WIRE = WIRE !!!

[Annika1980]

And don't you ****in forget it!

[Robert Morein]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> And don't you ****in forget it!
>
I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio Shack Gold
were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a quick
switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is an open
twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like Kapton.
The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were much
brighter than the coax.

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin effect.

Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable cables
have similar characteristics?

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "Annika1980" > wrote in message
>
oups.com...
> > And don't you ****in forget it!
> >
> I have never been interested in cables. I've always
figured Radio Shack Gold
> were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
recently did a quick
> switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
(which?) is an open
> twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that
looks like Kapton.
> The other is a conventional coaxial construction.

> There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
wires were much
> brighter than the coax.

Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
system, Bob.

Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my bad
science, why aren't you doing some scientific measurements
of your own to get some technical understanding of what's
going on here?

> I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin effect.

Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
done at a relatively low cost.

> Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
reasonable cables
> have similar characteristics?

Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is a
simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
Science for you, Bob?

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> message ...
>>
>> "Annika1980" > wrote in message
>>
> oups.com...
>> > And don't you ****in forget it!
>> >
>> I have never been interested in cables. I've always
> figured Radio Shack Gold
>> were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
> recently did a quick
>> switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
> (which?) is an open
>> twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that
> looks like Kapton.
>> The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
>
>> There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
> wires were much
>> brighter than the coax.
>
> Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
> system, Bob.
>
> Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my bad
> science, why aren't you doing some scientific measurements
> of your own to get some technical understanding of what's
> going on here?
>
>> I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
> reduced skin effect.
>
> Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
> done at a relatively low cost.
>
>> Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
> reasonable cables
>> have similar characteristics?
>
> Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is a
> simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
> Science for you, Bob?
>

Is controlling your anger and hatred too much high science for you, Arny? I
hope the wife, and any pets, have left the house...

:-(

Margaret

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B." > wrote
in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote
in
> > message ...
> >>
> >> "Annika1980" > wrote in message
> >>
> >
oups.com...
> >> > And don't you ****in forget it!
> >> >
> >> I have never been interested in cables. I've always
> > figured Radio Shack Gold
> >> were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
> > recently did a quick
> >> switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
> > (which?) is an open
> >> twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something
that
> > looks like Kapton.
> >> The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
> >
> >> There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
> > wires were much
> >> brighter than the coax.
> >
> > Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
> > system, Bob.
> >
> > Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my
bad
> > science, why aren't you doing some scientific
measurements
> > of your own to get some technical understanding of
what's
> > going on here?
> >
> >> I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
> > reduced skin effect.
> >
> > Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
> > done at a relatively low cost.
> >
> >> Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
> > reasonable cables
> >> have similar characteristics?
> >
> > Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is
a
> > simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
> > Science for you, Bob?
> >
>
> Is controlling your anger and hatred too much high science
for you, Arny? I
> hope the wife, and any pets, have left the house...

What anger and hatred, Maggie?

The anger and hatred that causes you to jump in with
technical-content free posts like this last one of yours?

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> message ...
> >
> > "Annika1980" > wrote in message
> >
> oups.com...
> > > And don't you ****in forget it!
> > >
> > I have never been interested in cables. I've always
> figured Radio Shack Gold
> > were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
> recently did a quick
> > switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
> (which?) is an open
> > twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that
> looks like Kapton.
> > The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
>
> > There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
> wires were much
> > brighter than the coax.
>
> Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
> system, Bob.
>
> Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my bad
> science, why aren't you doing some scientific measurements
> of your own to get some technical understanding of what's
> going on here?
>
> > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
> reduced skin effect.
>
> Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
> done at a relatively low cost.
>
> > Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
> reasonable cables
> > have similar characteristics?
>
> Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is a
> simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
> Science for you, Bob?
>
Notice the nastiness. I'm so glad my system doesn't sound like that.

[Margaret von B.]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
>> message ...
>> >
>> > "Annika1980" > wrote in message
>> >
>> oups.com...
>> > > And don't you ****in forget it!
>> > >
>> > I have never been interested in cables. I've always
>> figured Radio Shack Gold
>> > were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
>> recently did a quick
>> > switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
>> (which?) is an open
>> > twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that
>> looks like Kapton.
>> > The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
>>
>> > There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
>> wires were much
>> > brighter than the coax.
>>
>> Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
>> system, Bob.
>>
>> Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my bad
>> science, why aren't you doing some scientific measurements
>> of your own to get some technical understanding of what's
>> going on here?
>>
>> > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
>> reduced skin effect.
>>
>> Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
>> done at a relatively low cost.
>>
>> > Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
>> reasonable cables
>> > have similar characteristics?
>>
>> Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is a
>> simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
>> Science for you, Bob?
>>
> Notice the nastiness. I'm so glad my system doesn't sound like that.
>
>

I'm sure it was not personal, Bob. He seemed to indicate that he was having
another breakout. We should all feel sorry and pray for him. Let God
continue to punish him. :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[George Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > Science for you, Bob?

> Notice the nastiness. I'm so glad my system doesn't sound like that.

Quite so. As you yourself have observed, what Arnii wallows in is a very bad
substitute for science. Like everything else related to Turdborg, his Borgma is
redolent of feces. I heard that a big part of the Hivie induction rituals is
eating a big **** sandwich. Not a big deal for the Krooborg, who routinely
indulges his coprophilia, but quite an obstacle for the young "trainees" ;-) he
recruits from Sunday school.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Annika1980" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> And don't you ****in forget it!
>>
> I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio Shack
> Gold
> were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a quick
> switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is an open
> twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like
> Kapton.
> The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
>
> There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were much
> brighter than the coax.
>
> I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin effect.
>
> Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable cables
> have similar characteristics?

**I still use some of the cables from these guys:

http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp

when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably priced and
very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests and am
satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In some
instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver, or
silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their cost is
in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Robert Morein]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Annika1980" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> And don't you ****in forget it!
> >>
> > I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio Shack
> > Gold
> > were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a quick
> > switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is an
open
> > twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like
> > Kapton.
> > The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
> >
> > There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were much
> > brighter than the coax.
> >
> > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.
> >
> > Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
cables
> > have similar characteristics?
>
> **I still use some of the cables from these guys:
>
> http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp
>
> when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably priced
and
> very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests and am
> satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In some
> instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver, or
> silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their cost
is
> in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
> soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
For theoretical reasons, copper seems a better choice.
The higher the conductivity of the material, the greater the skin effect.
Hence, silver would cause the greatest reduction in high frequency response,
rather contrary to what I'm after.

[[email protected]]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Annika1980" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> And don't you ****in forget it!
> >>
> > I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio
Shack
> > Gold
> > were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a
quick
> > switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is
an open
> > twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks
like
> > Kapton.
> > The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
> >
> > There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were
much
> > brighter than the coax.
> >
> > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.
> >
> > Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
cables
> > have similar characteristics?
>
> **I still use some of the cables from these guys:
>
> http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp
>
> when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably
priced and
> very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests
and am
> satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In
some
> instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver,
or
> silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their
cost is
> in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
> soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

Blind tests that showed a difference between cables? Blasphemy!



Scott Wheeler

[Jenn]

wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Annika1980" > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >> And don't you ****in forget it!
> > >>
> > > I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio
> Shack
> > > Gold
> > > were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a
> quick
> > > switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?)
is
> an open
> > > twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks
> like
> > > Kapton.
> > > The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
> > >
> > > There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were
> much
> > > brighter than the coax.
> > >
> > > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
> effect.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
reasonable
> cables
> > > have similar characteristics?
> >
> > **I still use some of the cables from these guys:
> >
> > http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp
> >
> > when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably
> priced and
> > very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests
> and am
> > satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables.
In
> some
> > instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the
silver,
> or
> > silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what
their
> cost is
> > in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
> > soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Trevor Wilson
> > www.rageaudio.com.au
>
> Blind tests that showed a difference between cables? Blasphemy!
>
>
>
> Scott Wheeler

He must have SEEN the cables, thereby voiding the test! <eg>
Hi Scott!

[Trevor Wilson]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Annika1980" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >> And don't you ****in forget it!
>> >>
>> > I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio Shack
>> > Gold
>> > were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a quick
>> > switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is an
> open
>> > twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like
>> > Kapton.
>> > The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
>> >
>> > There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were much
>> > brighter than the coax.
>> >
>> > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
> effect.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
> cables
>> > have similar characteristics?
>>
>> **I still use some of the cables from these guys:
>>
>> http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp
>>
>> when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably priced
> and
>> very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests and am
>> satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In some
>> instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver, or
>> silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their cost
> is
>> in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
>> soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>
> For theoretical reasons, copper seems a better choice.
> The higher the conductivity of the material, the greater the skin effect.
> Hence, silver would cause the greatest reduction in high frequency
> response,
> rather contrary to what I'm after.

**I don't think skin effect is a problem in your application. I don't know
why, but silver is my preference. Nonetheless, copper Apature cables are
worth a listen.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> He must have SEEN the cables, thereby voiding the test! <eg>
> Hi Scott!

**"He" did not do the listening.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Robert Morein]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Annika1980" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> >> And don't you ****in forget it!
> >> >>
> >> > I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio
Shack
> >> > Gold
> >> > were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a
quick
> >> > switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is an
> > open
> >> > twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like
> >> > Kapton.
> >> > The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
> >> >
> >> > There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were
much
> >> > brighter than the coax.
> >> >
> >> > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
> > effect.
> >> >
> >> > Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
> > cables
> >> > have similar characteristics?
> >>
> >> **I still use some of the cables from these guys:
> >>
> >> http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp
> >>
> >> when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably
priced
> > and
> >> very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests and
am
> >> satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In
some
> >> instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver,
or
> >> silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their
cost
> > is
> >> in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
> >> soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Trevor Wilson
> >> www.rageaudio.com.au
> >>
> > For theoretical reasons, copper seems a better choice.
> > The higher the conductivity of the material, the greater the skin
effect.
> > Hence, silver would cause the greatest reduction in high frequency
> > response,
> > rather contrary to what I'm after.
>
> **I don't think skin effect is a problem in your application. I don't know
> why, but silver is my preference. Nonetheless, copper Apature cables are
> worth a listen.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
For a given diameter, conductors made of material with low bulk conductivity
have less skin effect than those made of high conductivity material. Thus it
is actually possible that conductive plastic cables would offer improvement.

As far as I am aware, there are only four reasonable possibilities for
signal cable differences:
1. inductance
2. capacitance
3. skin effect
4. dielectric memory

Of these, the first two can be compensated for by tone controls,
equalization, or the like, because they comprise a distributed linear filter
in the cable.
The last two, however, are nonlinear effects, which means that the
degradation they cause the signal, if any, cannot be reversed.

There is an elementary exercise every physics student does in adv.
undergraduate and again in graduate electrodynamics. It's a homework
problem, found in the chapter assignments: to compute epsilon, the depth of
the "skin", at various frequencies, for a particular bulk conductivity. The
answer is, it is very significant in the high treble (> 10 kHz region.)

Paradoxically, the lower the conductivity, the greater the skin depth. The
implication is that what one definitely does NOT want is a conductor with
very high conductivity, because it excludes AC.

The phenomenon of superconductivity is more interesting still. A
superconductor EXCLUDES all time-varying fields. This is a direct result of
the above skin effect calculation: epsilon goes to infinity. If one attempts
to impose a time varying field, with an arbitrary potential, the
superconductor quenches, ie., transitions to a state of normal conductivity.

[Robert Morein]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
[snip]
>
> Paradoxically, the lower the conductivity, the greater the skin depth. The
> implication is that what one definitely does NOT want is a conductor with
> very high conductivity, because it excludes AC.
>
Sorry, that should have been, "the smaller the skin depth."

[Trevor Wilson]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Annika1980" > wrote in message
>> >> > oups.com...
>> >> >> And don't you ****in forget it!
>> >> >>
>> >> > I have never been interested in cables. I've always figured Radio
> Shack
>> >> > Gold
>> >> > were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine recently did a
> quick
>> >> > switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands (which?) is
>> >> > an
>> > open
>> >> > twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that looks like
>> >> > Kapton.
>> >> > The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
>> >> >
>> >> > There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair wires were
> much
>> >> > brighter than the coax.
>> >> >
>> >> > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
>> > effect.
>> >> >
>> >> > Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
>> > cables
>> >> > have similar characteristics?
>> >>
>> >> **I still use some of the cables from these guys:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.apature.com/accusound_chart.asp
>> >>
>> >> when they were imported into Australia. They were very reasonably
> priced
>> > and
>> >> very good performers. I've performed a large number of blind tests and
> am
>> >> satisfied that they make a difference, compared to budget cables. In
> some
>> >> instances, clients do not like that difference. I suggest the silver,
> or
>> >> silver plated cables will suit your needs. I have no idea what their
> cost
>> > is
>> >> in the US. My only reservation was the construction quality of the
>> >> soldering. This may or may not be an issue in 2005.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Trevor Wilson
>> >> www.rageaudio.com.au
>> >>
>> > For theoretical reasons, copper seems a better choice.
>> > The higher the conductivity of the material, the greater the skin
> effect.
>> > Hence, silver would cause the greatest reduction in high frequency
>> > response,
>> > rather contrary to what I'm after.
>>
>> **I don't think skin effect is a problem in your application. I don't
>> know
>> why, but silver is my preference. Nonetheless, copper Apature cables are
>> worth a listen.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>
> For a given diameter, conductors made of material with low bulk
> conductivity
> have less skin effect than those made of high conductivity material. Thus
> it
> is actually possible that conductive plastic cables would offer
> improvement.
>
> As far as I am aware, there are only four reasonable possibilities for
> signal cable differences:
> 1. inductance
> 2. capacitance
> 3. skin effect
> 4. dielectric memory
>
> Of these, the first two can be compensated for by tone controls,
> equalization, or the like, because they comprise a distributed linear
> filter
> in the cable.
> The last two, however, are nonlinear effects, which means that the
> degradation they cause the signal, if any, cannot be reversed.
>
> There is an elementary exercise every physics student does in adv.
> undergraduate and again in graduate electrodynamics. It's a homework
> problem, found in the chapter assignments: to compute epsilon, the depth
> of
> the "skin", at various frequencies, for a particular bulk conductivity.
> The
> answer is, it is very significant in the high treble (> 10 kHz region.)

**I am aware of skin effect and the complex calculations required to
quantify the effect. However, there are a few things worth knowing:

* Skin depth at 20kHz is bloody close to 0.5mm. All conductors in the
Apature cables I use, are 1mm diameter.
* I still don't believe that skin effect has any relevance at the impedances
use in line level interconnects.

>
> Paradoxically, the lower the conductivity, the greater the skin depth. The
> implication is that what one definitely does NOT want is a conductor with
> very high conductivity, because it excludes AC.

**And again, with 1mm diamter conductors and audio frequencies, it is all
acedemic.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[[email protected]]

Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:

I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.

Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the frequency ranges
that audio cables operate in.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:

> I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin
> effect.

> Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the
frequency ranges
> that audio cables operate in.

Agreed.

Ironic, isn't it that Morein hoots and hollars so often
about how other people are "bad scientists"?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:
>
> I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
> effect.
>
> Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the frequency ranges
> that audio cables operate in.
>
I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.

Two aspects of the above statement are subject to dispute:
1. There is no trivial mathematical basis for it.
2. It may still be true, but there are no publications that support it. The
publications of Malcolm Hawksford go against the above statement.

If the poster wishes to claim point "1", the below serves as a refutation:

The skin depth is defined as the depth at which the conductivty is reduced
to 1/e from the surface value. e ~ 2.718

The formula varies depending upon the material. Assuming copper, the skin
depth sigma is given by sigma = 2.6*K1/sqrt(f).
At 10 kHz, the skin depth is .026 inches = .664 millimeters.

HOWEVER, the factor of note, 1/e, is an artifact of the equation that
determines skin depth. For audibility, it is more relevant to consider the
attentuation in dB, if the attenuated cross section were driving an ohmic
load.

The magnitude of the derivative (which is negative) of the conductivity
curve, is greatest at the boundary. The loss in conductivity of one factor
of 1.3, is approximately equal to 0.664mm/4 = .166mm at 10 kHz.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in
message ...
>
> > wrote in message
>
ups.com...
> > Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:
> >
> > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin
> > effect.
> >
> > Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the
frequency ranges
> > that audio cables operate in.
> >
> I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.
>
> Two aspects of the above statement are subject to dispute:
> 1. There is no trivial mathematical basis for it.
> 2. It may still be true, but there are no publications
that support it. The
> publications of Malcolm Hawksford go against the above
statement.
>
> If the poster wishes to claim point "1", the below serves
as a refutation:
>
> The skin depth is defined as the depth at which the
conductivty is reduced
> to 1/e from the surface value. e ~ 2.718
>
> The formula varies depending upon the material. Assuming
copper, the skin
> depth sigma is given by sigma = 2.6*K1/sqrt(f).
> At 10 kHz, the skin depth is .026 inches = .664
millimeters.
>
> HOWEVER, the factor of note, 1/e, is an artifact of the
equation that
> determines skin depth. For audibility, it is more relevant
to consider the
> attentuation in dB, if the attenuated cross section were
driving an ohmic
> load.
>
> The magnitude of the derivative (which is negative) of the
conductivity
> curve, is greatest at the boundary. The loss in
conductivity of one factor
> of 1.3, is approximately equal to 0.664mm/4 = .166mm at 10
kHz.

For a more lucid treatment, please see:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page2.html

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the frequency ranges
> > that audio cables operate in.
> >
> I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.

How do you know this new YACA isn't actually Bwian?

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> message ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> >
> ups.com...
> > > Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:
> > >
> > > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
> reduced skin
> > > effect.
> > >
> > > Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the
> frequency ranges
> > > that audio cables operate in.
> > >
> > I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.
> >
> > Two aspects of the above statement are subject to dispute:
> > 1. There is no trivial mathematical basis for it.
> > 2. It may still be true, but there are no publications
> that support it. The
> > publications of Malcolm Hawksford go against the above
> statement.
> >
> > If the poster wishes to claim point "1", the below serves
> as a refutation:
> >
> > The skin depth is defined as the depth at which the
> conductivty is reduced
> > to 1/e from the surface value. e ~ 2.718
> >
> > The formula varies depending upon the material. Assuming
> copper, the skin
> > depth sigma is given by sigma = 2.6*K1/sqrt(f).
> > At 10 kHz, the skin depth is .026 inches = .664
> millimeters.
> >
> > HOWEVER, the factor of note, 1/e, is an artifact of the
> equation that
> > determines skin depth. For audibility, it is more relevant
> to consider the
> > attentuation in dB, if the attenuated cross section were
> driving an ohmic
> > load.
> >
> > The magnitude of the derivative (which is negative) of the
> conductivity
> > curve, is greatest at the boundary. The loss in
> conductivity of one factor
> > of 1.3, is approximately equal to 0.664mm/4 = .166mm at 10
> kHz.
>
> For a more lucid treatment, please see:
>
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page2.html
>
And Dr. Malcolm Hawksford takes the opposite point of view.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the frequency ranges
> > > that audio cables operate in.
> > >
> > I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.
>
> How do you know this new YACA isn't actually Bwian?
>
George,
One can never be sure. However, as a fellow literati, you are probably
more conscious of literary style than anyone here, save one person who, I
think, would prefer to remain unnamed.
The style of the post is not Bwian's. Although a reasonably versatile
mind might be expected to have the capability to emulate a variety of
styles, Bwian has never shown that ability. Several of us have communicated
with his sockpuppets, and, indeed, they have been the subject of lunchtime
discussion by law enforcement. As far as we know (note disclaimer), Brian
has never exhibited the ability to transparently emulate the style of
others. In the past several weeks, he has appeared on this group in several
guises, but I haven't bothered to point it out.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote
in
> > message ...
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > >
> >
ups.com...
> > > > Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:
> > > >
> > > > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
> > reduced skin
> > > > effect.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the
> > frequency ranges
> > > > that audio cables operate in.
> > > >
> > > I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.
> > >
> > > Two aspects of the above statement are subject to
dispute:
> > > 1. There is no trivial mathematical basis for it.
> > > 2. It may still be true, but there are no publications
> > that support it. The
> > > publications of Malcolm Hawksford go against the above
> > statement.
> > >
> > > If the poster wishes to claim point "1", the below
serves
> > as a refutation:
> > >
> > > The skin depth is defined as the depth at which the
> > conductivty is reduced
> > > to 1/e from the surface value. e ~ 2.718
> > >
> > > The formula varies depending upon the material.
Assuming
> > copper, the skin
> > > depth sigma is given by sigma = 2.6*K1/sqrt(f).
> > > At 10 kHz, the skin depth is .026 inches = .664
> > millimeters.
> > >
> > > HOWEVER, the factor of note, 1/e, is an artifact of
the
> > equation that
> > > determines skin depth. For audibility, it is more
relevant
> > to consider the
> > > attentuation in dB, if the attenuated cross section
were
> > driving an ohmic
> > > load.
> > >
> > > The magnitude of the derivative (which is negative) of
the
> > conductivity
> > > curve, is greatest at the boundary. The loss in
> > conductivity of one factor
> > > of 1.3, is approximately equal to 0.664mm/4 = .166mm
at 10
> > kHz.
> >
> > For a more lucid treatment, please see:
> >
>
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page2.html
> >
> And Dr. Malcolm Hawksford takes the opposite point of
view.

Here are the corrections to Hawksford's errors:

http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/silversmithaudiocables2.php

which references:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=cables&n=63636&highlight=malcolm+hawksford
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=cables&n=63801&highlight=hawksford
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=1373&highlight=hawksford

and adds:

"The Hawksford analysis, as printed in the Essex Echo,
neglects to include the storage of energy within the
conductor...the 15 nHenry per foot number with copper. This
is a result of the treatment of the wires as conductors
whose voltage and current arise as a consequence of external
fields. This is not the case for current carrying
conductors. In addition, Hawksford neglected to test
various guages of copper wire conductors, instead,
substituted a steel conductor with a mu of approximately
100. Since the internal inductance is proportional to mu,
the actual inductance he did not accout for was 1.5
microhenries per foot per wire, or 3 microhenries for the
pair. On the assumption he used a meter of wire, that is
about 10 microhenries unaccounted for in his simulation, and
hence, the inductive overshoot in his test. Clearly, had he
modelled this inductance, with the loop resistance of his
wire, he would have found that the wire matches the formula
for inductance provided us by Termen in 1947."

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the frequency
ranges
> > > that audio cables operate in.
> > >
> > I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.
>
> How do you know this new YACA isn't actually Bwian?
>
>
Or Doug Haugen. ;-)

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> message ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Robert Morein" > wrote
> in
>> > message ...
>> > >
>> > > > wrote in message
>> > >
>> >
> ups.com...
>> > > > Robbert "bad scientist" Morein opined:
>> > > >
>> > > > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
>> > reduced skin
>> > > > effect.
>> > > >
>> > > > Mr. Morein: There is no audible skin effect in the
>> > frequency ranges
>> > > > that audio cables operate in.
>> > > >
>> > > I'm sorry, but your assertion is not well grounded.
>> > >
>> > > Two aspects of the above statement are subject to
> dispute:
>> > > 1. There is no trivial mathematical basis for it.
>> > > 2. It may still be true, but there are no publications
>> > that support it. The
>> > > publications of Malcolm Hawksford go against the above
>> > statement.
>> > >
>> > > If the poster wishes to claim point "1", the below
> serves
>> > as a refutation:
>> > >
>> > > The skin depth is defined as the depth at which the
>> > conductivty is reduced
>> > > to 1/e from the surface value. e ~ 2.718
>> > >
>> > > The formula varies depending upon the material.
> Assuming
>> > copper, the skin
>> > > depth sigma is given by sigma = 2.6*K1/sqrt(f).
>> > > At 10 kHz, the skin depth is .026 inches = .664
>> > millimeters.
>> > >
>> > > HOWEVER, the factor of note, 1/e, is an artifact of
> the
>> > equation that
>> > > determines skin depth. For audibility, it is more
> relevant
>> > to consider the
>> > > attentuation in dB, if the attenuated cross section
> were
>> > driving an ohmic
>> > > load.
>> > >
>> > > The magnitude of the derivative (which is negative) of
> the
>> > conductivity
>> > > curve, is greatest at the boundary. The loss in
>> > conductivity of one factor
>> > > of 1.3, is approximately equal to 0.664mm/4 = .166mm
> at 10
>> > kHz.
>> >
>> > For a more lucid treatment, please see:
>> >
>>
> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page2.html
>> >
>> And Dr. Malcolm Hawksford takes the opposite point of
> view.
>
> Here are the corrections to Hawksford's errors:
>
> http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/silversmithaudiocables2.php
>
The corrections are doubtful.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger said:

Agreed.

Ironic, isn't it that Morein hoots and hollars so often
about how other people are "bad scientists"?


Ironic does not really fit, this case, this seems much more a case of
outright ignorance.

So much of what he says is simply wrong, the fact that he is not aware
of how idiotic he is might be ironic, if weren't so pitiful.

Mostly, Morein seems to be so desparate for people to play with, that
he chooses this place and tries so hard to be one of the "Normals,"
shows how pitiful he is.

[mick]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:02:29 -0400, Robert Morein wrote:

<snip>
>
> I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin effect.
>
> Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable cables
> have similar characteristics?


Inductive & capacitive effect of speaker cable (in uncoiled, reasonable
lengths anyway) at audio frequencies is just about zero. You can measure
the stuff if you don't believe me. Skin effect is simply irrelevent. If
you were shoving 1000A through it and trying to keep the weight down then,
yeah, take it into account, but as the cable, speaker and amp output
impedences are all working together to keep the current well below this
and weight isn't a problem then just forget it. Leave it where it belongs
in the power distribution business.

The biggest differences (if any!) in speaker cables are found during
sighted or badly-conducted comparisons. What does this tell you? I
speculate that your cable comparison is null & void if you can hear any
difference - or you broke something. The resistance of the connections
will be lower when you connect a newly-stripped length of cable but that
is a difference in *connection resistance* that you hear - not in cable.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[George M. Middius]

Bwian said:

> desparate

Doesn't Bwian have a history of misspelling this word?

[Robert Morein]

"mick" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:02:29 -0400, Robert Morein wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and reduced skin
effect.
> >
> > Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any reasonable
cables
> > have similar characteristics?
>
>
> Inductive & capacitive effect of speaker cable (in uncoiled, reasonable
> lengths anyway) at audio frequencies is just about zero.

Mick,
What is the skin depth for copper, at 10 kHz ?
What is the depth for the current density to drop by a factor of 0.7?

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "mick" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:02:29 -0400, Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
reduced skin
> effect.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do
any reasonable
> cables
> > > have similar characteristics?
> >
> >
> > Inductive & capacitive effect of speaker cable (in
uncoiled, reasonable
> > lengths anyway) at audio frequencies is just about zero.
>
> Mick,
> What is the skin depth for copper, at 10 kHz ?

Depends who you believe - a number of qualified independent
sources, or an old-timer who was obviously working out of
his element.

> What is the depth for the current density to drop by a
factor of 0.7?

Wrong question. The right question is: "Where is the science
and reliable listening tests that show that skin effect is a
significant problem".

[Tim Martin]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

agreed with the comment "There is no audible skin effect in the frequency
ranges that audio cables operate in."

As a matter of interest, what would be the effect of using TV aerail co-ax
for line-level audio connections for distances up to say 50 metres?

The cable is widely available, cheap, well-screened, and has a solid
conductor. It works well at high frequencies, but what about the 20-20kHz
range?

Tim

[Surf]

dick Malesweski wrote:

> ;-)

There's that big red nose winky again.
Do you ever plan to quit drinking?

How come you got so ****ed off the other night, dick?
Is it because we've got it all wrong? You're ****ed because
everyone thinks you're Richard Malesweski, the failure internet
bicycle mechanic, when you're really a successful businessman?
Is it because I posted a link to RM's wanky website and a pic
of RM ( "some guy" wink, wink) getting an award, when you
don't have a big red nose and scrawny ponytail?
Is it because I've been sending all those emails that you
can't answer?

Why all the hostility Richard? Why so ****ed off when we're
ridiculing SOMEONE ELSE? All this misdirection should be
good for a cowardly dick like you.

So seriously, did you sell the little shack you inherited? Is
that what the "warm welcome" is all about? What'd you get
for it? How long will you be able to survive on the proceeds?
Where are you going now? Back to the NE? What's your
next scam?

George asked "where and when", dick. You never answered
the question.

[tubeguy]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> And don't you ****in forget it!

You'd think so. I had some PBJ and thought I would solder up my own braided
wire with some Rat Shack stuff. It sounded different. The highs were rolled
and the soundstage was flatter. The bass was more full, but not in a bad
way.

[tubeguy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> message ...
>>
>> "Annika1980" > wrote in message
>>
> oups.com...
>> > And don't you ****in forget it!
>> >
>> I have never been interested in cables. I've always
> figured Radio Shack Gold
>> were good enough for me. However, a friend of mine
> recently did a quick
>> switch of XLO and Tara RSC Decade. One of these brands
> (which?) is an open
>> twisted pair construction, encapsulated in something that
> looks like Kapton.
>> The other is a conventional coaxial construction.
>
>> There was an obvious difference. The open-twisted pair
> wires were much
>> brighter than the coax.
>
> Probably that means that they in some sense broke your
> system, Bob.
>
> Tell me Bob, why you love to parade accusations about my bad
> science, why aren't you doing some scientific measurements
> of your own to get some technical understanding of what's
> going on here?
>
>> I speculate this is due to both low capacitance, and
> reduced skin effect.
>
> Speculation is free, but relevant technical tests can be
> done at a relatively low cost.
>
>> Unfortunately, these were very expensive cables. Do any
> reasonable cables
>> have similar characteristics?
>
> Construction of home brew twisted-pair interconnects is a
> simple study in soldering. Or is soldering too much high
> Science for you, Bob?

Hey Arnie, howzit going?

Just my yearly chick-in here, nice to see that some things never change. I
made my own hookups and I like them better than my PBJs. More flexible, and
the highs are rolled a bit which to me is a Good Thing.

[mick]

On Sat, 21 May 2005 05:17:24 -0400, Robert Morein wrote:

<snip>
>
> Mick,
> What is the skin depth for copper, at 10 kHz ?
> What is the depth for the current density to drop by a factor of 0.7?


What I can't understand is why you are bothered. You, no doubt, are using
a good quality connector at each end (if not then you should be!). You are
interested in making contact with *all* the strands that make up the wire
if possible, as that will give the lowest overall resistance.

What happens to the current between the two end connectors is almost
immaterial providing you don't lose too much of it or push it through
something too non-linear. You can't control it anyway.

The only time it is of any consequence is when you are sizing a power
conductor for minimum losses and that is only really important in
distribution switchgear where it makes a hell of a difference in conductor
costs. We sometimes use copper-coated aluminium - Cuponal - for busbars as
most of the current flows in the copper skin and the weight and cost of
the bars is kept down. This stuff doesn't really start to pay for itself
until you get up to CSAs like 1.5sq in running at about 75% load.

Worrying about skin effect is a pointless exercise in speaker cable as I
pointed out previously - the inherrent loop resistance will swamp any
changes due to skin effect. Please, if you really want to mess with this
then do some *measurements* - not listening tests. You will find them far
more revealing.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[mick]

On Sat, 21 May 2005 13:36:41 +0000, Tim Martin wrote:

>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> agreed with the comment "There is no audible skin effect in the frequency
> ranges that audio cables operate in."
>
> As a matter of interest, what would be the effect of using TV aerail co-ax
> for line-level audio connections for distances up to say 50 metres?
>
> The cable is widely available, cheap, well-screened, and has a solid
> conductor. It works well at high frequencies, but what about the 20-20kHz
> range?
>

Dunno about your tv coax, but the cheap stuff isn't well screened at all.
It doesn't need to be at UHF, so manufacturers leave big holes in the
screen layer that would make a difference at AF.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[George M. Middius]

tubeguy said:

> Just my yearly chick-in here, nice to see that some things never change. I
> made my own hookups and I like them better than my PBJs. More flexible, and
> the highs are rolled a bit which to me is a Good Thing.

But wouldn't that be less [gasp!] ACCURATE? Horrors!

[tubeguy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> tubeguy said:
>
>> Just my yearly chick-in here, nice to see that some things never change.
>> I
>> made my own hookups and I like them better than my PBJs. More flexible,
>> and
>> the highs are rolled a bit which to me is a Good Thing.
>
> But wouldn't that be less [gasp!] ACCURATE? Horrors!

Yes, zounds. Not there's anything wrong with that. I just like the sound of
my cables better. Go figure. I have been always been quite neutral, but
braided regular Radio Shack copper sounds better to me. (when branded as
kimber does) Even on cheap systems. This was a few years ago. I have since
got some Grados and Bringers for reference. Simply pristene sound. But I
know there is something missing, and I also know that I will have the
hardware to extract this missing detail in the future. However I have good
enough ears to tell that I am hearing pretty good sound right now. Beringer
rocks in the area that they are in- nearfield monitors, and they play
wonderful music for me. bass, good spread, good response. I get the feeling
that I'm hearing everything, given my 30 years or4 so in listening to music.

Don't get me wrong!

I say that a lot, but it rings true. I know how stuff is supposed to sound.
This is like cooking. Getting the right temperature and ingredients all at
the right time. I know how making sound work can be a hassle. It's all about
what tit sounds like to you. Forgive me for belaboring a point that has been
bandied about ad-museum, but this is about how music sounds- to me and to
you. There's no middle ground- there is only how this tune sounds to you.
Make it good for you.

[Boon]

Wire may equal wire, but there's more to cable than wire, dumbass.

[Michael Conzo]

"tubeguy" > wrote:

> I just like the sound of
> my cables better. Go figure.


If your cables have a "sound", theyr'e dodgy and should be replaced.

[Schizoid Man]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> Wire may equal wire, but there's more to cable than wire, dumbass.

Don't waste your time, Boon.

The guy actually believes that every cable is bi-directional and that the
Tice clock does not result in the smoothing of electrons in your power grid.

[Trevor Wilson]

"mick" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 13:36:41 +0000, Tim Martin wrote:
>
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> agreed with the comment "There is no audible skin effect in the frequency
>> ranges that audio cables operate in."
>>
>> As a matter of interest, what would be the effect of using TV aerail
>> co-ax
>> for line-level audio connections for distances up to say 50 metres?
>>
>> The cable is widely available, cheap, well-screened, and has a solid
>> conductor. It works well at high frequencies, but what about the
>> 20-20kHz
>> range?
>>
>
> Dunno about your tv coax, but the cheap stuff isn't well screened at all.
> It doesn't need to be at UHF, so manufacturers leave big holes in the
> screen layer that would make a difference at AF.

**Wrong and wrong. Cheap stuff is usually well shielded (nowadays). The
standard (over here) uses a 100% aluminium shield, with a braided copper
wire overlay. The better quality stuff (still VERY inexpensive) uses two
layers of each. I pay AUS$0.365c/Metre for the cheap stuff and
AUS$0.60c/Metre for the good (US manufactured) stuff. Moreover, at audio
frequencies, the shielding via even twisted pair is OK, unless the signal
levels are very low (i.e.: phono), the impedances very high (i.e.: tube
sources) or the site very high in interference signals. I do certainly
acknowledge that it is good engineering practice to use a well shielded
cable in all situations, however. Additionally, there are a couple of
problems with using TV coax for audio:

* The centre conductor is usually copper plated steel
* Often the shielding is all aluminium and can be a PITA to solder to.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Robert Morein]

"Michael Conzo" > wrote in message
...
> "tubeguy" > wrote:
>
> > I just like the sound of
> > my cables better. Go figure.
>
>
> If your cables have a "sound", theyr'e dodgy and should be replaced.
>
"Michael Conzo", actually Brian L. McCarty is a pest on
rec.audio.marketplace, where he accuses innocent sellers of various
misdeeds.

McCarty is the owner of websites http://www.coralseastudios.com, and
http://www.worldjazz.com, both of which have used fraudulent advertising to
separate investors from their money.

McCarty is an American expatriate, originally from the Chicago area,
currently living in Cairns Australia, where he manages the Baskin-Robbins
ice cream franchise located at Shop G6, 59 The Esplanade
Cairns QLD 4870
07 4051 4034
McCarty lives in the Coral Sands apartment complex at 65 Vasey Esplanade,
Trinity beach, a bit north of metropolitan Cairns.

Baskin-Robbins Australia may be contacted at
.

[mick]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 04:00:07 +0000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

<snip>
>
> **Wrong and wrong. Cheap stuff is usually well shielded (nowadays). The
> standard (over here) uses a 100% aluminium shield, with a braided copper
> wire overlay. The better quality stuff (still VERY inexpensive) uses two
> layers of each. I pay AUS$0.365c/Metre for the cheap stuff and
> AUS$0.60c/Metre for the good (US manufactured) stuff. Moreover, at audio
> frequencies, the shielding via even twisted pair is OK, unless the signal
> levels are very low (i.e.: phono), the impedances very high (i.e.: tube
> sources) or the site very high in interference signals. I do certainly
> acknowledge that it is good engineering practice to use a well shielded
> cable in all situations, however. Additionally, there are a couple of
> problems with using TV coax for audio:
>
> * The centre conductor is usually copper plated steel
> * Often the shielding is all aluminium and can be a PITA to solder to.


Interesting... Your "cheap stuff" sounds a lot like our "satellite" cable,
with al foil screening. You'll rarely find that used for tv aerial
connections on this side of the globe. The screen, in most cases, is an
open weave (probably about 75% coverage) of rather fine copper (or some
sort of copper alloy). The inner can be either solid (usually used for
outdoor installations) or stranded (for indoor connections). Both screen
and inners solder well. Insulation can be solid, but is usually
semi-air-spaced - i.e. a cross-section of the insulation looks like 7
polythene rings arranged in a circle, touching each other, with the
conductor running down a solid bit in the centre. This coax is very
lightweight.

So, not wrong in the UK, but we are looking at different tv systems! :-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

[[email protected]]

Robert "bad scientist" Morein said: "The corrections are doubtful."




Actually, what's doubtful, is your understanding. You seem to have
many problems in that area, starting with college and on into your
stunted adulthood. Below is a tidbit I found on another group.


Originally posted by Dangerdave on rec.audio.tubes:

For very high frequencies, those where the AC impedance of a wire
becomes significantly higher than DC wire resistance due to skin
effect, the resulting "high frequency wire resistance" is given by
Terman's method:


R = 83.2 * (root (f)) x 10-9
______________
d


This form of the equation applies to cylindrical copper wire.


Where;


R = ohms/centimeter
d = wire diameter in mils
f= Hertz


When "high frequency wire resistance" rises to a value equivalent to
circuit input impedance, the response of the circuit will fall by -3dB
due to wire skin effect.


Therefore, it is useful to know at what frequencies wire skin effect
becomes important when employing hook-up wire in audio frequency
circuits. For some commonly used gauges of hook- up wire, I present
the frequencies where wire skin effect becomes important (-3dB point)
using Terman's method.


For 10cm lengths of copper wire the -3dB frequency is given by:


f=((Rin*d) / (10 * 83.2 * 10E-9)) quantity squared


Table 1
18 Gauge Copper Wire (40.3 mils diameter, 10cm length)


Circuit Input Impedance -3dB point due to wire skin effect
10 Ohm 234,619,140,625,000 Hz
1k Ohm 2,344,619,140,622,500,000 Hz


Table 2
22 Gauge Copper Wire (25.4 mils diameter, 10cm length)


Circuit Input Impedance -3dB point due to wire skin effect
10 Ohm 93,201,044,748,200 Hz


1k Ohm 932,010,447,482,000,000 Hz


Table 3
26 Gauge Copper Wire (16 mils diameter, 10cm length)


Circuit Input Impedance -3dB point due to wire skin effect
10 Ohm 36,982,248,520,800 Hz
1k Ohm 369,822,485,208,000,000 Hz


Table 4 0.13cm dia wire silver wire (5.1mils dia., 10cm length)


Circuit Impedance -3dB point due to wire skin effect
1k Ohm 3,757,4542,344,700,000 Hz


By simple inspection of results it is clear that skin effect plays no
role in audio frequency circuits interconnected with 10cm lengths of
hook-up wire. The frequencies involved, TRILLIONS of Hertz or more,
do not exist in audio circuits (except as noise). To put things in
perspective, the highest frequency humans can hear is 20 THOUSAND
Hertz.


For circuits of higher input impedance, skin effect becomes even less
important.


Interestingly, application of Terman's method demonstrates that tiny
gauge wire (Table 4) is about 100x worse for skin effect, as compared
to normal gauge hook-up wire. The reason is simple. Bigger wires
have a larger circumference. Skin effect crowds current to the edges
of the conductor. By Terman's method, when the circumference is
larger, there is more material conducting current. If you want to
reduce the impedance of hook-up wire in your audio frequency circuits,
choose a larger diameter.


Using silver makes no difference. With silver or copper, skin effect
play no role in audio frequency circuits interconnected with hook-up
wire.


An RF rule of thumb is that skin effect becomes important when the
wavelength approaches the diameter of the wire. I think it is a good
rule of thumb, however, some have taken issue because it may produce
results that are "many orders of magnitude" in error. Correction
noted. By application of Terman's method it is clear that the minimum
frequency for skin effect in audio circuits is not BILLIONS of Hertz,
it is, more precisely TRILLIONS of Hertz, or more.


Inductance, capacitance and resistance of hook-up wire is millions of
times more important than skin effect to the sound and electrical
response of audio circuits. To improve your audio circuit, use normal
gauge hook-up wire, and pay attention to routing and placement.


References:
Frederick Emmons Terman, Sc.D.
Professor Of Electrical Engineering
Executive Head, Electrical Engineering Department, Stanford University
Director, Radio Research Laboratory, Harvard University
President, Institute of Radio Engineers
Terman, Radio Engineers' Handbook, McGraw-Hill

In short Mr. Morein, you are wrong again. Skin effect is a problem at
radio frequencies, not audio frequencies.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bwian said:
>
> > desparate
>
> Doesn't Bwian have a history of misspelling this word?
>
On rec.audio.marketplace, the word has been misspelled 16 times,
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=desparate&as_eq=&as_ugroup=rec.audio.marketplace&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=22&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2005&safe=off

of which two were by Brian by name:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=desparate&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=Brian+L.+McCarty&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=22&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2005&safe=off

On rec.audio.opinion, the word has been misspelled 83 times by all authors,
so this occurence is not statistically significant. However, I do share your
suspicion that this post is by McCarty. There is a pattern in the text that
shows up in 30% of McCarty's posts. It is quite unique to him. However, I
prefer not to disclose exactly what the pattern is, publicly. George, you
may call me at (215) 646-4894, from a number I can call back to, and I'll
tell you exactly what it is.

Regards,
Bob Morein

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man said: The guy actually believes that every cable is
bi-directional and that the
Tice clock does not result in the smoothing of electrons in your power
grid.


The Tice Clock does what? Have you lost you mind?
The Tice Clock is on James RAndi's list of things you can win money for
being able to hear. IOW, it's snake oil, pure and simple.

[George M. Middius]

Robert "Paranoia is My Middle Name" Morein said:

> > > desparate

> > Doesn't Bwian have a history of misspelling this word?

[snip]
> On rec.audio.opinion, the word has been misspelled 83 times by all authors,
> so this occurence is not statistically significant. However, I do share your
> suspicion that this post is by McCarty. There is a pattern in the text that
> shows up in 30% of McCarty's posts. It is quite unique to him. However, I
> prefer not to disclose exactly what the pattern is, publicly. George, you
> may call me at (215) 646-4894, from a number I can call back to, and I'll
> tell you exactly what it is.

OK, just sit there waiting for my call. Or I might knock at your door, if
that's OK, and I might bring some friends. They might be wearing white suits
and they might have a special jacket for you to try on. OK?

[Schizoid Man]

> wrote in message

> Schizoid Man said: The guy actually believes that every cable is
> bi-directional and that the
> Tice clock does not result in the smoothing of electrons in your power
> grid.
>
>
> The Tice Clock does what? Have you lost you mind?
> The Tice Clock is on James RAndi's list of things you can win money for
> being able to hear. IOW, it's snake oil, pure and simple.

McKelvy, your inability to see my flagrant sarcasm notwithstanding:

1. Anyone who claims that plugging an alarm clock into the wall results in
the smoothing of electrons and overall improvement in the quality of sound
reproduction is illiterate.

2. Anyone who claims that wire (or as rocket scientist Boon says 'cable')
can be uni-directional, needs to take Electrical Engineering 101.

3. Anyone who claims that upsampling a PCM encoded redbook from 44kHZ to
192kHz needs to study Nyqvist's Frequency Theorem, write a paper and hope to
either get the Nobel prize in physics or themselves committed.

4. Anyone who claims that speakers with a frequency response of up to 35kHz
are great, because the supersonic 'interactions' improve the overall sound
needs to have their heads examined, and perhaps invest in a box of Q-tips.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert "Paranoia is My Middle Name" Morein said:
>
> > > > desparate
>
> > > Doesn't Bwian have a history of misspelling this word?
>
> [snip]
> > On rec.audio.opinion, the word has been misspelled 83 times by all
authors,
> > so this occurence is not statistically significant. However, I do share
your
> > suspicion that this post is by McCarty. There is a pattern in the text
that
> > shows up in 30% of McCarty's posts. It is quite unique to him. However,
I
> > prefer not to disclose exactly what the pattern is, publicly. George,
you
> > may call me at (215) 646-4894, from a number I can call back to, and
I'll
> > tell you exactly what it is.
>
> OK, just sit there waiting for my call. Or I might knock at your door, if
> that's OK, and I might bring some friends. They might be wearing white
suits
> and they might have a special jacket for you to try on. OK?
>
George, my phone is always open. I've never been bothered via phone, but
I've made many friends.
I do like to know who I'm talking to. In the past, Brian has set up VOIP
(voice-over-internet-protocol) accounts with various U.S. area codes.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > OK, just sit there waiting for my call. Or I might knock at your door, if
> > that's OK, and I might bring some friends. They might be wearing white suits
> > and they might have a special jacket for you to try on. OK?

> George, my phone is always open. I've never been bothered via phone, but
> I've made many friends.
> I do like to know who I'm talking to. In the past, Brian has set up VOIP
> (voice-over-internet-protocol) accounts with various U.S. area codes.

This Brian fellow must really dig you.

BTW, you're still destroying line breaks in your posts. Cheers!

[jeffc]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Is controlling your anger and hatred too much high science
> for you, Arny? I
>> hope the wife, and any pets, have left the house...
>
> What anger and hatred, Maggie?

Sorry, but it's obvious.

[Robert Morein]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
>
> > Schizoid Man said: The guy actually believes that every cable is
> > bi-directional and that the
> > Tice clock does not result in the smoothing of electrons in your power
> > grid.
> >
> >
> > The Tice Clock does what? Have you lost you mind?
> > The Tice Clock is on James RAndi's list of things you can win money for
> > being able to hear. IOW, it's snake oil, pure and simple.
>
> McKelvy, your inability to see my flagrant sarcasm notwithstanding:
>
I don't think you're talking to McKelvy. I think it's Bwian.

[Arny Krueger]

"jeffc" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Is controlling your anger and hatred too much high
science
> > for you, Arny? I
> >> hope the wife, and any pets, have left the house...
> >
> > What anger and hatred, Maggie?
>
> Sorry, but it's obvious.

It's true that Maggie's hatred for me is quite obvious.

"Her" comments about the wife and pets have to be
autobiographical.

[[email protected]]

Robert "no science" Morein said: I don't think you're talking to
McKelvy. I think it's Bwian.


Mr. Morein, the probelm for you is that you do not really think that
well.

NYOB= Not your on-line buddy.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > McKelvy, your inability to see my flagrant sarcasm notwithstanding:

> I don't think you're talking to McKelvy. I think it's Bwian.

It could be Sticky Dicky, too.

[George Middius]

IKYABWAIBorg does its thing.

> > > > Is controlling your anger and hatred too much high science
> > > > for you, Arny? I
> > > > hope the wife, and any pets, have left the house...

> > > What anger and hatred, Maggie?

> > Sorry, but it's obvious.

>"Her" comments about the wife and pets have to be
>autobiographical.

So it's your position that there's absolutely nothing wrong with you, and you're
perfect and wonderful and truthful and respectful of others? And no criticism of
you is ever justified by your own behavior, and every rotten thing you do or say
is excusable because somebody, somewhere, at some time, did or said something
similar to you?

Help us understand the Kroo's-eye view of the world, Arnii. Lord knows it's an
opaque subject for mere human beings.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message ...
> IKYABWAIBorg does its thing.
>
> > > > > Is controlling your anger and hatred too much high
science
> > > > > for you, Arny? I
> > > > > hope the wife, and any pets, have left the
house...
>
> > > > What anger and hatred, Maggie?
>
> > > Sorry, but it's obvious.
>
> >"Her" comments about the wife and pets have to be
> >autobiographical.
>
> So it's your position that there's absolutely nothing
wrong with you, and you're
> perfect and wonderful and truthful and respectful of
others?

One need not be perfect to maintain a relationship with a
wife and pets.

> And no criticism of
> you is ever justified by your own behavior, and every
rotten thing you do or say
> is excusable because somebody, somewhere, at some time,
did or said something
> similar to you?

Compared to you Middius, I'm pretty darn normal, to use a
well-chosen word.

> Help us understand the Kroo's-eye view of the world,
Arnii. Lord knows it's an
> opaque subject for mere human beings.

Inability to just properly spell a common name, noted.

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Middius" > wrote in
> message ...
>> IKYABWAIBorg does its thing.
>>
>> > > > > Is controlling your anger and hatred too much high
> science
>> > > > > for you, Arny? I
>> > > > > hope the wife, and any pets, have left the
> house...
>>
>> > > > What anger and hatred, Maggie?
>>
>> > > Sorry, but it's obvious.
>>
>> >"Her" comments about the wife and pets have to be
>> >autobiographical.
>>
>> So it's your position that there's absolutely nothing
> wrong with you, and you're
>> perfect and wonderful and truthful and respectful of
> others?
>
> One need not be perfect to maintain a relationship with a
> wife and pets.
>

When I volunteered to help families suffering from domestic abuse a couple
of years back, that very thought was one of the standard responses offered
by the perpetrators. Interesting...

>> And no criticism of
>> you is ever justified by your own behavior, and every
> rotten thing you do or say
>> is excusable because somebody, somewhere, at some time,
> did or said something
>> similar to you?
>
> Compared to you Middius, I'm pretty darn normal, to use a
> well-chosen word.
>

That perceived "normalcy" was also standard among the perpetrators. Every
perpetrator seemed to know someone who was a lot "worse". The plot
thickens...

>> Help us understand the Kroo's-eye view of the world,
> Arnii. Lord knows it's an
>> opaque subject for mere human beings.
>
> Inability to just properly spell a common name, noted.
>
>

You think George was erroneious?

Now don't get angry, Arnii. Go on the front lawn and hyperventilate little.


Cheers,

Margaret

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B." > wrote
in message
.. .
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Middius" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> IKYABWAIBorg does its thing.
> >>
> >> > > > > Is controlling your anger and hatred too much
high
> > science
> >> > > > > for you, Arny? I
> >> > > > > hope the wife, and any pets, have left the
> > house...
> >>
> >> > > > What anger and hatred, Maggie?
> >>
> >> > > Sorry, but it's obvious.
> >>
> >> >"Her" comments about the wife and pets have to be
> >> >autobiographical.
> >>
> >> So it's your position that there's absolutely nothing
> > wrong with you, and you're
> >> perfect and wonderful and truthful and respectful of
> > others?
> >
> > One need not be perfect to maintain a relationship with
a
> > wife and pets.

> When I volunteered to help families suffering from
domestic abuse a couple
> of years back, that very thought was one of the standard
responses offered
> by the perpetrators. Interesting...

So Maggie, you're saying that everybody who observes this
well-known fact is automatically a convicted spouse *and*
pet abuser? Which part of outer space do live in, eh?

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." >
wrote
> in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...


> > > One need not be perfect to maintain a relationship
with a
> > > wife and pets.
>
> > When I volunteered to help families suffering from
domestic abuse a couple
> > of years back,

No doubt under the orders of some court...

>> that very thought was one of the standard responses
offered by the perpetrators. Interesting...

> So Maggie, you're saying that everybody who observes this
> well-known fact is automatically a convicted spouse *and*
> pet abuser? Which part of outer space do live in, eh?

One other thing Maggie - is being a transvestite considered
to be spouse abuse? Or, didn't the judge know about you?

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote
> in message
> .. .
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "George Middius" > wrote in
>> > message ...
>> >> IKYABWAIBorg does its thing.
>> >>
>> >> > > > > Is controlling your anger and hatred too much
> high
>> > science
>> >> > > > > for you, Arny? I
>> >> > > > > hope the wife, and any pets, have left the
>> > house...
>> >>
>> >> > > > What anger and hatred, Maggie?
>> >>
>> >> > > Sorry, but it's obvious.
>> >>
>> >> >"Her" comments about the wife and pets have to be
>> >> >autobiographical.
>> >>
>> >> So it's your position that there's absolutely nothing
>> > wrong with you, and you're
>> >> perfect and wonderful and truthful and respectful of
>> > others?
>> >
>> > One need not be perfect to maintain a relationship with
> a
>> > wife and pets.
>
>> When I volunteered to help families suffering from
> domestic abuse a couple
>> of years back, that very thought was one of the standard
> responses offered
>> by the perpetrators. Interesting...
>
> So Maggie, you're saying that everybody who observes this
> well-known fact is automatically a convicted spouse *and*
> pet abuser? Which part of outer space do live in, eh?
>
>

Arnii,

It looks like you did not take my advice and go outside.

"everybody who observes this well-known fact is automatically a
convicted spouse *and*
pet abuser?"

The above makes absolutely no sense. But then again, enraged people seldom
do. Go outside now, Arnyi!


Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Margaret von B." >
> wrote
>> in message
>> .. .
>> >
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>
>
>> > > One need not be perfect to maintain a relationship
> with a
>> > > wife and pets.
>>
>> > When I volunteered to help families suffering from
> domestic abuse a couple
>> > of years back,
>
> No doubt under the orders of some court...
>
>>> that very thought was one of the standard responses
> offered by the perpetrators. Interesting...
>
>> So Maggie, you're saying that everybody who observes this
>> well-known fact is automatically a convicted spouse *and*
>> pet abuser? Which part of outer space do live in, eh?
>
> One other thing Maggie - is being a transvestite considered
> to be spouse abuse? Or, didn't the judge know about you?
>
>

Jeez, multiple responses to a single post. I guess that in your burning rage
you just had to hit the send button before your brain came up with an insult
or two. You simply lost control, Arny. It is interesting how single-minded
your insults always are - surely an indication that there's more than a
resemblance to Mr. Dahmer. Luckily there are shelters these days...

Get a grip and walk a around the block a dozen times, Arnii!

Margaret

[George Middius]

Margaret von B. said:

>>> Help us understand the Kroo's-eye view of the world, Arnii.
>>> Lord knows it's an opaque subject for mere human beings.

>> Inability to just properly spell a common name, noted.

Documented inability to stop being stupid universally observed by all not-insane
human beings. To know Krooger is to hate Krooger. Got feces on the brain, Arnii?
LOt"S! ;-)


>You think George was erroneious?

Lack of proof's noted, Mrs. Tit's.

>Now don't get angry, Arnii. Go on the front lawn and hyperventilate little.

That's where Arnii keeps the ****ing garbage, as you well know.

[Tim Martin]

Here's one article on building a gainclone

http://www.decdun.fsnet.co.uk/gainclone.html#gcintro

Has anyone here tried it?

Tim

[[email protected]]

The LM3875 looks like a decent power amp chip. Might find it in an AV
receiver at Circuit city. I'm surprised the devoted audiophile would
embrace it, fancy cabinet not withstanding.

Tim Brown

Tim Martin wrote:
> Here's one article on building a gainclone
>
> http://www.decdun.fsnet.co.uk/gainclone.html#gcintro
>
> Has anyone here tried it?
>
> Tim

[Trevor Wilson]

"Tim Martin" > wrote in message
...
> Here's one article on building a gainclone
>
> http://www.decdun.fsnet.co.uk/gainclone.html#gcintro
>
> Has anyone here tried it?

**Why bother? Gainclones just use the same output chips that cheap, mini
stereo systems use. They're OK, as far as it goes. However, they tend to
have poor current ability and don't really offer anything special.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

wrote:

> The LM3875 looks like a decent power amp chip. Might find
it in an AV
> receiver at Circuit city. I'm surprised the devoted
audiophile would
> embrace it, fancy cabinet not withstanding.

I'm under the impression that this chip family is based on a
chip that was originally designed for a US electronics
manufacturer, perhaps Bose.

[[email protected]]

The gainclone is cheap and easy to build, ideal for homebrew active
monitors, garage or **** pad systems, or what have you. I don't call
them serious audio but considering a good junkboxer can build a pair
for almost nothing they are handy to have around.

[tubeguy]

-
"Michael Conzo" > wrote in message
...
> "tubeguy" > wrote:
>
>> I just like the sound of
>> my cables better. Go figure.
>
>
> If your cables have a "sound", theyr'e dodgy and should be replaced.

All cables have a sound. the best have very little. Wake up.

[tubeguy]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>> Wire may equal wire, but there's more to cable than wire, dumbass.
>
> Don't waste your time, Boon.
>
> The guy actually believes that every cable is bi-directional and that the
> Tice clock does not result in the smoothing of electrons in your power
> grid.

Not what I said. Listen and learn.

[tubeguy]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
>
>> Schizoid Man said: The guy actually believes that every cable is
>> bi-directional and that the
>> Tice clock does not result in the smoothing of electrons in your power
>> grid.
>>
>>
>> The Tice Clock does what? Have you lost you mind?
>> The Tice Clock is on James RAndi's list of things you can win money for
>> being able to hear. IOW, it's snake oil, pure and simple.
>
> McKelvy, your inability to see my flagrant sarcasm notwithstanding:
>
> 1. Anyone who claims that plugging an alarm clock into the wall results in
> the smoothing of electrons and overall improvement in the quality of sound
> reproduction is illiterate.
>
> 2. Anyone who claims that wire (or as rocket scientist Boon says 'cable')
> can be uni-directional, needs to take Electrical Engineering 101.
>
> 3. Anyone who claims that upsampling a PCM encoded redbook from 44kHZ to
> 192kHz needs to study Nyqvist's Frequency Theorem, write a paper and hope
> to either get the Nobel prize in physics or themselves committed.
>
> 4. Anyone who claims that speakers with a frequency response of up to
> 35kHz are great, because the supersonic 'interactions' improve the overall
> sound needs to have their heads examined, and perhaps invest in a box of
> Q-tips.

Nyqist be damned. I know what I hear.

[tubeguy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Margaret von B." >
> wrote
>> in message
>> .. .
>> >
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>
>
>> > > One need not be perfect to maintain a relationship
> with a
>> > > wife and pets.
>>
>> > When I volunteered to help families suffering from
> domestic abuse a couple
>> > of years back,
>
> No doubt under the orders of some court...
>
>>> that very thought was one of the standard responses
> offered by the perpetrators. Interesting...
>
>> So Maggie, you're saying that everybody who observes this
>> well-known fact is automatically a convicted spouse *and*
>> pet abuser? Which part of outer space do live in, eh?
>
> One other thing Maggie - is being a transvestite considered
> to be spouse abuse? Or, didn't the judge know about you?

I don't know why you even bother. I'm listening to Metallica. And it is
good.

[Trevor Wilson]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> The gainclone is cheap and easy to build, ideal for homebrew active
> monitors, garage or **** pad systems, or what have you. I don't call
> them serious audio but considering a good junkboxer can build a pair
> for almost nothing they are handy to have around.

**Handy for what? Making noise? Amps which will do what Gainclones do are a
Dime a dozen. There is no need to even warm up the soldering iron.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Tim Martin]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > The gainclone is cheap and easy to build, ideal for homebrew active
> > monitors, garage or **** pad systems, or what have you. I don't call
> > them serious audio but considering a good junkboxer can build a pair
> > for almost nothing they are handy to have around.
>
> **Handy for what? Making noise? Amps which will do what Gainclones do are
a
> Dime a dozen. There is no need to even warm up the soldering iron.

Well, I've not built one ... my wife has the curious idea that we have
enough amplifiers already.

However, the LM3875 for example has an unusually high PSRR; I do wonder how
it achieves that. The only idea I came up with is that it's using current
feedback rather than voltage feedback. And if that were the case, its ouput
would be relatively unaffected by frequency-dependent speaker impedance
variation ... so you'd get a flatter frequency response from a single driver
powered by an LM3875 than from a typical high-end amplifier..

Listening results would then depend on the speakers used; on a high-end
speaker with complex crossover embedding impedance compensation, the LM3875
would sound worse than other amplifiers; but on a speaker with a simple
crossover, it would sound better.

This is all speculation of course.

Tim





..

[dizzy]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:25:03 GMT, "tubeguy" >
wrote:

>> If your cables have a "sound", theyr'e dodgy and should be replaced.
>
>All cables have a sound. the best have very little. Wake up.

Guffaw.

[severian]

"Tim Martin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > The gainclone is cheap and easy to build, ideal for homebrew active
> > > monitors, garage or **** pad systems, or what have you. I don't call
> > > them serious audio but considering a good junkboxer can build a pair
> > > for almost nothing they are handy to have around.
> >
> > **Handy for what? Making noise? Amps which will do what Gainclones do
are
> a
> > Dime a dozen. There is no need to even warm up the soldering iron.
>
> Well, I've not built one ... my wife has the curious idea that we have
> enough amplifiers already.

LOL! Your wife and mine must belong to the same club or society!

[Schizoid Man]

"tubeguy" > wrote in message

> Nyqist be damned.

I rest my case.