Joseph Delvey, Jr. wrote:
I find it regretable to find the participants of this newgroup to be
so closed minded. Except for Arny, whose suggestion was helpful, I
found little of value to the comments I received. Have any of you
listened to Omega Micro cables? Why are you so quick to dismiss
something about which you have had no direct experience.

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active
shield, in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of the
best systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the shield
from its power source which provided a DC bias to the them relative
to the foil conductors. The top octave dropped away, the dynamics
lost their range, and the soundstage narrowed considerably. I don't
claim to have golden ears, a fact I mention to underscore that the
difference I heard was obvious. I don't know exactly how an active
shield like this could have such an effect. Perhaps the explanations
from Omega Micro about their product do not make sense from an
engineering standpoint. Perhaps the shield isn't a "shield" in the
traditional sense at all. But what I heard is undeniable. I wish
all of you who criticized me for asking a question would have a
chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's house.

What your brain heard is certainly undenial. What actually ohysically
changed is highly debatable. There has been mega-siscussion and rigorous
tests which mostly seem to indicate most difference in these type of tests
are phsycological, or explainable as errors in methdology.

geoff

Joseph Delvey, Jr. wrote:
I find it regretable to find the participants of this newgroup to be
so closed minded. Except for Arny, whose suggestion was helpful, I
found little of value to the comments I received. Have any of you
listened to Omega Micro cables? Why are you so quick to dismiss
something about which you have had no direct experience.

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active
shield, in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of the
best systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the shield
from its power source which provided a DC bias to the them relative
to the foil conductors. The top octave dropped away, the dynamics
lost their range, and the soundstage narrowed considerably. I don't
claim to have golden ears, a fact I mention to underscore that the
difference I heard was obvious. I don't know exactly how an active
shield like this could have such an effect. Perhaps the explanations
from Omega Micro about their product do not make sense from an
engineering standpoint. Perhaps the shield isn't a "shield" in the
traditional sense at all. But what I heard is undeniable. I wish
all of you who criticized me for asking a question would have a
chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's house.

What your brain heard is certainly undenial. What actually ohysically
changed is highly debatable. There has been mega-siscussion and rigorous
tests which mostly seem to indicate most difference in these type of tests
are phsycological, or explainable as errors in methdology.

geoff

Joseph Delvey, Jr. wrote:
I find it regretable to find the participants of this newgroup to be
so closed minded. Except for Arny, whose suggestion was helpful, I
found little of value to the comments I received. Have any of you
listened to Omega Micro cables? Why are you so quick to dismiss
something about which you have had no direct experience.

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active
shield, in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of the
best systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the shield
from its power source which provided a DC bias to the them relative
to the foil conductors. The top octave dropped away, the dynamics
lost their range, and the soundstage narrowed considerably. I don't
claim to have golden ears, a fact I mention to underscore that the
difference I heard was obvious. I don't know exactly how an active
shield like this could have such an effect. Perhaps the explanations
from Omega Micro about their product do not make sense from an
engineering standpoint. Perhaps the shield isn't a "shield" in the
traditional sense at all. But what I heard is undeniable. I wish
all of you who criticized me for asking a question would have a
chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's house.

What your brain heard is certainly undenial. What actually ohysically
changed is highly debatable. There has been mega-siscussion and rigorous
tests which mostly seem to indicate most difference in these type of tests
are phsycological, or explainable as errors in methdology.

geoff

Ken B wrote:


I am an amateur radio operator and was operating Packet Radio on
145mhz. I transmitted at 25watts, the transmitting antenna was above
the room containing the stereo. With the pre-amp shut off, just
leaving the 100w/ch amp turned on I received a terrible max volume
buzzing sound whenever the packet station transmitted. I mean blast
you out of your chair loud, the amps analog meters were pegged high
with each burst of transmission. Yes the packet and antenna and
amplifier were properly grounded. In fact the 2 meter packet radio
was a mobile unit running off a 12 volt power supply. I switched
from the flat braided multi-wire speaker cables, these were many
approx 20ga wires, to shielded speaker wire with shields grounded at
the amplifier ground, and the problem disappeared. It seems the
packet radio signal which is audio transmitted on the 145mhz FM
carrier was traveling down the speaker cable into the amp, was then
amplified and blasted the speakers (KEF 104's). So in this case the
shielding worked.

Lead shielding , if think enough, can effectively sctreen against nuclear
radiation. But is that a reasonable listening scenario ?

geoff

Ken B wrote:


I am an amateur radio operator and was operating Packet Radio on
145mhz. I transmitted at 25watts, the transmitting antenna was above
the room containing the stereo. With the pre-amp shut off, just
leaving the 100w/ch amp turned on I received a terrible max volume
buzzing sound whenever the packet station transmitted. I mean blast
you out of your chair loud, the amps analog meters were pegged high
with each burst of transmission. Yes the packet and antenna and
amplifier were properly grounded. In fact the 2 meter packet radio
was a mobile unit running off a 12 volt power supply. I switched
from the flat braided multi-wire speaker cables, these were many
approx 20ga wires, to shielded speaker wire with shields grounded at
the amplifier ground, and the problem disappeared. It seems the
packet radio signal which is audio transmitted on the 145mhz FM
carrier was traveling down the speaker cable into the amp, was then
amplified and blasted the speakers (KEF 104's). So in this case the
shielding worked.

Lead shielding , if think enough, can effectively sctreen against nuclear
radiation. But is that a reasonable listening scenario ?

geoff

Ken B wrote:


I am an amateur radio operator and was operating Packet Radio on
145mhz. I transmitted at 25watts, the transmitting antenna was above
the room containing the stereo. With the pre-amp shut off, just
leaving the 100w/ch amp turned on I received a terrible max volume
buzzing sound whenever the packet station transmitted. I mean blast
you out of your chair loud, the amps analog meters were pegged high
with each burst of transmission. Yes the packet and antenna and
amplifier were properly grounded. In fact the 2 meter packet radio
was a mobile unit running off a 12 volt power supply. I switched
from the flat braided multi-wire speaker cables, these were many
approx 20ga wires, to shielded speaker wire with shields grounded at
the amplifier ground, and the problem disappeared. It seems the
packet radio signal which is audio transmitted on the 145mhz FM
carrier was traveling down the speaker cable into the amp, was then
amplified and blasted the speakers (KEF 104's). So in this case the
shielding worked.

Lead shielding , if think enough, can effectively sctreen against nuclear
radiation. But is that a reasonable listening scenario ?

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:
Ken B wrote:


I am an amateur radio operator and was operating Packet Radio on
145mhz. I transmitted at 25watts, the transmitting antenna was above
the room containing the stereo. With the pre-amp shut off, just
leaving the 100w/ch amp turned on I received a terrible max volume
buzzing sound whenever the packet station transmitted. I mean blast
you out of your chair loud, the amps analog meters were pegged high

If there was a guy with a pneumatic road hammer in your lounge, would the
best solution would be sheild him in 2 feet on conrete, or to ask him to
turn it off ?

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:
Ken B wrote:


I am an amateur radio operator and was operating Packet Radio on
145mhz. I transmitted at 25watts, the transmitting antenna was above
the room containing the stereo. With the pre-amp shut off, just
leaving the 100w/ch amp turned on I received a terrible max volume
buzzing sound whenever the packet station transmitted. I mean blast
you out of your chair loud, the amps analog meters were pegged high

If there was a guy with a pneumatic road hammer in your lounge, would the
best solution would be sheild him in 2 feet on conrete, or to ask him to
turn it off ?

geoff

Geoff Wood wrote:
Ken B wrote:


I am an amateur radio operator and was operating Packet Radio on
145mhz. I transmitted at 25watts, the transmitting antenna was above
the room containing the stereo. With the pre-amp shut off, just
leaving the 100w/ch amp turned on I received a terrible max volume
buzzing sound whenever the packet station transmitted. I mean blast
you out of your chair loud, the amps analog meters were pegged high

If there was a guy with a pneumatic road hammer in your lounge, would the
best solution would be sheild him in 2 feet on conrete, or to ask him to
turn it off ?

geoff

"Joseph Delvey, Jr." wrote in message

I find it regretable to find the participants of this newgroup to be
so closed minded. Except for Arny, whose suggestion was helpful, I
found little of value to the comments I received.

Thanks Arny for your help.

Ironically, I also agree with Murray, Don, and Geoff about the purported
benefits of magic speaker cables.

Have any of you listened to Omega Micro cables?

Ahh, the magic cable of this week.

Why are you so quick to dismiss
something about which you have had no direct experience.

Because I've done a lot of carefully-done listening tests involving so many
magic cables.

The human brain has the ability to convince itself that there are dramatic
audible differences, when in fact the ears are hearing a comparison between
two identical sounds. You can obtain many practical lessons relating to this
effect at www.pcabx.com .

"Joseph Delvey, Jr." wrote in message

I find it regretable to find the participants of this newgroup to be
so closed minded. Except for Arny, whose suggestion was helpful, I
found little of value to the comments I received.

Thanks Arny for your help.

Ironically, I also agree with Murray, Don, and Geoff about the purported
benefits of magic speaker cables.

Have any of you listened to Omega Micro cables?

Ahh, the magic cable of this week.

Why are you so quick to dismiss
something about which you have had no direct experience.

Because I've done a lot of carefully-done listening tests involving so many
magic cables.

The human brain has the ability to convince itself that there are dramatic
audible differences, when in fact the ears are hearing a comparison between
two identical sounds. You can obtain many practical lessons relating to this
effect at www.pcabx.com .

"Joseph Delvey, Jr." wrote in message

I find it regretable to find the participants of this newgroup to be
so closed minded. Except for Arny, whose suggestion was helpful, I
found little of value to the comments I received.

Thanks Arny for your help.

Ironically, I also agree with Murray, Don, and Geoff about the purported
benefits of magic speaker cables.

Have any of you listened to Omega Micro cables?

Ahh, the magic cable of this week.

Why are you so quick to dismiss
something about which you have had no direct experience.

Because I've done a lot of carefully-done listening tests involving so many
magic cables.

The human brain has the ability to convince itself that there are dramatic
audible differences, when in fact the ears are hearing a comparison between
two identical sounds. You can obtain many practical lessons relating to this
effect at www.pcabx.com .

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:22:43 GMT, Ken B
wrote:

I am an amateur radio operator and was operating Packet Radio on 145mhz.
I transmitted at 25watts, the transmitting antenna was above the room
containing the stereo. With the pre-amp shut off, just leaving the
100w/ch amp turned on I received a terrible max volume buzzing sound
whenever the packet station transmitted. I mean blast you out of your
chair loud, the amps analog meters were pegged high with each burst of
transmission. Yes the packet and antenna and amplifier were properly
grounded. In fact the 2 meter packet radio was a mobile unit running
off a 12 volt power supply. I switched from the flat braided multi-wire
speaker cables, these were many approx 20ga wires, to shielded speaker
wire with shields grounded at the amplifier ground, and the problem
disappeared. It seems the packet radio signal which is audio
transmitted on the 145mhz FM carrier was traveling down the speaker
cable into the amp, was then amplified and blasted the speakers (KEF
104's). So in this case the shielding worked.

Had ferrite rings (the ususl solution) failed?

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:22:43 GMT, Ken B
wrote:

I am an amateur radio operator and was operating Packet Radio on 145mhz.
I transmitted at 25watts, the transmitting antenna was above the room
containing the stereo. With the pre-amp shut off, just leaving the
100w/ch amp turned on I received a terrible max volume buzzing sound
whenever the packet station transmitted. I mean blast you out of your
chair loud, the amps analog meters were pegged high with each burst of
transmission. Yes the packet and antenna and amplifier were properly
grounded. In fact the 2 meter packet radio was a mobile unit running
off a 12 volt power supply. I switched from the flat braided multi-wire
speaker cables, these were many approx 20ga wires, to shielded speaker
wire with shields grounded at the amplifier ground, and the problem
disappeared. It seems the packet radio signal which is audio
transmitted on the 145mhz FM carrier was traveling down the speaker
cable into the amp, was then amplified and blasted the speakers (KEF
104's). So in this case the shielding worked.

Had ferrite rings (the ususl solution) failed?

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:22:43 GMT, Ken B
wrote:

I am an amateur radio operator and was operating Packet Radio on 145mhz.
I transmitted at 25watts, the transmitting antenna was above the room
containing the stereo. With the pre-amp shut off, just leaving the
100w/ch amp turned on I received a terrible max volume buzzing sound
whenever the packet station transmitted. I mean blast you out of your
chair loud, the amps analog meters were pegged high with each burst of
transmission. Yes the packet and antenna and amplifier were properly
grounded. In fact the 2 meter packet radio was a mobile unit running
off a 12 volt power supply. I switched from the flat braided multi-wire
speaker cables, these were many approx 20ga wires, to shielded speaker
wire with shields grounded at the amplifier ground, and the problem
disappeared. It seems the packet radio signal which is audio
transmitted on the 145mhz FM carrier was traveling down the speaker
cable into the amp, was then amplified and blasted the speakers (KEF
104's). So in this case the shielding worked.

Had ferrite rings (the ususl solution) failed?

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:12:45 -0400, "Joseph Delvey, Jr."
wrote:

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active shield,
in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of the best
systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the shield from its
power source which provided a DC bias to the them relative to the foil
conductors. The top octave dropped away, the dynamics lost their range,
and the soundstage narrowed considerably. I don't claim to have golden
ears, a fact I mention to underscore that the difference I heard was
obvious. I don't know exactly how an active shield like this could have
such an effect. Perhaps the explanations from Omega Micro about their
product do not make sense from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps the
shield isn't a "shield" in the traditional sense at all. But what I
heard is undeniable. I wish all of you who criticized me for asking a
question would have a chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's
house.

If you can reproduce this effect, there's a substantial cash prize
waiting for you on another newsgroup. I forget which - someone remind
me?

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:12:45 -0400, "Joseph Delvey, Jr."
wrote:

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active shield,
in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of the best
systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the shield from its
power source which provided a DC bias to the them relative to the foil
conductors. The top octave dropped away, the dynamics lost their range,
and the soundstage narrowed considerably. I don't claim to have golden
ears, a fact I mention to underscore that the difference I heard was
obvious. I don't know exactly how an active shield like this could have
such an effect. Perhaps the explanations from Omega Micro about their
product do not make sense from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps the
shield isn't a "shield" in the traditional sense at all. But what I
heard is undeniable. I wish all of you who criticized me for asking a
question would have a chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's
house.

If you can reproduce this effect, there's a substantial cash prize
waiting for you on another newsgroup. I forget which - someone remind
me?

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:12:45 -0400, "Joseph Delvey, Jr."
wrote:

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active shield,
in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of the best
systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the shield from its
power source which provided a DC bias to the them relative to the foil
conductors. The top octave dropped away, the dynamics lost their range,
and the soundstage narrowed considerably. I don't claim to have golden
ears, a fact I mention to underscore that the difference I heard was
obvious. I don't know exactly how an active shield like this could have
such an effect. Perhaps the explanations from Omega Micro about their
product do not make sense from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps the
shield isn't a "shield" in the traditional sense at all. But what I
heard is undeniable. I wish all of you who criticized me for asking a
question would have a chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's
house.

If you can reproduce this effect, there's a substantial cash prize
waiting for you on another newsgroup. I forget which - someone remind
me?

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:12:45 -0400, "Joseph Delvey, Jr."
wrote:

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active
shield, in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of
the best systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the
shield from its power source which provided a DC bias to the them
relative to the foil conductors. The top octave dropped away, the
dynamics lost their range, and the soundstage narrowed considerably.
I don't claim to have golden ears, a fact I mention to underscore
that the difference I heard was obvious. I don't know exactly how
an active shield like this could have such an effect. Perhaps the
explanations from Omega Micro about their product do not make sense
from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps the shield isn't a "shield"
in the traditional sense at all. But what I heard is undeniable. I
wish all of you who criticized me for asking a question would have a
chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's house.

It is truly amazing how experiences like this collapse when done under more
carefully controlled conditions.

There's not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing from
the shield on speaker cables would actually make "the top octave drop away".
It takes a lot of loss to audibly reduce the treble range. Speaker outputs
on power amps have very low impedances. The parallel capacitance between the
speaker wires and the shield is a relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

There's also not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing
from the shield on speaker cables would actually audibly change the dynamics
or sound stage, either. It takes a lot of loss to audibly change dynamics or
soundstaging. Speaker leads have very low series impedances. The series
impedance of speaker wires presents relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

Far more likely, there was not good time-matching between the musical
passages being compared. Therefore, absolutely identical sounds were not
compared. The comparison was no doubt done by means of wire-swapping, which
also introduces a significant time displacement into the listening tests.
This time delay actually dramatically decreases any possible sensitivity
that the test might have had.

Listening evaluations like this are so flawed that they can't even properly
be called tests. There was no fixed standard, and reference to a fixed
standard is part of the definition of the word "test" Professionals, and
others who have experience with properly-run listening tests joke about
naive consumers who base important buying decisions on silly games like
these.


If you can reproduce this effect, there's a substantial cash prize
waiting for you on another newsgroup. I forget which - someone remind
me?

rec.audio.pro is the newsgroup, and Stewart Pinkerton is the custodian of
the offer.

Anybody who wants to practice up on doing proper listening tests that are
bias-controlled, level-matched, and time-synched can do so by visiting
www.pcabx.com .

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:12:45 -0400, "Joseph Delvey, Jr."
wrote:

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active
shield, in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of
the best systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the
shield from its power source which provided a DC bias to the them
relative to the foil conductors. The top octave dropped away, the
dynamics lost their range, and the soundstage narrowed considerably.
I don't claim to have golden ears, a fact I mention to underscore
that the difference I heard was obvious. I don't know exactly how
an active shield like this could have such an effect. Perhaps the
explanations from Omega Micro about their product do not make sense
from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps the shield isn't a "shield"
in the traditional sense at all. But what I heard is undeniable. I
wish all of you who criticized me for asking a question would have a
chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's house.

It is truly amazing how experiences like this collapse when done under more
carefully controlled conditions.

There's not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing from
the shield on speaker cables would actually make "the top octave drop away".
It takes a lot of loss to audibly reduce the treble range. Speaker outputs
on power amps have very low impedances. The parallel capacitance between the
speaker wires and the shield is a relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

There's also not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing
from the shield on speaker cables would actually audibly change the dynamics
or sound stage, either. It takes a lot of loss to audibly change dynamics or
soundstaging. Speaker leads have very low series impedances. The series
impedance of speaker wires presents relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

Far more likely, there was not good time-matching between the musical
passages being compared. Therefore, absolutely identical sounds were not
compared. The comparison was no doubt done by means of wire-swapping, which
also introduces a significant time displacement into the listening tests.
This time delay actually dramatically decreases any possible sensitivity
that the test might have had.

Listening evaluations like this are so flawed that they can't even properly
be called tests. There was no fixed standard, and reference to a fixed
standard is part of the definition of the word "test" Professionals, and
others who have experience with properly-run listening tests joke about
naive consumers who base important buying decisions on silly games like
these.


If you can reproduce this effect, there's a substantial cash prize
waiting for you on another newsgroup. I forget which - someone remind
me?

rec.audio.pro is the newsgroup, and Stewart Pinkerton is the custodian of
the offer.

Anybody who wants to practice up on doing proper listening tests that are
bias-controlled, level-matched, and time-synched can do so by visiting
www.pcabx.com .

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:12:45 -0400, "Joseph Delvey, Jr."
wrote:

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active
shield, in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of
the best systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the
shield from its power source which provided a DC bias to the them
relative to the foil conductors. The top octave dropped away, the
dynamics lost their range, and the soundstage narrowed considerably.
I don't claim to have golden ears, a fact I mention to underscore
that the difference I heard was obvious. I don't know exactly how
an active shield like this could have such an effect. Perhaps the
explanations from Omega Micro about their product do not make sense
from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps the shield isn't a "shield"
in the traditional sense at all. But what I heard is undeniable. I
wish all of you who criticized me for asking a question would have a
chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's house.

It is truly amazing how experiences like this collapse when done under more
carefully controlled conditions.

There's not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing from
the shield on speaker cables would actually make "the top octave drop away".
It takes a lot of loss to audibly reduce the treble range. Speaker outputs
on power amps have very low impedances. The parallel capacitance between the
speaker wires and the shield is a relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

There's also not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing
from the shield on speaker cables would actually audibly change the dynamics
or sound stage, either. It takes a lot of loss to audibly change dynamics or
soundstaging. Speaker leads have very low series impedances. The series
impedance of speaker wires presents relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

Far more likely, there was not good time-matching between the musical
passages being compared. Therefore, absolutely identical sounds were not
compared. The comparison was no doubt done by means of wire-swapping, which
also introduces a significant time displacement into the listening tests.
This time delay actually dramatically decreases any possible sensitivity
that the test might have had.

Listening evaluations like this are so flawed that they can't even properly
be called tests. There was no fixed standard, and reference to a fixed
standard is part of the definition of the word "test" Professionals, and
others who have experience with properly-run listening tests joke about
naive consumers who base important buying decisions on silly games like
these.


If you can reproduce this effect, there's a substantial cash prize
waiting for you on another newsgroup. I forget which - someone remind
me?

rec.audio.pro is the newsgroup, and Stewart Pinkerton is the custodian of
the offer.

Anybody who wants to practice up on doing proper listening tests that are
bias-controlled, level-matched, and time-synched can do so by visiting
www.pcabx.com .

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:35:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:12:45 -0400, "Joseph Delvey, Jr."
wrote:

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active
shield, in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of
the best systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the
shield from its power source which provided a DC bias to the them
relative to the foil conductors. The top octave dropped away, the
dynamics lost their range, and the soundstage narrowed considerably.
I don't claim to have golden ears, a fact I mention to underscore
that the difference I heard was obvious.

It may have been obvious between your ears, but there was not a cat in
hell's chance of any thing having changed in the physical soundfield!

I don't know exactly how
an active shield like this could have such an effect.

It can't, so don't worry about it...........

Perhaps the
explanations from Omega Micro about their product do not make sense
from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps the shield isn't a "shield"
in the traditional sense at all. But what I heard is undeniable.

Sure it's deniable, since it quite simply had no physical existence.
See Arny's comments below.

I
wish all of you who criticized me for asking a question would have a
chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's house.

It is truly amazing how experiences like this collapse when done under more
carefully controlled conditions.

There's not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing from
the shield on speaker cables would actually make "the top octave drop away".
It takes a lot of loss to audibly reduce the treble range. Speaker outputs
on power amps have very low impedances. The parallel capacitance between the
speaker wires and the shield is a relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

There's also not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing
from the shield on speaker cables would actually audibly change the dynamics
or sound stage, either. It takes a lot of loss to audibly change dynamics or
soundstaging. Speaker leads have very low series impedances. The series
impedance of speaker wires presents relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

Far more likely, there was not good time-matching between the musical
passages being compared. Therefore, absolutely identical sounds were not
compared. The comparison was no doubt done by means of wire-swapping, which
also introduces a significant time displacement into the listening tests.
This time delay actually dramatically decreases any possible sensitivity
that the test might have had.

Listening evaluations like this are so flawed that they can't even properly
be called tests. There was no fixed standard, and reference to a fixed
standard is part of the definition of the word "test" Professionals, and
others who have experience with properly-run listening tests joke about
naive consumers who base important buying decisions on silly games like
these.


If you can reproduce this effect, there's a substantial cash prize
waiting for you on another newsgroup. I forget which - someone remind
me?

rec.audio.pro is the newsgroup, and Stewart Pinkerton is the custodian of
the offer.

It may have been cross-posted there, but the main pool started on
rec.audio.high-end, and I have a separate personal offer going on
uk.rec.audio. The amounts are about $5,000 for the main pool, and
£1,000 on my own account.

Otherwise, I entirely agree with your points, and it's clear which one
of the posters has the closed mind.........

Hmmmm, can a closed mind also be empty? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:35:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:12:45 -0400, "Joseph Delvey, Jr."
wrote:

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active
shield, in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of
the best systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the
shield from its power source which provided a DC bias to the them
relative to the foil conductors. The top octave dropped away, the
dynamics lost their range, and the soundstage narrowed considerably.
I don't claim to have golden ears, a fact I mention to underscore
that the difference I heard was obvious.

It may have been obvious between your ears, but there was not a cat in
hell's chance of any thing having changed in the physical soundfield!

I don't know exactly how
an active shield like this could have such an effect.

It can't, so don't worry about it...........

Perhaps the
explanations from Omega Micro about their product do not make sense
from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps the shield isn't a "shield"
in the traditional sense at all. But what I heard is undeniable.

Sure it's deniable, since it quite simply had no physical existence.
See Arny's comments below.

I
wish all of you who criticized me for asking a question would have a
chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's house.

It is truly amazing how experiences like this collapse when done under more
carefully controlled conditions.

There's not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing from
the shield on speaker cables would actually make "the top octave drop away".
It takes a lot of loss to audibly reduce the treble range. Speaker outputs
on power amps have very low impedances. The parallel capacitance between the
speaker wires and the shield is a relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

There's also not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing
from the shield on speaker cables would actually audibly change the dynamics
or sound stage, either. It takes a lot of loss to audibly change dynamics or
soundstaging. Speaker leads have very low series impedances. The series
impedance of speaker wires presents relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

Far more likely, there was not good time-matching between the musical
passages being compared. Therefore, absolutely identical sounds were not
compared. The comparison was no doubt done by means of wire-swapping, which
also introduces a significant time displacement into the listening tests.
This time delay actually dramatically decreases any possible sensitivity
that the test might have had.

Listening evaluations like this are so flawed that they can't even properly
be called tests. There was no fixed standard, and reference to a fixed
standard is part of the definition of the word "test" Professionals, and
others who have experience with properly-run listening tests joke about
naive consumers who base important buying decisions on silly games like
these.


If you can reproduce this effect, there's a substantial cash prize
waiting for you on another newsgroup. I forget which - someone remind
me?

rec.audio.pro is the newsgroup, and Stewart Pinkerton is the custodian of
the offer.

It may have been cross-posted there, but the main pool started on
rec.audio.high-end, and I have a separate personal offer going on
uk.rec.audio. The amounts are about $5,000 for the main pool, and
£1,000 on my own account.

Otherwise, I entirely agree with your points, and it's clear which one
of the posters has the closed mind.........

Hmmmm, can a closed mind also be empty? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:35:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:12:45 -0400, "Joseph Delvey, Jr."
wrote:

I had a chance to hear these cables, with and without the active
shield, in Lloyd Walker's home system, which by the way is one of
the best systems I've ever heard. I asked Lloyd to unplug the
shield from its power source which provided a DC bias to the them
relative to the foil conductors. The top octave dropped away, the
dynamics lost their range, and the soundstage narrowed considerably.
I don't claim to have golden ears, a fact I mention to underscore
that the difference I heard was obvious.

It may have been obvious between your ears, but there was not a cat in
hell's chance of any thing having changed in the physical soundfield!

I don't know exactly how
an active shield like this could have such an effect.

It can't, so don't worry about it...........

Perhaps the
explanations from Omega Micro about their product do not make sense
from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps the shield isn't a "shield"
in the traditional sense at all. But what I heard is undeniable.

Sure it's deniable, since it quite simply had no physical existence.
See Arny's comments below.

I
wish all of you who criticized me for asking a question would have a
chance to experience the demo I heard at Lloyd's house.

It is truly amazing how experiences like this collapse when done under more
carefully controlled conditions.

There's not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing from
the shield on speaker cables would actually make "the top octave drop away".
It takes a lot of loss to audibly reduce the treble range. Speaker outputs
on power amps have very low impedances. The parallel capacitance between the
speaker wires and the shield is a relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

There's also not a snowball's chance in San Diego that removing the biasing
from the shield on speaker cables would actually audibly change the dynamics
or sound stage, either. It takes a lot of loss to audibly change dynamics or
soundstaging. Speaker leads have very low series impedances. The series
impedance of speaker wires presents relatively small (even infinitesimal)
reactance in comparison to the load that the speaker presents.

Far more likely, there was not good time-matching between the musical
passages being compared. Therefore, absolutely identical sounds were not
compared. The comparison was no doubt done by means of wire-swapping, which
also introduces a significant time displacement into the listening tests.
This time delay actually dramatically decreases any possible sensitivity
that the test might have had.

Listening evaluations like this are so flawed that they can't even properly
be called tests. There was no fixed standard, and reference to a fixed
standard is part of the definition of the word "test" Professionals, and
others who have experience with properly-run listening tests joke about
naive consumers who base important buying decisions on silly games like
these.


If you can reproduce this effect, there's a substantial cash prize
waiting for you on another newsgroup. I forget which - someone remind
me?

rec.audio.pro is the newsgroup, and Stewart Pinkerton is the custodian of
the offer.

It may have been cross-posted there, but the main pool started on
rec.audio.high-end, and I have a separate personal offer going on
uk.rec.audio. The amounts are about $5,000 for the main pool, and
£1,000 on my own account.

Otherwise, I entirely agree with your points, and it's clear which one
of the posters has the closed mind.........

Hmmmm, can a closed mind also be empty? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Arny Krueger wrote:

snip

The human brain has the ability to convince itself that there are dramatic
audible differences, when in fact the ears are hearing a comparison between
two identical sounds. You can obtain many practical lessons relating to this
effect at www.pcabx.com .



In fact, the ability of the brain to delude itself seems to be directly
proportional to the money spent in the endeavor and magic cables are
grossly over priced.

Arny Krueger wrote:

snip

The human brain has the ability to convince itself that there are dramatic
audible differences, when in fact the ears are hearing a comparison between
two identical sounds. You can obtain many practical lessons relating to this
effect at www.pcabx.com .



In fact, the ability of the brain to delude itself seems to be directly
proportional to the money spent in the endeavor and magic cables are
grossly over priced.

Arny Krueger wrote:

snip

The human brain has the ability to convince itself that there are dramatic
audible differences, when in fact the ears are hearing a comparison between
two identical sounds. You can obtain many practical lessons relating to this
effect at www.pcabx.com .



In fact, the ability of the brain to delude itself seems to be directly
proportional to the money spent in the endeavor and magic cables are
grossly over priced.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

Sure it's deniable, since it quite simply had no physical existence.

I thought about this a bit last night -- a good way to produce an audible
effect is if the sheild was really a heavy guage conductor that was
connected in parallel with a small primary conductor. In other words, not
a shield at all, but a quick way to switch between 14 guage and 10 guage
speaker wire. Sneaky, but it would make for a nice demo -- attach the
"shield", and the cable sounds better due to slightly higher volume.

Tempting thought for my retirement -- I could make some serious money with
this type of "magic cable". All I need to do is come up with the magic
explanations (and then learn to live with myself) :-)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

Sure it's deniable, since it quite simply had no physical existence.

I thought about this a bit last night -- a good way to produce an audible
effect is if the sheild was really a heavy guage conductor that was
connected in parallel with a small primary conductor. In other words, not
a shield at all, but a quick way to switch between 14 guage and 10 guage
speaker wire. Sneaky, but it would make for a nice demo -- attach the
"shield", and the cable sounds better due to slightly higher volume.

Tempting thought for my retirement -- I could make some serious money with
this type of "magic cable". All I need to do is come up with the magic
explanations (and then learn to live with myself) :-)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

Sure it's deniable, since it quite simply had no physical existence.

I thought about this a bit last night -- a good way to produce an audible
effect is if the sheild was really a heavy guage conductor that was
connected in parallel with a small primary conductor. In other words, not
a shield at all, but a quick way to switch between 14 guage and 10 guage
speaker wire. Sneaky, but it would make for a nice demo -- attach the
"shield", and the cable sounds better due to slightly higher volume.

Tempting thought for my retirement -- I could make some serious money with
this type of "magic cable". All I need to do is come up with the magic
explanations (and then learn to live with myself) :-)