Audioquest cables are very cool too and unless you're
> running $30K speakers and power amps, you can't tell much
> difference from their far more expensive lines.

http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/wire%20and%20cables/audio%20interconnects.html

..5 meter pair, $305

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Joel Koltner]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/wire%20and%20cables/audio%20interconnects.html
> .5 meter pair, $305

I like their 6' power cords for $249
(http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/product/ac-2%20mk%20ii%20%20new%21.html).
If only I could afford to wire my entire house like with that miraculous
$50/foot power cable!

[z]

On Dec 26 2007, 4:37*am, RichD > wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > > Given that speaker distortion amounts to full percentage points of the input
> > > signal, can gold-plated cables etc. really make that much of a difference?
>
> > Differences between speaker cables include their capacitance and
> > inductance too but the effect is pretty minute.
>
> > > Are there other considerations, beyond that of quality construction/cable
> > > longevity?
>
> > > Some people swear there is a difference, certainly the mfr of Monster
> > > cables, who appeared on The Big Idea, and is apparently making millions.
>
> > People are gullible. That's where Monster et al. score.
>
> Has there ever been a double blind test of cables?
>
> I attended a Stereophile conference about 15 years ago.
> They compared 2 amps, blind, randomly switched to a
> variety of short music samples. *One $3000, the other
> $700; neither a tube amp, as I recall. *The audience
> voted on their individual score sheets. *The final
> tally: *indistinguishable.
>
> --
> Rich

getting to this late but, at least hypothetically,

1) speakers vary a lot
2) speakers are, in general, nonideal/nonlinear
3) a speaker's impedances vary a lot over frequency, for instance
4) a speaker interacts with the room resonances, etc.
5) this can in turn affect the nonlinearity of the impedance, etc.
6) this, in turn, can affect some amps, particularl those who
themselves are nonideal, i.e. can't deliver virtually unlimited
current into virtual short circuits, for instance
7) therefore, given a set of speakers, amps, and rooms, none of which
is particularly ideal, by chance some combination of interactions will
behave better than others
8) toss in some nonlinear cable designs, and you've got yet another
set of variables to toss in the mess, so that by chance you now have
speaker/amp/cable/room interactions which might "help", particularly
if you have a sound source which, itself, sounds better with a little
help.

none of this, even if true, would allow any near-ideally behaved cable
to tout itself as particularly superior to any other near-ideally
behaved cable, and sure wouldn't allow any cable with oddball
characteristics which suit a particular situation to brag so.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Joel Koltner wrote:
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/wire%20and%20cables/audio%20interconnects.html
> > .5 meter pair, $305
>
> I like their 6' power cords for $249
> (http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/product/ac-2%20mk%20ii%20%20new%21.html).
> If only I could afford to wire my entire house like with that miraculous
> $50/foot power cable!


How much wire will you need to reach the power plant?


--
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

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message ...
> Joel Koltner wrote:
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/wire%20and%20cables/audio%20interconnects.html
> > > .5 meter pair, $305
> >
> > I like their 6' power cords for $249
> > (http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/product/ac-2%20mk%20ii%20%20new%21.html).
> > If only I could afford to wire my entire house like with that miraculous
> > $50/foot power cable!
>
>
> How much wire will you need to reach the power plant?

That's really where this one gets all stupid on people.... like the last 6 feet
of wire is gonna' miraculously fix the atrocious **** running through most
residences.


> Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
> prove it.
> Member of DAV #85.

Semper Fi....

> Michael A. Terrell
> Central Florida


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_____________________________
http://www.januarysound.com

[Tim Williams[_2_]]

"z" > wrote in message
...
> 6) this, in turn, can affect some amps, particularl those who
> themselves are nonideal, i.e. can't deliver virtually unlimited
> current into virtual short circuits, for instance

DCR trumps all (and most speakers have DCR around 75% of rated impedance).
;-)

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:53:53 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
/Odm> wrote:

>> How much wire will you need to reach the power plant?
>
>That's really where this one gets all stupid on people.... like the last 6 feet
>of wire is gonna' miraculously fix the atrocious **** running through most
>residences.

If it's THAT atrocious, get a power conditioner. But it probably
isn't.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
message
> Joel Koltner wrote:
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/wire%20and%20cables/audio%20interconnects.html
>>> .5 meter pair, $305
>>
>> I like their 6' power cords for $249
>> (http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/product/ac-2%20mk%20ii%20%20new%21.html).
>> If only I could afford to wire my entire house like with
>> that miraculous $50/foot power cable!

> How much wire will you need to reach the power plant?

You need to install your own solar or wind-powered generating plant,
complete with high end wind machine or solar cells. No, don't buy your
solar panels from Harbor Freight, instead pay 10 times as much for the new
Monster Cable Golden Silicon Solar Arrays. ;-)

The irony is that modern implementations of either technology involve solid
state switchmode inverters...

Well, don't do that!

Instead, use linear power amplifiers to generate the 60 Hz, driven by a
vacuum tube based audio signal generator.

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"z" > wrote in message


> getting to this late but, at least hypothetically,

> 1) speakers vary a lot

Agreed.

> 2) speakers are, in general, nonideal/nonlinear

Depends on what your ideal are. ;-)

> 3) a speaker's impedances vary a lot over frequency, for
> instance

Usually. What about those full-range ribbons?

> 4) a speaker interacts with the room resonances, etc.

IME, a very weak interaction from the speaker terminal side.

> 5) this can in turn affect the nonlinearity of the
> impedance, etc.

So small as to be hard to measure.

> 6) this, in turn, can affect some amps, particularl those
> who themselves are nonideal, i.e. can't deliver virtually
> unlimited current into virtual short circuits, for instance

Those kinds of heroics are completely unecessary with well-designed
speakers. There are very few home audio speakers whose minimum impedance is
not well-modeled by a resistor whose value is 3 ohms or more. That's nothing
like a short circuit. Power amps that can handle that kind of load
comfortably abound.

> 7) therefore, given a set of speakers, amps, and rooms,
> none of which is particularly ideal, by chance some combination of
> interactions will behave better than others

Almost all room/speaker interactions are confined to the acoustical side.

> 8) toss in some nonlinear cable designs, and you've got
> yet another set of variables to toss in the mess, so that by chance
> you now have speaker/amp/cable/room interactions which might "help",
> particularly if you have a sound source which, itself, sounds better
> with a little help.

Speaker cables are generally so linear that even measuring it, let alone
hearing it, is close to mission impossible.

If by nonlinear you mean linear effects in the frequency domain, then almost
all real world cables are dominated by relatively small amounts of series
inductance. A small inductor in series with a 3 ohm or greater resistor (the
worst load most speakers present) is a relatively easy load for any
competent power amp.

> none of this, even if true, would allow any near-ideally
> behaved cable to tout itself as particularly superior to any other
> near-ideally behaved cable, and sure wouldn't allow any cable with
> oddball characteristics which suit a particular situation to brag
> so.

Most of these exotic cables are well-modeled by same equivalent wire gauge
twisted pair, on their best days of their lives. Some of them are actually
worse than simple twisted pair, but again nothing that should upset a
competent power amp.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "z" > wrote in message
>
> > 8) toss in some nonlinear cable designs, and you've got
> > yet another set of variables to toss in the mess, so that by chance
> > you now have speaker/amp/cable/room interactions which might "help",
> > particularly if you have a sound source which, itself, sounds better
> > with a little help.
>
> Speaker cables are generally so linear that even measuring it, let alone
> hearing it, is close to mission impossible.

I wonder where this crackhead got the idea that a cable can be non-linear. The
usual audiophool sources like Stereophile no doubt since they long ago abandoned
any attempt at applying scientific discipline (or even some objectivity) to
their reviews.

Copper is an excellent conductor that we have centuries of experience of. If it
had any non-linear behaviour we'd certainly know about it.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore > wrote:
>
>I wonder where this crackhead got the idea that a cable can be non-linear. The
>usual audiophool sources like Stereophile no doubt since they long ago abandoned
>any attempt at applying scientific discipline (or even some objectivity) to
>their reviews.

Of course cables can be nonlinear. Otherwise we'd just use buss bars for
everything. The whole point of using cables is you can run them around
corners.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tim Williams[_2_]]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Of course cables can be nonlinear. Otherwise we'd just use buss bars for
> everything. The whole point of using cables is you can run them around
> corners.

Bah! I can run buss bars around corners! You just need a big ****ing
torch. ;-)

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

[[email protected]]

On Jan 11, 10:39*am, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "z" > wrote in message
>
> > > 8) toss in some nonlinear cable designs, and you've got
> > > yet another *set of variables to toss in the mess, so that by chance
> > > you now have *speaker/amp/cable/room interactions which might "help",
> > > particularly *if you have a sound source which, itself, sounds better
> > > with a little *help.
>
> > Speaker cables are generally so linear that even measuring it, let alone
> > hearing it, is close to mission impossible.
>
> I wonder where this crackhead got the idea that a cable can be non-linear. The
> usual audiophool sources like Stereophile no doubt since they long ago abandoned
> any attempt at applying scientific discipline (or even some objectivity) *to
> their reviews.
>
> Copper is an excellent conductor that we have centuries of experience of. If it
> had any non-linear behaviour we'd certainly know about it.
>
> Graham

the thing is that some of those "exotic" cables are extremely weird,
having departed a long ways from the concept of just sticking a couple
of slabs of good conductor of sufficient conductivity between the amp
and speaker. In fact, some of them are of such small gauge, that I
would assume that the impedance would in fact be significant, relative
to at least some speakers which hit a real low impedance null. which
may well serve to shave a resonant peak down to a more reasonable
level, for that particular cable/speaker combo.

similarly, tracking backwards through your post, although a well-
designed speaker, amp, etc. should be fairly well behaved, a lot of
the goldenear audiophile niche delights are, despite their price tags,
not very well behaved in lab tests, speakers being of course more so
than amps. which would ironically give rise to a lot of press arguing
about what's good and what's bad, based largely on trying to fit the
jigsaw puzzle pieces of the impedances and responses of the various
components together nicely, which puts them in the eye and mind of the
consumer, and leads to an artificial perpetuation of this niche
versus just designing components to be as linear and well behaved as
possible.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
> message
> > Joel Koltner wrote:
> >>
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >>> http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/wire%20and%20cables/audio%20interconnects.html
> >>> .5 meter pair, $305
> >>
> >> I like their 6' power cords for $249
> >> (http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/product/ac-2%20mk%20ii%20%20new%21.html).
> >> If only I could afford to wire my entire house like with
> >> that miraculous $50/foot power cable!
>
> > How much wire will you need to reach the power plant?
>
> You need to install your own solar or wind-powered generating plant,
> complete with high end wind machine or solar cells. No, don't buy your
> solar panels from Harbor Freight, instead pay 10 times as much for the new
> Monster Cable Golden Silicon Solar Arrays. ;-)
>
> The irony is that modern implementations of either technology involve solid
> state switchmode inverters...
>
> Well, don't do that!
>
> Instead, use linear power amplifiers to generate the 60 Hz, driven by a
> vacuum tube based audio signal generator.
>
> ;-)


You left out the hand cut laminations, and triple silk wound oxygen
free copper magnet wire for the output transformer.


--
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

[[email protected]]

On Jan 11, 11:17*am, "Tim Williams" > wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Of course cables can be nonlinear. *Otherwise we'd just use buss bars for
> > everything. *The whole point of using cables is you can run them around
> > corners.
>
> Bah! *I can run buss bars around corners! *You just need a big ****ing
> torch. ;-)
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
> Website @http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

so, slightly OT, why is it still normal practice to have separate
power amps and speakers, with cable between them? to me it seems
rather obvious that packaging the amp/speaker as one component allows
them to be tailored to each other, both in response curves and in
power output/handling, and eliminates long cable runs? instead, we see
that in the cheapass Ipod powered speaker market. ??

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tim Williams wrote:
>
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Of course cables can be nonlinear. Otherwise we'd just use buss bars for
> > everything. The whole point of using cables is you can run them around
> > corners.
>
> Bah! I can run buss bars around corners! You just need a big ****ing
> torch. ;-)


Try winding your voice coils with buss bars. ;-)


--
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

[[email protected]]

On Jan 11, 10:48*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> >I wonder where this crackhead got the idea that a cable can be non-linear.. The
> >usual audiophool sources like Stereophile no doubt since they long ago abandoned
> >any attempt at applying scientific discipline (or even some objectivity) *to
> >their reviews.
>
> Of course cables can be nonlinear. *Otherwise we'd just use buss bars for
> everything. *The whole point of using cables is you can run them around
> corners.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

i had romex for speaker wires for a few years. no problem with current
handling, but bending it around corners wasn't as easy as I'd hoped.
On the other hand, the speaker wires can serve as their own speaker
stands.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Tim Williams wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Of course cables can be nonlinear. Otherwise we'd just use buss
>> bars for everything. The whole point of using cables is you can run
>> them around corners.

> Bah! I can run buss bars around corners! You just need a big ****ing
> torch. ;-)

Finally the secret of a warm serving of sound is revealed, pre-heat the
mains power in an oven!

> Tim


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"Tim Williams" > wrote in message

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Of course cables can be nonlinear. Otherwise we'd just
>> use buss bars for everything. The whole point of using
>> cables is you can run them around corners.

Yet another day I'm glad I finished my coffee a while ago. ;-)

> Bah! I can run buss bars around corners! You just need
> a big ****ing torch. ;-)

Around here we do it with bus bars that are far thinner than they are wide.
We've also got some big dudes with bulging arms and bending irons with
really long handles. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> so, slightly OT, why is it still normal practice to have
> separate power amps and speakers, with cable between
> them?

IME, less so than it was.

> to me it seems rather obvious that packaging the
> amp/speaker as one component allows them to be tailored
> to each other, both in response curves and in power
> output/handling, and eliminates long cable runs?

The tailoring having the far greater benefit. The problem with active
speakers in the home is that you have to run both a power cable and a signal
cable to each one.

One place where active speakers are benefitting from shortening the speaker
cables is OEM automotive. If you put the power amp on the back of the driver
you can more readily drop the speaker impedance way low for more power
without switchmode.

A lot of audiophiles just don't seem to trust speaker makers to use good
taste when choosing power amps. For example, Paradigm had some credible
active speakers that I'm told they've dropped.

> instead, we see that in the cheapass Ipod powered speaker market.

....and computer speakers and studio monitors.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote
>> in
>> message
>>> Joel Koltner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/wire%20and%20cables/audio%20interconnects.html
>>>>> .5 meter pair, $305
>>>>
>>>> I like their 6' power cords for $249
>>>> (http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/product/ac-2%20mk%20ii%20%20new%21.html).
>>>> If only I could afford to wire my entire house like
>>>> with that miraculous $50/foot power cable!
>>
>>> How much wire will you need to reach the power plant?
>>
>> You need to install your own solar or wind-powered
>> generating plant, complete with high end wind machine or
>> solar cells. No, don't buy your solar panels from
>> Harbor Freight, instead pay 10 times as much for the new
>> Monster Cable Golden Silicon Solar Arrays. ;-)
>>
>> The irony is that modern implementations of either
>> technology involve solid state switchmode inverters...
>>
>> Well, don't do that!
>>
>> Instead, use linear power amplifiers to generate the 60
>> Hz, driven by a vacuum tube based audio signal generator.
>>
>> ;-)

> You left out the hand cut laminations, and triple silk
> wound oxygen free copper magnet wire for the output
> transformer.

No silver wire?

(whimper)

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message

> Tim Williams wrote:
>
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> Of course cables can be nonlinear. Otherwise we'd just
>>> use buss bars for everything. The whole point of using
>>> cables is you can run them around corners.
>
>> Bah! I can run buss bars around corners! You just need
>> a big ****ing torch. ;-)
>
> Finally the secret of a warm serving of sound is
> revealed, pre-heat the mains power in an oven!

That's where that warm tube sound comes from - the fact that the tubes
radiate heat into the power transformer and pre-heat the electrons!

;-)

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Michael A. Terrell" wrote
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >> Instead, use linear power amplifiers to generate the 60
> >> Hz, driven by a vacuum tube based audio signal generator.
> >>
> >> ;-)
>
> > You left out the hand cut laminations, and triple silk
> > wound oxygen free copper magnet wire for the output
> > transformer.
>
> No silver wire?
>
> (whimper)

Bah !

It's only ever silver plated but I doubt the audiophools know that.

Graham

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:53:53 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> /Odm> wrote:
>
> >> How much wire will you need to reach the power plant?
> >
> >That's really where this one gets all stupid on people.... like the last 6 feet
> >of wire is gonna' miraculously fix the atrocious **** running through most
> >residences.

> If it's THAT atrocious, get a power conditioner. But it probably
> isn't.

But the last 6 feet of cable isn't going to *fix* or improve _anything_.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message...

> Of course cables can be nonlinear.

> The whole point of using cables is you can run them around
> corners.



;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Michael A. Terrell" wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Instead, use linear power amplifiers to generate the 60
>>>> Hz, driven by a vacuum tube based audio signal
>>>> generator.
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>
>>> You left out the hand cut laminations, and triple silk
>>> wound oxygen free copper magnet wire for the output
>>> transformer.
>>
>> No silver wire?
>>
>> (whimper)
>
> Bah !
>
> It's only ever silver plated but I doubt the audiophools
> know that.

The audiophools don't seem to know what we know about mere copper, to tell
the truth.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Allen" > wrote in message ...
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> > "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message ...
> >> Joel Koltner wrote:
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> . ..
> >>>> http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/wire%20and%20cables/audio%20interconnects.html
> >>>> .5 meter pair, $305
> >>> I like their 6' power cords for $249
> >>> (http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/product/ac-2%20mk%20ii%20%20new%21.html).
> >>> If only I could afford to wire my entire house like with that miraculous
> >>> $50/foot power cable!
> >>
> >> How much wire will you need to reach the power plant?
> >
> > That's really where this one gets all stupid on people.... like the last 6 feet
> > of wire is gonna' miraculously fix the atrocious **** running through most
> > residences.
> To say nothing of the miles and miles of wire and transformers on its
> way to the residence. Application of a green marking pen to the
> conductor just before it enters the device will be as effective and
> slightly cheaper, especially if you use my special pen which I sell for
> only $12,999.99 (plus shipping). If you act today I will include a
> second pen at no additional charge(unless OfficeMax runs out of green
> Sharpies).

Need an endorsement? I'll take 15% of each sale and my attorney gets
another 10% to keep us out of jail.

;-)


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_____________________________
http://www.januarysound.com

[Michael A. Terrell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
> message
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote
> >> in
> >> message
> >>> Joel Koltner wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>> . ..
> >>>>> http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/wire%20and%20cables/audio%20interconnects.html
> >>>>> .5 meter pair, $305
> >>>>
> >>>> I like their 6' power cords for $249
> >>>> (http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/product/ac-2%20mk%20ii%20%20new%21.html).
> >>>> If only I could afford to wire my entire house like
> >>>> with that miraculous $50/foot power cable!
> >>
> >>> How much wire will you need to reach the power plant?
> >>
> >> You need to install your own solar or wind-powered
> >> generating plant, complete with high end wind machine or
> >> solar cells. No, don't buy your solar panels from
> >> Harbor Freight, instead pay 10 times as much for the new
> >> Monster Cable Golden Silicon Solar Arrays. ;-)
> >>
> >> The irony is that modern implementations of either
> >> technology involve solid state switchmode inverters...
> >>
> >> Well, don't do that!
> >>
> >> Instead, use linear power amplifiers to generate the 60
> >> Hz, driven by a vacuum tube based audio signal generator.
> >>
> >> ;-)
>
> > You left out the hand cut laminations, and triple silk
> > wound oxygen free copper magnet wire for the output
> > transformer.
>
> No silver wire?
>
> (whimper)
>
> ;-)


Sure but it's copper plated, so no one steals it! :)


--
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

[Michael A. Terrell]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Tim Williams" > wrote in message
>
> > "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> Of course cables can be nonlinear. Otherwise we'd just
> >> use buss bars for everything. The whole point of using
> >> cables is you can run them around corners.
>
> Yet another day I'm glad I finished my coffee a while ago. ;-)
>
> > Bah! I can run buss bars around corners! You just need
> > a big ****ing torch. ;-)
>
> Around here we do it with bus bars that are far thinner than they are wide.
> We've also got some big dudes with bulging arms and bending irons with
> really long handles. ;-)



GEEZE, Arny!!! They have to be bent on a CNC hydralic bender, to
keep them matched to less than .00005 mils


--
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

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

>>> Bah! I can run buss bars around corners! You just need
>>> a big ****ing torch. ;-)

>> Around here we do it with bus bars that are far thinner than they
>> are wide. We've also got some big dudes with bulging arms and
>> bending irons with really long handles. ;-)

> GEEZE, Arny!!! They have to be bent on a CNC hydralic bender, to
> keep them matched to less than .00005 mils

<better add a joke prefix here, lest someone read it in earnest>

In my (complete lack of) understanding the advantage of the rigid busbar
design is that the transient vawefronts arrive to the loudspeakers
coherently ... ie. that bending them was frowned upon? - or had to be
compensated by another bend? - but would that create a blurrying of the
wavefront anyway?

</better add a joke prefix here, lest someone read it in earnest>

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:28:39 -0600, Allen > wrote:

>I make the following prediction: Soon, silver will be abandoned and
>replaced by copper--just as soon as the skyrocketing price of copper
>exceeds the price of silver.

The Washington Monument is topped with Aluminum, the most
exotic metal of its time.

Chris Hornbeck

"There's little that's impossible, but it becomes more complicated if
you move between different systems." - Mike Rivers, in another context

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Recently I got some "audiophile" grade resistors from
>>>> Parts Express, since they were 10W non-inductives for a
>>>> buck each. Unfortunately they had leads plated with
>>>> some kind of metal and then lightly sputtered with gold
>>>> to make them look cool, but bending the leads caused the
>>>> plating to flake right off. I wound up having to scrape
>>>> all the fake gold crap off before using them. --scott
>>>
>>> IME these resistors have a pretty strong temperature
>>> coefficient.
>
>> Dunno, we'll find out. I put fifty of them in a paint
>> can full of transformer oil, to make 50 ohm load. Cold,
>> it looks pretty
>> good on the network analyzer, We'll throw a couple
>> kilowatts into it at 790 KHz next week and measure it hot.
>
>My experiences with paint cans, oil, forced air cooling, and resistors with
>appreciable tempcos made me into a happy customer of Arco. The near-zero
>tempcos of their NI wirewounds are a sight to see! I think the retailer was
>Mouser.

Worked pretty well. With the can hot to the touch (ie. can't hold on to
it for a count of three), it was only up to 50.2 ohms. I wish the antenna
system were as constant....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently I got some "audiophile" grade resistors from
>>>>> Parts Express, since they were 10W non-inductives for
>>>>> a buck each. Unfortunately they had leads plated with
>>>>> some kind of metal and then lightly sputtered with
>>>>> gold to make them look cool, but bending the leads
>>>>> caused the plating to flake right off. I wound up
>>>>> having to scrape all the fake gold crap off before
>>>>> using them. --scott
>>>>
>>>> IME these resistors have a pretty strong temperature
>>>> coefficient.
>>
>>> Dunno, we'll find out. I put fifty of them in a paint
>>> can full of transformer oil, to make 50 ohm load. Cold,
>>> it looks pretty
>>> good on the network analyzer, We'll throw a couple
>>> kilowatts into it at 790 KHz next week and measure it
>>> hot.

>> My experiences with paint cans, oil, forced air cooling,
>> and resistors with appreciable tempcos made me into a
>> happy customer of Arco. The near-zero tempcos of their
>> NI wirewounds are a sight to see! I think the retailer
>> was Mouser.

> Worked pretty well. With the can hot to the touch (ie.
> can't hold on to it for a count of three), it was only up
> to 50.2 ohms. I wish the antenna system were as
> constant....

That does sound better than the Parts Express NIs that I might still have a
box of. However, I am looking at a different level of loading - my paint can
(with fins and forced air cooling) got way too hot to touch for any amount
of time.

The Arcos shift about that much when they go up to about 350 degrees.