Recording Magazine

[mcp6453[_2_]]

While reading Mix this morning, I saw a comment in an ad attributed to Scott
Dorsey in Recording Magazine. Is it a print magazine, available for free to the
trades like Mix, EM, EQ, SVC, and the rest?

How did I miss this one?

[Scott Dorsey]

mcp6453 > wrote:
>While reading Mix this morning, I saw a comment in an ad attributed to Scott
>Dorsey in Recording Magazine. Is it a print magazine, available for free to the
>trades like Mix, EM, EQ, SVC, and the rest?

It is a print magazine, and it's one that is actually doing very well. While
Mix and EQ are shrinking, Recording is actually increasing in page count
somewhat. They have a website at www.recordingmag.com.

>How did I miss this one?

It's not free to the trade, which I suspect is why it's actually doing okay.
I think I have an editorial about the AES student competitions in the latest
issue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Sep 25, 9:41 pm, Marc Wielage > wrote:
> I still to this day lament the passing of RE/P. _That_ was a really terrific
> magazine.

I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my
own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike
Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many
people actually want to learn about recording and the science of
audio. I assume the audio magazines poll their subscribers to know
what they want, and the result reads more like fan-boy rags than
techniques and education. It's the same in the hi-fi world. Look at
successful Stereophile versus the past failed attempts at science-
based magazine such as The Audio Critic. It seems the majority of
audio people want to be bull****ted to. They'd rather hear some well
known 20-something grunge rocker blab incoherently about technology he
doesn't understand than read an article giving solid tips and advice.

--Ethan

[Scott Dorsey]

Ethan Winer > wrote:
>
>I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my
>own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike
>Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many
>people actually want to learn about recording and the science of
>audio.

That's a lot of the problem, yeah.
The great thing about RE/P is that it talked about the science of audio
as it was being developed. So reading it was a learning experience,
but it was learning something that was new and therefore exciting.

Now all that stuff is pretty well figured-out, so it's not exciting and
people don't feel enthused about learning it.

>I assume the audio magazines poll their subscribers to know
>what they want, and the result reads more like fan-boy rags than
>techniques and education. It's the same in the hi-fi world. Look at
>successful Stereophile versus the past failed attempts at science-
>based magazine such as The Audio Critic.

From my experience, the editors tend to ignore what the subscribers say
they want. Folks call into a magazine asking for more DIY articles, and
the editors say that "Readers of DIY articles are a tiny minority, just
a really vocal and annoying one." Recording is actually better in regard
to listening to their subscribers than most of the magazines.

A lot of the magazines treat the advertisers as the customer, rather than
the subscriber. They view their job as delivering eyes to advertising.
When you're giving most of the magazines away for free, it's hard to do
anything else (which is part of why I am so impressed with Tape Op in
that they manage to give away the magazine for free WITHOUT doing this).

>It seems the majority of
>audio people want to be bull****ted to. They'd rather hear some well
>known 20-something grunge rocker blab incoherently about technology he
>doesn't understand than read an article giving solid tips and advice.

That's why I think the number one job is to educate the 20-something grunge
rockers so they can give coherent and informative interviews.

Again, the great thing about Tape Op is that they go out of their way to
interview informed people who actually understand the technology. They do
interview a lot of clueless people who spout nonsense as well, too, but
in an industry where most people are spouting nonsense it's hard to avoid
that.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/26/2010 11:48 AM, Ethan Winer wrote:

> I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my
> own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike
> Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many
> people actually want to learn about recording and the science of
> audio.

Around this time last year I was thrashing around the idea of an on-line
pro audio review web site with some background articles, and including
the parts of my reviews that I usually had to cut out - the parts that
were educatoinal so even if you weren't interested in a particular
product being reviewed, you could learn about the technology involved. I
figured that with essentially an unlimited article length, a review
could be really complete, informative, and educational as well.

I couldn't review everything myself, and I couldn't figure out how to
get enough income from it to pay other reviewers. There really isn't
money flowing magically over the Internet.

Then after writing a couple of reviews for Everything Audio Network (dot
com) I learned that people don't have the attention span to read more
than about a 1500 word article on line, or even at their comp8uter if
they could download the whole article.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

[Jay Ts[_2_]]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 22:33:14 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/26/2010 11:48 AM, Ethan Winer wrote:
>
>> I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my
>> own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike Rivers
>> and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many people
>> actually want to learn about recording and the science of audio.
>
> Around this time last year I was thrashing around the idea of an on-line
> pro audio review web site with some background articles, and including
> the parts of my reviews that I usually had to cut out - the parts that
> were educatoinal so even if you weren't interested in a particular
> product being reviewed, you could learn about the technology involved. I
> figured that with essentially an unlimited article length, a review
> could be really complete, informative, and educational as well.
>
> I couldn't review everything myself, and I couldn't figure out how to
> get enough income from it to pay other reviewers. There really isn't
> money flowing magically over the Internet.
>
> Then after writing a couple of reviews for Everything Audio Network (dot
> com) I learned that people don't have the attention span to read more
> than about a 1500 word article on line, or even at their comp8uter if
> they could download the whole article.

Fine, so make the home page at the website about news and have it in
a more-or-less blog format, so people will return every day. That
blog would tell news of a new product, and say, "We'll be doing a
full review in the <Month> issue of the magazine." That would help
sell magazine subscriptions.

About 6 months after the magazine is published, put the full review
online at the website. This will attract more people to the site as
a result of search engine results, and show them how good the magazine
is. IMO, this seems to work very well for Sound on Sound, for example.
You can go in their archive and read complete issues of the magazine.

Also, you can put educational articles in the magazine, and gradually
add them to a learning center area of the website. That way, the
magazine can cover increasingly-advanced subjects, and new readers
can catch up by reading off the website.

The hardest part is getting things started. You either have to start
really small and informally, like Tape Op did, or have a lot of startup
money that you can afford to lose if things don't work out. But, if
you can get the money coming in, then you can continue to pay qualified
people to do the reviews.

I think the real difficulty is getting people to pay more than $10-15
for a subscription. If the readers don't pay for the costs, then the
advertisers wind up with too much power, the reviews become too positive,
and then people won't trust them and just search for other people's
comments on the Internet.

Jay Ts

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 9/26/2010 10:33 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/26/2010 11:48 AM, Ethan Winer wrote:
>
>> I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my
>> own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike
>> Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many
>> people actually want to learn about recording and the science of
>> audio.
>
> Around this time last year I was thrashing around the idea of an on-line
> pro audio review web site with some background articles, and including
> the parts of my reviews that I usually had to cut out - the parts that
> were educatoinal so even if you weren't interested in a particular
> product being reviewed, you could learn about the technology involved. I
> figured that with essentially an unlimited article length, a review
> could be really complete, informative, and educational as well.
>
> I couldn't review everything myself, and I couldn't figure out how to
> get enough income from it to pay other reviewers. There really isn't
> money flowing magically over the Internet.
>
> Then after writing a couple of reviews for Everything Audio Network (dot
> com) I learned that people don't have the attention span to read more
> than about a 1500 word article on line, or even at their comp8uter if
> they could download the whole article.
>

With the decline in pages in the magazines I mentioned, there will probably be a
market for another one before long. I confess to being able to read everything
in one that I want to read in one or two sessions on the porcelain throne. All
magazines are understandably trying to push subscribers to digital version so
that one day they can pull the plug on hard copies, but I do not read ANY
magazines online. It's too rough on my eyes. Printing a magazine to read it
takes too much paper.

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Sep 26, 12:22 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Now all that stuff is pretty well figured-out, so it's not exciting and
> people don't feel enthused about learning it.

Agreed mostly, but there's still plenty that *readers* have not yet
figured out. Such as the fact that digital does not leave "holes" in
the waveform, and other 101 other common audio myths. And acoustics is
mostly ignored, except by Sound On Sound which is my current fave.
Note well: SOS is the best science-based audio magazine out there, and
it continues to grow every month. Coincidence? I don't think so!

> A lot of the magazines treat the advertisers as the customer

This is a huge problem. Too many publishers fail to understand that
they are there to serve us, the reader. If they give the reader what
the reader wants and needs, advertisers will surely follow.

> Again, the great thing about Tape Op is that they go out of their way to
> interview informed people who actually understand the technology. They do
> interview a lot of clueless people who spout nonsense as well, too, but
> in an industry where most people are spouting nonsense it's hard to avoid
> that.

I wish they'd be more selective in what they print. The core problem
is that most audio magazine editors are themselves clueless about the
science of audio. I remember very well when I proposed my Audio Myths
article (www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html) to Electronic Musician
magazine. After seeing my proposal the editor told me on the phone
they had a meeting and all the editors disputed every one of my ten
points. Sheesh! Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and
very knowledgeable, so the article did get published.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Sep 26, 10:33 pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> Around this time last year I was thrashing around the idea of an on-line
> pro audio review web site with some background articles, and including
> the parts of my reviews that I usually had to cut out - the parts that
> were educatoinal so even if you weren't interested in a particular
> product being reviewed, you could learn about the technology involved.

Personally, I'm more interested in the educational aspect than
anything else. Most gear reviews bore me, though it doesn't have to be
that way. About the only parts that interest me are talk of features
and usability, and flaws and shortcomings such as lack of a Q knob on
a parametric EQ. But reading about "the sound" of this or that is
boring to me. For the most part, competent gear sounds just like
everything else that's competent. Subjective opinions are worthless
and are often wrong. Reviews should also include independent testing,
not just a re-state of the vendor's specs. Which are usually
incomplete anyway. Sorry, I'm starting to sound like a cranky old
man! :->)

--Ethan

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:08:42 -0700 (PDT), Ethan Winer
> wrote:

>
>I wish they'd be more selective in what they print. The core problem
>is that most audio magazine editors are themselves clueless about the
>science of audio. I remember very well when I proposed my Audio Myths
>article (www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html) to Electronic Musician
>magazine. After seeing my proposal the editor told me on the phone
>they had a meeting and all the editors disputed every one of my ten
>points. Sheesh! Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and
>very knowledgeable, so the article did get published.

Ethan I just read the article, and there is one area where I would
take issue with you - the Audiophile speaker cable bit. In fact ALL
cables, audiophile or not are capable of carrying frequencies well
into the hundreds of MHz, so whatever the difference may be, it isn't
that.

And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated strands,
but a special weave that brings each strand periodically to the outer
surface of the bunch.

d

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:08:42 -0400, Ethan Winer wrote
(in article
>):

Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and
> very knowledgeable, so the article did get published.
>
> --Ethan

Frank is one of the guys who does know his stuff, but you're right (whoever),
it's a balance between advertising and editorial.

I had a guy on GearSlutz try to tear me a new asshole because I had industry
contacts, figuring I must be writing what they want me to. In looking back,
it may have been somebody who works/worked for a company I didn't review so
favorably. (no names)

The code words, btw, are "for the money." When you see them and the price
seems really reasonable, it's usually due to the fact that the performance
isn't equivalent to the good stuff, but it's also cheaper.

I had a hard time convincing publishers to let me:
1. Write in second person.
That was weird. I told them that, "if one does this or that, one should
expect..." was offputting, stiff and unnatural. They were VERY resistant to
let me use second person, but went with it.

2. Compare the review piece with other known gear in the review. This was
"unheard of" and possibly injurious to the other mfgr's model. I told them I
would do it in a clinical way. I did. I told them the best way to explain
what a piece of gear is about is to compare it to a known entity.

I think MIX caught some flak when I review a Rode, the NTK I think. I had
other engineers' comment that they liked it in VO situations as well or
better than a U 87. It was THEIR comment, not mine, but it was in my review
so I got tagged.

This very newsgroup is pretty weird as well. I was making a comment about a
female editor on this newsgroup; something that came down weird in trying to
get something reviewed. Out of professionalism and courtesy, I never
mentioned her name. Some weasel in rec.audio.pro pimped it up and sent it to
another female editor in an effort to get me in trouble. It was settled
pretty quickly, but that's the kind of nasty stuff that goes on here, right
in this newsgroup.

And, btw, I know who you are.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

Ethan Winer > wrote:
>On Sep 26, 12:22 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> Now all that stuff is pretty well figured-out, so it's not exciting and
>> people don't feel enthused about learning it.
>
>Agreed mostly, but there's still plenty that *readers* have not yet
>figured out. Such as the fact that digital does not leave "holes" in
>the waveform, and other 101 other common audio myths. And acoustics is
>mostly ignored, except by Sound On Sound which is my current fave.
>Note well: SOS is the best science-based audio magazine out there, and
>it continues to grow every month. Coincidence? I don't think so!

Well, the question then becomes: is it the purpose of a magazine to
teach basic technology fundamentals? The thing is, fundamental stuff
doesn't change.... so presumably there is a better way to present it
than with a monthly magazine. Magazines are for news.

>> Again, the great thing about Tape Op is that they go out of their way to
>> interview informed people who actually understand the technology. They do
>> interview a lot of clueless people who spout nonsense as well, too, but
>> in an industry where most people are spouting nonsense it's hard to avoid
>> that.
>
>I wish they'd be more selective in what they print. The core problem
>is that most audio magazine editors are themselves clueless about the
>science of audio. I remember very well when I proposed my Audio Myths
>article (www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html) to Electronic Musician
>magazine. After seeing my proposal the editor told me on the phone
>they had a meeting and all the editors disputed every one of my ten
>points. Sheesh! Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and
>very knowledgeable, so the article did get published.

Yes, and I think most of that cluelessness is _encouraged_ by the vendors.
If not actively promoted.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/27/2010 12:19 PM, Ethan Winer wrote:

> Personally, I'm more interested in the educational aspect than
> anything else. Most gear reviews bore me, though it doesn't have to be
> that way. About the only parts that interest me are talk of features
> and usability, and flaws and shortcomings such as lack of a Q knob on
> a parametric EQ. But reading about "the sound" of this or that is
> boring to me.

Me, too, which is why I try to avoid reviewing things where it's all
about the sound. But people want to read about that, so I'd like to have
a staff who can write about it in a meaningful way. That's where the
money goes.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

[theclyde]

On Sep 26, 9:33*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 9/26/2010 11:48 AM, Ethan Winer wrote:
>
> > I agree, R-e/p was the best. I've thought many times about starting my
> > own audio magazine, and inviting knowledgeable writers like Mike
> > Rivers and Scott Dorsey etc to contribute. But I'm not sure how many
> > people actually want to learn about recording and the science of
> > audio.
>
> Around this time last year I was thrashing around the idea of an on-line
> pro audio review web site with some background articles, and including
> the parts of my reviews that I usually had to cut out - the parts that
> were educatoinal so even if you weren't interested in a particular
> product being reviewed, you could learn about the technology involved. I
> figured that with essentially an unlimited article length, a review
> could be really complete, informative, and educational as well.
>
> I couldn't review everything myself, and I couldn't figure out how to
> get enough income from it to pay other reviewers. There really isn't
> money flowing magically over the Internet.
>
> Then after writing a couple of reviews for Everything Audio Network (dot
> com) I learned that people don't have the attention span to read more
> than about a 1500 word article on line, or even at their comp8uter if
> they could download the whole article.
>
> --
> "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
> a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
> operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

I like long articles. Problem I have with most long articles on the
internet is they have been split into 10 pages to maximise profits and
searchability.

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Sep 27, 12:51 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> In fact ALL cables, audiophile or not are capable of carrying frequencies
> well into the hundreds of MHz
> ...
> And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated strands,
> but a special weave that brings each strand periodically to the outer
> surface of the bunch.

Points taken.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Sep 27, 2:42 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
> 2. Compare the review piece with other known gear in the review.

This is one thing I really like about Sound On Sound - they usually
include a list of competing products in the same price range.

> And, btw, I know who you are.

Uh oh. :->)

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Sep 27, 3:21 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Well, the question then becomes: is it the purpose of a magazine to
> teach basic technology fundamentals? The thing is, fundamental stuff
> doesn't change.... so presumably there is a better way to present it
> than with a monthly magazine. Magazines are for news.

That's a good point Scott, though "news" can be more than just reviews
and announcements of new / current products. News can also be
explaining techniques that take advantage of new features recently
added to a software update. But magazines can also teach basics. A lot
of people will not buy a book for whatever reason, and many magazines
have had ongoing teaching series. Recording magazine, the subject of
this thread, is a good example of useful tutorials that span many
issues.

--Ethan

[Scott Dorsey]

Ethan Winer > wrote:
>On Sep 27, 3:21 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> Well, the question then becomes: is it the purpose of a magazine to
>> teach basic technology fundamentals? The thing is, fundamental stuff
>> doesn't change.... so presumably there is a better way to present it
>> than with a monthly magazine. Magazines are for news.
>
>That's a good point Scott, though "news" can be more than just reviews
>and announcements of new / current products. News can also be
>explaining techniques that take advantage of new features recently
>added to a software update.

Yes, absolutely! And stuff like explaining new features and new techniques
for existing software is EXACTLY the kind of thing magazines should be doing.

It's the kind of thing RE/P used to do also. The first time I ever heard
about jamming all the buttons in on the 1176 was in RE/P.

>But magazines can also teach basics. A lot
>of people will not buy a book for whatever reason, and many magazines
>have had ongoing teaching series. Recording magazine, the subject of
>this thread, is a good example of useful tutorials that span many
>issues.

There's only so many times you can run the same tutorials over and over
again, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve King]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
| Ethan Winer > wrote:
| >On Sep 27, 3:21 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
| >> Well, the question then becomes: is it the purpose of a magazine to
| >> teach basic technology fundamentals? The thing is, fundamental stuff
| >> doesn't change.... so presumably there is a better way to present it
| >> than with a monthly magazine. Magazines are for news.
| >
| >That's a good point Scott, though "news" can be more than just reviews
| >and announcements of new / current products. News can also be
| >explaining techniques that take advantage of new features recently
| >added to a software update.
|
| Yes, absolutely! And stuff like explaining new features and new
techniques
| for existing software is EXACTLY the kind of thing magazines should be
doing.
|
| It's the kind of thing RE/P used to do also. The first time I ever heard
| about jamming all the buttons in on the 1176 was in RE/P.
|
| >But magazines can also teach basics. A lot
| >of people will not buy a book for whatever reason, and many magazines
| >have had ongoing teaching series. Recording magazine, the subject of
| >this thread, is a good example of useful tutorials that span many
| >issues.
|
| There's only so many times you can run the same tutorials over and over
| again, though.
| --scott
| --
| "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

No, I don't think there is a limit to how many times basics are covered in
magazines, whether it is aviation, boating, or audio. I see articles on
"landing a tail dragger" for instance that contains no information that
wasn't accepted common knowledge in articles published 50 years ago. And, I
read them.. or skim them... even though I've got a bunch of tail dragger
time. I want to see how this author/pilot tells the story, and the review
can never hurt. Same with audio. I guess the trick is, where on the
spectrum from super basic to sophisticated do you pitch the magazine. What
is the balance of basic to esoteric? Some readers deal with circuit design
or room accoustics every day . Most only occasionally involve themselves at
those levels. At my level of current involvement in audio and the
associated electronics it can be years between similar diagnostic and repair
issues. I need refreshers. So bring it all on for me.

Steve King

[Mike Rivers]

On 9/28/2010 12:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> There's only so many times you can run the same tutorials over and over
> again, though.

There's a batch of new subscribers/readers every couple of years, and
they all should learn the fundamentals (whether they think so or not).
So the same old same old gets recycled every couple of years when they
find a new writer to do the "novice" column.

What I've found over the 15 years that I've been associated with
Recording is that the articles about the basics seem to be getting
shorter and less detailed, so I don't think they're as effective as when
I was writing regularly in 1995-2000. It's pretty rare to find an
article about something basic that has enough detail to allow the reader
to take it further on his own. Paul Stamler's recent overview of
microphones is a good example of something that, once read and
understood, would far reduce the "is this a good microphone?" questions.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

[Jason Warren]

In article -
september.org>, says...
> On 9/28/2010 12:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> There's a batch of new subscribers/readers every couple of years, and
> they all should learn the fundamentals>
>
Bravo and thanks. I got into this about 10 years
ago when I began getting invited to record music
my wife had written - mostly small chamber
pieces, but the occasional big chorus/orchestra
piece. I welcomed the basics info in Recording.

I think rerunning the occasional detailed
background article on basic info is valuable. It
sure was for me.

Jason

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:08:42 -0700 (PDT), Ethan Winer
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>I wish they'd be more selective in what they print. The core problem
>>is that most audio magazine editors are themselves clueless about the
>>science of audio. I remember very well when I proposed my Audio Myths
>>article (www.ethanwiner.com/myths.html) to Electronic Musician
>>magazine. After seeing my proposal the editor told me on the phone
>>they had a meeting and all the editors disputed every one of my ten
>>points. Sheesh! Thankfully, Frank Wells at Audio Media is sane and
>>very knowledgeable, so the article did get published.
>
> Ethan I just read the article, and there is one area where I would
> take issue with you - the Audiophile speaker cable bit. In fact ALL
> cables, audiophile or not are capable of carrying frequencies well
> into the hundreds of MHz, so whatever the difference may be, it isn't
> that.

The issue is not whether or not a cable carries the signal at all, but
whether or not the signal is carried in such a way that there is no audible
degradation at the loudspeaker end.

While pieces of both 10 gauge and 24 gauge speaker wire will carry signals
up into the many MHz range with some amount of attenuation depending on the
application, the 10 gauge wire can possibly have audible losses due to
inductance and skin effect, while the 24 gauge wire can have enough DC
resistance and inductance to cause audible losses. All you need to have
audible losses is the wrong length, the wrong physical configuration, and
the wrong speaker.

> And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated strands,
> but a special weave that brings each strand periodically to the outer
> surface of the bunch.

Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only mechanical advantages. It
obviously doesn't do anything for skin effect, despite much audiophile lore.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated
>> strands, but a special weave that brings each strand periodically
>> to the outer surface of the bunch.

> Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only mechanical
> advantages. It obviously doesn't do anything for skin effect, despite
> much audiophile lore.

It's litz wire, not Litz wire. It's from the German word for "stranded".
It's not a person's name.

If you have any question as to whether there's an audible difference among
wires/cables, put one kind on one channel, another kind on the other
channel, and play a mono program source.

By the way, it is possible for a given amp and speaker cable to interact
/pathologically/. I've seen and heard this.

[Anahata]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:09:12 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only mechanical advantages.
> It obviously doesn't do anything for skin effect, despite much
> audiophile lore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire

Seems to cover it quite convincingly. Prior to reading that, I hadn't
appreciated that each strand in Litz wire is separately insulated. That's
the key to making it work.

"The weaving or twisting pattern of litz wire is designed so individual
wires will reside for short intervals on the outside of cable and for
short intervals on the inside of the cable. This allows the interior of
the litz wire to contribute to the cable's conductivity."

Of course it's all irrelevant to audio...

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>While pieces of both 10 gauge and 24 gauge speaker wire will carry signals
>up into the many MHz range with some amount of attenuation depending on the
>application, the 10 gauge wire can possibly have audible losses due to
>inductance and skin effect, while the 24 gauge wire can have enough DC
>resistance and inductance to cause audible losses. All you need to have
>audible losses is the wrong length, the wrong physical configuration, and
>the wrong speaker.

Sit down and do the numbers. Skin effect issues are hardly even measurable
in the audio range. They are not a significant issue and they are another
example of audiophiles pulling things out of a hat to try and explain things
without doing the actual math to see what significance the effect does.

>> And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually insulated strands,
>> but a special weave that brings each strand periodically to the outer
>> surface of the bunch.
>
>Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only mechanical advantages. It
>obviously doesn't do anything for skin effect, despite much audiophile lore.

The whole point of litz wire is to reduce skin effect losses, by effectively
reducing the diameter of each conductor. That is why it is used in TV set
sweep circuit inductors and the like. Litz wiring is a very effective way
to handle skin effect problems, but it is superfluous for speaker cabling
because skin effect problems don't exist there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-10-01 (ScottDorsey) said:
>Sit down and do the numbers. Skin effect issues are hardly even
>measurable in the audio range. They are not a significant issue
>and they are another example of audiophiles pulling things out of a
>hat to try and explain things without doing the actual math to see
>what significance the effect does.
RIght, skin effect is relevant at rf, not at audio
frequencies, but then the whole audiophool market is based
on junk science.

>The whole point of litz wire is to reduce skin effect losses, by
>effectively reducing the diameter of each conductor. That is why
>it is used in TV set sweep circuit inductors and the like. Litz
>wiring is a very effective way to handle skin effect problems, but
>it is superfluous for speaker cabling because skin effect problems
>don't exist there.
OF course they don't, but if we can sell some more gadgetry
or expensive stuff by using physical principles wrong then
it's good for the purveyors, and all they've got to do is
get one of the hacks for the audiophool rags to talk it up
and the cash register goes cha ching.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Mike Rivers]

On 10/1/2010 9:13 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> If you have any question as to whether there's an audible difference among
> wires/cables, put one kind on one channel, another kind on the other
> channel, and play a mono program source.

Don't you think that the difference between one speaker and
the other, both the hardware and their positions in the
room, would overshadow a difference in the sound of the
cable? I think it would be impossible for an "ordinary" user
to design a valid experiment like this. A better test would
be to switch wires to the same speaker, but it's harder to
do than simply using the controls on the amplifier.

I suspect that with the same type of cable on both speakers
in a more or less normal setup, any listener, upon careful
listening, would hear a difference between them.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Oct 1, 9:13 am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> By the way, it is possible for a given amp and speaker cable to interact
> /pathologically/. I've seen and heard this.

Yes, but only if the wire is incompetent. Such as those flat cables
with parallel conductors, which increases capacitance substantially
compared to heavy gauge zip cord. So coupled with an incompetent power
amp, the amp might oscillate or affect the sound.

--Ethan

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, > wrote:
>On 2010-10-01 (ScottDorsey) said:
> >Sit down and do the numbers. Skin effect issues are hardly even
> >measurable in the audio range. They are not a significant issue
> >and they are another example of audiophiles pulling things out of a
> >hat to try and explain things without doing the actual math to see
> >what significance the effect does.
>
>RIght, skin effect is relevant at rf, not at audio
>frequencies, but then the whole audiophool market is based
>on junk science.

Well, it _does_ get relevant at audio frequencies if the conductor diameter
is large enough. Once you start getting into conductors a few feet in
diameter, skin losses become significant even at 60 Hz. Which is why the
brushes on the generators at Niagra are honeycombed.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

>> If you have any question as to whether there's an audible
>> difference among wires/cables, put one kind on one channel,
>> another kind on the other channel, and play a mono program
>> source.

> Don't you think that the difference between one speaker and
> the other, both the hardware and their positions in the
> room, would overshadow a difference in the sound of the
> cable?

NO, I don't. If it did, then the cable's affect on the sound would have to
be considered negligibly minor. Furthermore, one could listen first with
identical cables simply to get a feeling for the "baseline".


> I suspect that with the same type of cable on both speakers
> in a more or less normal setup, any listener, upon careful
> listening, would hear a difference between them.

Suspect all you like. I've played mono recordings through the front channels
of my system, and the sound is almost perfectly centered.


You're pulling a "John Atkinson" -- arguing against the pre-sumed results of
an experiment, rather than actually /performing/ the experiment.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>> If you have any question as to whether there's an audible
>>> difference among wires/cables, put one kind on one channel,
>>> another kind on the other channel, and play a mono program
>>> source.
>
>> Don't you think that the difference between one speaker and
>> the other, both the hardware and their positions in the
>> room, would overshadow a difference in the sound of the
>> cable?
>
>NO, I don't. If it did, then the cable's affect on the sound would have to
>be considered negligibly minor. Furthermore, one could listen first with
>identical cables simply to get a feeling for the "baseline".

But the cable's effect on the sound _is_ comparatively minor. Especially
in a typical untreated room where small speaker position changes can make
significant sonic changes.

It's an interesting exercise and I have done it myself but if anything it
minimizes cable differences.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

On 2010-10-01 (ScottDorsey) said:
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
>> >Sit down and do the numbers. Skin effect issues are hardly
>>even >measurable in the audio range. They are not a
>>significant issue >and they are another example of audiophiles
>>pulling things out of a >hat to try and explain things without
>>doing the actual math to see >what significance the effect does.
>>RIght, skin effect is relevant at rf, not at audio
>>frequencies, but then the whole audiophool market is based
>>on junk science.
>Well, it _does_ get relevant at audio frequencies if the conductor
>diameter is large enough. Once you start getting into conductors a
>few feet in diameter, skin losses become significant even at 60 Hz.
>Which is why the brushes on the generators at Niagra are
>honeycombed. --scott
Granted, but how many folks are going to be using speaker
cables of diameters sufficient enough for skin effect to be
a real factor? Last time I really looked at the math and
other goodies re skin effect it didn't seem to me where the
average audiophile with his system in his listening room
would have to even consider it.






Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Mike Rivers]

On 10/1/2010 2:13 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Don't you think that the difference between one speaker and
>> the other, both the hardware and their positions in the
>> room, would overshadow a difference in the sound of the
>> cable?
>
> NO, I don't. If it did, then the cable's affect on the sound would have to
> be considered negligibly minor.

And you think the cable's effect on the sound is
significantly major? If so, then I'll say no more to you.

> Suspect all you like. I've played mono recordings through the front channels
> of my system, and the sound is almost perfectly centered.

That's the easy part. Can you listen to one channel only,
then the other channel, and say that they sound the same
from your listening position? I can't, but then I don't have
a precise listening room. I enjoy music for the music, not
for the sound.

> You're pulling a "John Atkinson" -- arguing against the pre-sumed results of
> an experiment, rather than actually /performing/ the experiment.

I don't know John Atkinson. I'm not arguing, I'm only
predicting results based on my own experience with my own
system, which I think is typical of what a common user might
have. It may not be a formal experiment, but I believe it's
a valid observation.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> Don't you think that the difference between one speaker
>>> and the other, both the hardware and their positions in the
>>> room, would overshadow a difference in the sound of the
>>> cable?

>> NO, I don't. If it did, then the cable's effect on the sound
>> would have to be considered negligibly minor.

> And you think the cable's effect on the sound is
> significantly major? If so, then I'll say no more to you.

Do you know what "functionally illiterate" means? It means that you can read
words, but don't understand what sentences mean.

I said nothing of the sort. Take a reading course.


>> Suspect all you like. I've played mono recordings through
>> the front channels of my system, and the sound is almost
>> perfectly centered.

> That's the easy part. Can you listen to one channel only,
> then the other channel, and say that they sound the same
> from your listening position? I can't, but then I don't have
> a precise listening room. I enjoy music for the music, not
> for the sound.

>> You're pulling a "John Atkinson" -- arguing against the pre-sumed
>> results of an experiment, rather than actually /performing/ the
>> experiment.

> I don't know John Atkinson. I'm not arguing, I'm only
> predicting results based on my own experience with my own
> system, which I think is typical of what a common user might
> have. It may not be a formal experiment, but I believe it's
> a valid observation.

John Atkinson is the high-IQ, well-educated, numbskull editor of
"Stereophile". I've never met anyone so intelligent who uses his
intelligence so poorly.

It's not even an observation at all. You are presumptively drawing
conclusions about an experiment you haven't even performed!

Do you know how indescribably irritating it is to have "discussions" with
people who are completely devoid of any degree of mental discipline?

To clarify a point... I don't care whether someone agrees with me. I do care
whether they think clearly. You don't.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ethan Winer" > wrote in message

> On Oct 1, 9:13 am, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:

>> By the way, it is possible for a given amp and speaker
>> cable to interact /pathologically/. I've seen and heard
>> this.

> Yes, but only if the wire is incompetent.

Right. And due to the *magic* of high end audio marketing, we have a number
of incompetent amps, speakers, and wire to frustrate some people.

> Such as those flat cables with parallel conductors, which increases
> capacitance substantially compared to heavy gauge zip
> cord.

Still shouldn't bother a competent amp, but back in the real world of high
end audio mystecism...

> So coupled with an incompetent power amp, the amp
> might oscillate or affect the sound.

Right. Furthermore there are some speakers that are incompetently designed,
and need very low inductance and/or very low resistance wire to have flat
response as they are often used.

[Arny Krueger]

"Anahata" > wrote in message
o.uk
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:09:12 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only
>> mechanical advantages. It obviously doesn't do anything
>> for skin effect, despite much audiophile lore.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire
>
> Seems to cover it quite convincingly. Prior to reading
> that, I hadn't appreciated that each strand in Litz wire
> is separately insulated. That's the key to making it work.
>
> "The weaving or twisting pattern of litz wire is designed
> so individual wires will reside for short intervals on
> the outside of cable and for short intervals on the
> inside of the cable. This allows the interior of the litz
> wire to contribute to the cable's conductivity."
>
> Of course it's all irrelevant to audio...

I would think that this would all average out over a practical length of
wire.

The usual technical solution to skin effect is to use a wire that is
actually a hollow tube of sorts. An example is the coax commonly used in
cable systems - an aluminum or steel core with a thin layer of copper or
even silver on the outside of it. Mechanically, its not a tube, but due to
skin effect, it works like one.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>> While pieces of both 10 gauge and 24 gauge speaker wire
>> will carry signals up into the many MHz range with some
>> amount of attenuation depending on the application, the
>> 10 gauge wire can possibly have audible losses due to
>> inductance and skin effect, while the 24 gauge wire can
>> have enough DC resistance and inductance to cause
>> audible losses. All you need to have audible losses is
>> the wrong length, the wrong physical configuration, and
>> the wrong speaker.
>
> Sit down and do the numbers.

Of course I have.

> Skin effect issues are
> hardly even measurable in the audio range.

They are clearly measurable, partially because we can now do some pretty
incredible measurements.

> They are not
> a significant issue and they are another example of
> audiophiles pulling things out of a hat to try and
> explain things without doing the actual math to see what
> significance the effect does.

Admittedly, it takes a really big wire (e.g. below 12 gauge) significant
cable lengths and low impedance speakers to have potentially audible
effects. But in the wild whacky world of high end audio - all things are
possible and many of them have actually seen the light of day, or at least
some stereo show some place.

>>> And of course Litz wire isn't simply individually
>>> insulated strands, but a special weave that brings each
>>> strand periodically to the outer surface of the bunch.
>>
>> Please educate me. Litz wire seems to have only
>> mechanical advantages. It obviously doesn't do anything
>> for skin effect, despite much audiophile lore.
>
> The whole point of litz wire is to reduce skin effect
> losses, by effectively reducing the diameter of each
> conductor. That is why it is used in TV set sweep
> circuit inductors and the like.

The modern equivalent of a CRT sweep circuit is the ubiquitous switchmode
power supply. Its been a dog's age since I saw one of those with litz wire
in it.

> Litz wiring is a very
> effective way to handle skin effect problems, but it is
> superfluous for speaker cabling because skin effect
> problems don't exist there. --scott

AFAIK litz wire is pretty much an historical artefact.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> Granted, but how many folks are going to be using speaker
> cables of diameters sufficient enough for skin effect to
> be > a real factor? Last time I really looked at the math and
> other goodies re skin effect it didn't seem to me where
> the> average audiophile with his system in his listening room
> would have to even consider it.

Haven't you seen the garden hose-like speaker cables at the high end shows.
Some of them are just insulation, but some actually use a lot of copper.

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Oct 2, 10:28 am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> John Atkinson is the high-IQ, well-educated, numbskull editor of
> "Stereophile". I've never met anyone so intelligent who uses his
> intelligence so poorly.

Wow, that's the best summation of JA I've ever seen. Bravo.

--Ethan

[[email protected]]

On 2010-10-02 said:
>> Granted, but how many folks are going to be using speaker
>> cables of diameters sufficient enough for skin effect to
>> be > a real factor? Last time I really looked at the math and
>> other goodies re skin effect it didn't seem to me where
>> the> average audiophile with his system in his listening room
>> would have to even consider it.
>Haven't you seen the garden hose-like speaker cables at the high
>end shows. Some of them are just insulation, but some actually use
>a lot of copper.

Okay, but where I see larger diameter speaker cabling is in
higher power apps, i.e. live sound. AS for the high end
shows, I don't bother. they have no real interest for me,
not even enough to pay the price of admission. So, when
larger diameter cables are required for the installation
some benefit might be derived, but for most folks ...

I've much more important things to agonize about with an
installation <grin>.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[William Sommerwerck]

> "The weaving or twisting pattern of litz wire is designed
> so individual wires will reside for short intervals on
> the outside of cable and for short intervals on the
> inside of the cable. This allows the interior of the litz
> wire to contribute to the cable's conductivity."

I just realized... This is wrong.

As the wires are insulated, it doesn't matter how they're woven -- at least
with regard to net conductivity. There might be other advantages, but
nothing obvious comes immediately to mind.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> "The weaving or twisting pattern of litz wire is designed
>> so individual wires will reside for short intervals on
>> the outside of cable and for short intervals on the
>> inside of the cable. This allows the interior of the litz
>> wire to contribute to the cable's conductivity."
>
>I just realized... This is wrong.
>
>As the wires are insulated, it doesn't matter how they're woven -- at least
>with regard to net conductivity. There might be other advantages, but
>nothing obvious comes immediately to mind.

It's actually not all that wrong. There is a good discussion in the
RCA Radiotron Handbook.

Open up a typical electronic fluorescent light ballast today and you will
find litz wire inside. It's useful stuff although there's a fairly limited
range of frequencies where it actually buys you anything.
--scott

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

[Les Cargill]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "The weaving or twisting pattern of litz wire is designed
>> so individual wires will reside for short intervals on
>> the outside of cable and for short intervals on the
>> inside of the cable. This allows the interior of the litz
>> wire to contribute to the cable's conductivity."
>
> I just realized... This is wrong.
>
> As the wires are insulated, it doesn't matter how they're woven -- at least
> with regard to net conductivity. There might be other advantages, but
> nothing obvious comes immediately to mind.
>
>


But the question is what is the frequency spectrum
of said conductivity? At audio, it don't matter.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers]

On 10/2/2010 10:28 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Do you know how indescribably irritating it is to have "discussions" with
> people who are completely devoid of any degree of mental discipline?

I enjoy it immensely. That's why I responded to you in the
first place.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson