|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
160.62.7.250
In Reply to: RE: Allen is not the only one who touted thinner is better... posted by Lew on January 27, 2015 at 17:09:57
Thin foil is even better than thin wire. I had Allen at my place a number of times and we went back and forth between his super thin wire interconnects and flat foil. The foil always made a better sorted soundstage and better bass...simply more 3d in all ways. I use only silver foil now in my interconnects.
I have one set of Allen's wire interconnects and one set of foil but most of my cables are from Goertz, which was more affordable and follows the same philosophy about signal transmission more or less.
Follow Ups:
Strap conductors are widely used in microwave circuits. Have been for well over 60 years. These days it's all done via PC boards as not only can precise conductors be made, it's highly repeatable for low cost manufacturing.But all of this is irrelevant for base band audio. The math doesn't lie.
Can you or anyone explain to us how the flat conductor is improving the sound stage or bass response versus a round wire. Keep in mind we are talking a few feet maximum length here and assume the wire in question is over rated current wise by a factor of at least 10, meaning a line level signal over say a 24awg wire.
Just point us to the relevant physics at play here (edit: at aduio frequencies please. We do understand the physics at RF frequencies).
Edits: 01/28/15
does not exactly "lie", but it is generally only a close approximation of reality, because the theories or Laws that give rise to the math of physics are themselves built to describe ideal, isolated systems. However small the errors may be, there are errors. In most cases, we are aware of the sources of those small errors, but not always. Maybe inside that tiny uncharted part of the physical real world is where some of these otherwise inexplicable subjective observations live. Dare I say "Quantum Theory"? No, I don't dare.
This is an obsolete tube amplifier design that was retired by the commercial industry over 50 years ago. Yet you want to believe it holds some mysterious property that the evolution of modern electronics has not yet discovered?
I'm not trying to sound belittling, but comments like you just made always seem to come from people lacking higher level scientific educations.
Electronics and physics these days is on the brink of generating our own black holes. Do you really think all the secrets of physics are locked in a DC coupled 2A3 amplifier design from 1931?
I was not speaking to this amplifier design. I was making a general statement in response to your general statement that "math does not lie". I am not a proponent of any amplifier design. (In fact, I don't even know exactly what amplifier you are thinking of.)
"I was not speaking to this amplifier design. I was making a general statement in response to your general statement that "math does not lie". I am not a proponent of any amplifier design. (In fact, I don't even know exactly what amplifier you are thinking of.)"Well in that respect you are most correct. Calculus is by it's nature an approximation, not an exact.
Edits: 01/29/15
My education is just fine and still prefer the sound of one these obsolete designs to a mass market sub $1000 amp. For reasons of sound preference and not the engineering behind it, I'll take a good SET any day.
I make my own amps of a wide variety of configurations, I can understand the electrical principals involved and yet I still listen to SETs. Go figure.
You and many others like the sound of vintage SET's. I like vintage 1960s PP amps. But sonically accurate they are not.
And this constant drivel buy a few here to make these hobby projects the second comming is getting ridiculous.
"You and many others like the sound of vintage SET's. I like vintage 1960s PP amps. But sonically accurate they are not."
Sonically the ear/brain is far more complex than the oscilloscopes and digital FFT software that you would use to define accurate. Accurate to a meter is not necessarily accurate to a listener. You should acquaint yourself with psychoacoustic studies.
If I want sonically accurate, I have to go to a live performance because no amount of money spent or equipment bought is going to get close.
I hear very few people speak of how wonderful their room treatments are and yet they could get a much larger bang for the buck by getting their room treatments in order. I'm not talking about small stones or stick on dots either. I mean real sound absorption and diffraction in correct proportion. That can do more to improve your at home sound quality than a new pair of $1000 tubes or multiple bypassed caps ever will.
I guess that's off topic because this is tube DIY not the sound quality forum:)
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Where do you get yours? Does Vacuum State still sell it?
Got my interconnects maybe 10 years ago when Allen was still with us.
I thought you were referring to chassis wire. Allen did also advocate using his silver ribbon wire in circuit connections. In fact, I think VS used to sell it.
I borrowed his 300B monos for a while...all silver foil wired inside...must have been a bitch to do. They sure did sound good with the STAX ELSF81s I had at the time...didn't play really loud but it was OMG transparent and tonally amazing.
I saw that the Ancient Audio Grand monos (parallel 300Bs) also use silver foil everywhere inside.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: