|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
For those who want another view on Cable Dielectric Absorption go here: http://audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/CableDielectricAbsorption.html
The Ever Evil Doctor Steel
Follow Ups:
All:I would suggest a quick read of the article below. It CLEARLY shows the effects, at AUDIO bandwidths, of capacitor DA on line level electronics. Perhaps we can actually learn something, rather than simply arguing.......
While I won't claim that the effect is the same for speaker cables, it does demonstrate what DA looks like, and the relationship between dielectric and error voltages. (See Fig. 7 in particular)
BTW, the article was first published in 1982 , so it's hardly new. In EDN, no less....
(Egregious editorializing: IMO it also illustrates what a bozo Gene is, but hey, that's just my $0.02. If he is an EE as claimed, he has no excuse for not understanding this. Perhaps he chose not to understand? Noooo, say it isn't so!....)
Peter
I would suggest a quick read of the article below. It CLEARLY shows the effects, at AUDIO bandwidths, of capacitor DA on line level electronics. Perhaps we can actually learn something, rather than simply arguing.......Been there, done that.
Would you like to see what Bob Pease himself had to say about DA in cable dielectrics at audio frequencies?
Yes, the model is IN CONCEPT valid for AC sines as well as for steps, but NOT important. See below.
Steve, lets' say a 100 ft stretch of speaker cable has 1000 pf. The soakage of a mylar cap of that size would be about 10 pF in series with 1 meg.
You drive this from an amplifer whose output impedance is lower than 1 ohm. In concept if you put this in a precision measuremnt system, you could measure perhaps as low as 0.01 dB of attenuation.
(YOU MUST AGREE - you certainly can't HEAR that kind of attenuation shift, 0.01 dB...)
But the soakage of 1 megohm, is below the 0.01dB by about a factor of 1000. If you want to wast your time by arguing with audio nuts about things that are 1000: 1 below the limits of MEASURABILITY - not to mention 100,000:1 belowthe limits of audibility --
-- BE MY GUEST, but don't waste MY time, OK?
Yeah, if you ran speaker cables not just 100 ft, but 10,000 ft. - and if you ran a rubber line cord that is perhaps 10 x worse than mylar - you might be able to measure it.
WHO CARES!
If you ran wire 900,000 feet, the soakage might IN CONCEPT become important, except the signal coming out the end would be distorted by some MUCH bigger effects, and the audio output would be INAUDIBLE.
Forget it.
Best regards. /rap
That's from an EMail I received from him a couple years ago.
se
Like I said:"I won't claim that the effect is the same for speaker cables".
I just thought it pretty bizarre that the AH writer could be so far off base with the analysis and the terminology.
BTW, it's always interesting watching non-audio engineers comment on what's "not important" in audio. Given jneutron's comments about the Nordmark analysis, and the implications for timing, it would be interesting to go back and rethink Pease's comments about what's not important.....
Given the low impedances of the amp-speaker connection, I also doubt it's a huge effect; it's probably more pronounced in high-impedance line level connections.
BTW, it's always interesting watching non-audio engineers comment on what's "not important" in audio. Given jneutron's comments about the Nordmark analysis, and the implications for timing, it would be interesting to go back and rethink Pease's comments about what's not important.....Mmmm. Don't quite see what Nordmark has to do with DA. What's Nordmark to do with DA?
Given the low impedances of the amp-speaker connection, I also doubt it's a huge effect; it's probably more pronounced in high-impedance line level connections.
What's its effect? If you look at the DA model, in the ideal sense, its effect would be alterations in frequency and phase response. I'd think that the basic LCR parameters of the cable would tend to swamp out the effects of DA in terms of frequency and phase response alternations.
I suppose there could be a nonlinear element in there somewhere, but given that Bruno didn't find anything to speak of in the viscinity of -145dB, it would seem to be more an intellectual curiousity than something to lose sleep over except perhaps on philosophical or ideological grounds.
se
You can not _fully_ measure DA directly with simple HD measurements.Sine waves are symmetrical, and do not showcase the DA effects, which tend to show up with asymmetrical signals (as seen in Pease's article).
Signal averaging of the sine wave would tend to hide any residual amount of DA that would show up in the HD measurements.
Besides, if I remember correctly, Bruno did nto measure any PVC insulated cables, only PE and teflon, both with decent to excellent DA performance.
Let's needlessly extrapolate from the wrong data, and provide a false conclusion as to the audibility of DA in audio cables, no wait, Steve already did that.
BTW, the AH article is STILL mistitled, and the body of the text describes DF, not DA.
I find it absolutely astonishing that neither you nor John E., nor Dan feel compelled to comment on this, because if this had been a pro-cable article, and had committed such a gaffe, you would all three be all over it in spades. But of course, none of YOU are biased about cable issues, are you?
JR, after JN's scathing and unfair attack on you, based on higher authority, I downloaded and am reading through a few of the topic that you posted on your website.
I found that the inductance one of the easiest and best explanations of inductance that I have ever read. I have been so bogged down in formulas and exceptions to the rule, regarding inductance, that I almost forgot the forest while examining the trees. ;-) I know that there is even more to 'total inductance' than you wrote, but your general readers won't have the math background or even interest to go beyond what you wrote.
IF JN wants to discuss the subtleties of 'internal inductance' or changes in 'skin effect' at near absolute zero temperature away from the standard formula, so be it.
For reference: refer to Kittel 'Quantum Theory of Solids' Wiley 1963 pp 308-319.
JC: ""JR, after JN's scathing and unfair attack on you, based on higher authority,""You are obviously ignoring all of his provocations and attacks. Also, you still have to understand, a difference of opinion, or questioning someone's understanding, is not an attack, nor is presenting corrections or new information..
JC: ""I found that the inductance one of the easiest and best explanations of inductance that I have ever read."
Good..have you found anything that is not in accordance with the Terman equation, as printed in 1947?
I'd be nice to provide us with new info, if you did indeed come up with some..Of course, something newer than '63 would be nice..my Kittel is '76.
JC: ""IF JN wants to discuss the subtleties of 'internal inductance' or changes in 'skin effect' at near absolute zero temperature away from the standard formula, so be it. ""
So far, the discussion of inductance I've had here with you has been the simplistic version, and in accordance with the Terman equation. And even at 1.9 Kelvin, there is no real deviation from the standard formula, although the material properties, like resistivity of copper, and permeability of iron, are far more difficult to measure. For us, we use the analysis packages that include the material properties all the way to 1.8 Kelvin. But I have not attempted to discuss work related inductance in the fashion you are attempting to 'splain.
And, I might add...you have recently learned about internal inductance (remember you were saying it didn't exist?) as it appears in the terman equation, and skin effect is absolutely, entirely about that internal inductance, and it's change..
JC: ""For reference: refer to Kittel 'Quantum Theory of Solids' Wiley 1963 pp 308-319.""
Thanks for the reference.
BTW, if you don't fully understand it, just ask..either I will know the answer, or I could find someone who does..I note with interest that you historically have never asked when you didn't understand, but the offer still stands..
Cheers, John
PS..I received one of the articles that discusses the Hawksford essex echo skin article...I cannot believe the comments about it that were committed to publication. Holy mackeral, did they ever blast him out of the water. Geeze, I would never publish those type of comments about him..
JR: ""I find it absolutely astonishing that neither you nor John E., nor Dan feel compelled to comment on this, because if this had been a pro-cable article, and had committed such a gaffe, you would all three be all over it in spades.Wow, what an amazingly incorrect sentence..at least w/r to me.
Even after I have stated several times that I have contributed to the discussion all of the relevant facts and understandings that I am capable of..
Are you calling me to task for not providing any comments on something I have little knowledge of?
Are you expecting me to, regardless of accuracy, take sides, without a reasonable enough knowledge base?
Sorry, Jon...If I side with someone, it will either be because I have a good understanding of the subject, or because the person I side with has a good track history of careful analysis, investigation, thorough understanding of the topic, and a well established history of critical self-examination....and if I do that, I would explain to all that that is the reason I tend to believe a person's statement...confidence in the person...not confidence in facts..I work with several people here in whom I have absolute trust in their capabilities of analysis...based on their 25 year track history as the best in the world..I cannot say the same about forum posters, as I do not have that history with them.
So, it is useless for you to demand others side either with you or against you on any topic you so choose..
If the discussion turns to the application of 5 Kilovolt DC leakage testing of 2 mil thick Kapton CI compressed to 10 Kpsi in a 2.4 kilometer superconducting magnet ring, I'm your man. Otherwise, I'll just sit back, read, and learn this topic..
Jneutron, this reliance to 'higher authority' without our being able to challenge the statements of your 'authorities' is like appealing to the Pope! Just because they get your 'biased' input about us in your lunch hour, and they make witty rebuttals, doesn't make it scientifically accurate or proper.
You seem to be posting a heck of a lot of duplicate posts..and ones in the wrong place.You oughta get yourself a real computer, like a PC, so that you too can experience the wonders of the blue screen of death, and internet worms...and poorly written software..
Cheers, John
I have a MAC, sometimes I double post. All other times, I post where I want. It is really none of your business.
_
Jneutron, this reliance to 'higher authority' without our being able to challenge the statements of your 'authorities' is like appealing to the Pope! Just because they get your 'biased' input about us in your lunch hour, and they make witty rebuttals, doesn't make it scientifically accurate or proper.
JC: ""Jneutron, this reliance to 'higher authority' without our being able to challenge the statements of your 'authorities' is like appealing to the Pope!""Absolutely correct..if I get a pearl of wisdom regarding e/m theory, or DA, or whatever, and pass it on to the posters here, then I certainly will either provide the derivation or the source location from which it was drawn.. I certainly do not expect anyone to believe an off line "expert" on my word alone, but will provide a lot of meat to support my statements.
My statement about me trusting my "higher authority" refers to MY OWN PERSONAL willingness to accept what it is they have said, as they have never steered me wrong historically. And that statement referred to work related stuff, not forum stuff. As to being coerced into accepting one or another's opinion, as Jon is attempting to do in this case of me, I will not provide one..If I were more cognizant of the issue, I would of course respond..
Should I get a "pearl" of wisdom from one of my co-workers to use as a rebuttal, then I would expect everyone to treat it as an unknown source, as you have basically stated here...especially if I use it to refute another's opinion..
JC: ""Just because they get your 'biased' input about us in your lunch hour, and they make witty rebuttals, doesn't make it scientifically accurate or proper."" .
My "biased input" during lunch has been, in the case of JR, direct printouts of his website information, for Dr. Hawksford, a direct copy of his essex echo article on skin effect, for wire vendors, their website info, or in both yours and Jon's cases, a printout of exactly what it is you have posted here. Not the flame war stuff, mind you. Just some of the "weirder", off the wall technical explanations..And for all of the "culprits, only the stuff for which the author is way off the deep end..
In all cases, the usual "culprits" have provided some very good advice in areas they are experts in..and it would be silly of me to present that as humor...for use in our work area, we do low noise stuff, dsp stuff, things you, Hawksford, and yes, even Risch, could be considered as an outside resource upon which I would draw. Many of the stuff we do here requires outside consultants, as manpower limitations sometimes makes learning it inside too costly in time and money.
The humurous stuff I refer to in all cases, has needed absolutely no introduction, no biased remarks...nothing. The funny stuff does not need to be embellished upon to be seen for what it is..and that certainly also applies to the sometimes funny (dumb in hindsight) things that we all do in the course of a day at work..(how was I to know that 32 guage wire couldn't handle 5 kiloamps????Duh..
But for the case of debating technical points here, I will not simply bash anyone with "what my friends say". As you correctly state, that would not be very scientifically accurate.
As for witty rebuttals?...I have not yet found a need to ask any of them for one, nor has any discussion I am interested in here risen to the technical level where I would need to ask them for a technical answer.
That does not mean that all the discussions here are beneath me...it just means that the ones here that are above my understanding level, are that way either because I have no real interest in the subject matter, have never dealt with it, or am too friggen stupid to understand it...
JR referred to the simple difference between DF, as described by Gene, and DA, as used in the "debunking" title by Gene.Are you saying that you don't know the difference, therefore you didn't comment, or that you disagree with the statement that he got it wrong?
I'm just saying that given my level of understanding of the topic, I am wiser to be silent and thought a fool....I did not express disagreement with either..
You can not _fully_ measure DA directly with simple HD measurements.I didn't say any such thing. Stop wasting peoples time and smelling up the place with these red herrings of yours.
Sine waves are symmetrical, and do not showcase the DA effects, which tend to show up with asymmetrical signals (as seen in Pease's article).
"Signals"? Since when does applying 10 volts DC for 60 seconds, a short circuit for 6 seconds, and an open circuit for 60 seconds constitute a "signal" unless you're a sample-and-hold circuit?
But so what?
By all accounts, DA behaves fundamentally no differently than a linear RC circuit. So how is it that the DA effects are any different (read worse) than the primary RC elements of the cable itself or of all the other RC circuit elements elswhere in the circuit (such as the RC network often found at preamp and amplifier inputs)?
Wouldn't the effect of the basic RC elements of the cable itself be far far worse than DA owing to its much shorter time constant?
Besides, if I remember correctly, Bruno did nto measure any PVC insulated cables, only PE and teflon, both with decent to excellent DA performance.
You don't remember correctly.
Among the cables that I sent him (and John) were an old set of Radio Shack Golds, a new set of Radio Shack Golds and some giveaway cables that came with my DishNetwork boxes. These all had PVC insulation.
Let's needlessly extrapolate from the wrong data, and provide a false conclusion as to the audibility of DA in audio cables, no wait, Steve already did that.
Wow. Three red herrings in a single sentence!
BTW, the AH article is STILL mistitled, and the body of the text describes DF, not DA.
Is it? I didn't read much of the body of the article.
I find it absolutely astonishing that neither you nor John E., nor Dan feel compelled to comment on this, because if this had been a pro-cable article, and had committed such a gaffe, you would all three be all over it in spades.
Not if I didn't read much of the body of the article.
But of course, none of YOU are biased about cable issues, are you?
I am biased. I'd really like to see the case made for cables and have more interest in articles trying to make the case than those trying to prove a negative.
se
By all accounts, DA behaves fundamentally no differently than a linear RC circuit.Which accounts? Is it from the model that Pease suggested (extra RC across the cap) in the article I linked or is there another source for this model? I don't recall ever seeing a definitive description anywhere else, but I would love to find one.
Which accounts? Is it from the model that Pease suggested (extra RC across the cap) in the article I linked or is there another source for this model? I don't recall ever seeing a definitive description anywhere else, but I would love to find one.As John said, by all accounts for more than the past 40 years.
DA is hardly any mystery. It was pretty well described over 60 years ago and its fundamental behavior is accurately modeled as John said by a number of series RC circuits in parallel with the main capacitance.
Which is why I have to ask why some people go apeshit over DA and make it out to be this demon that's horribly distorting audio signals.
A good comprehensive overview of DA can be found in Kundert's Modeling Dielectric Absorption in Capacitors .
se
DA is modeled by a number of series RC components in parallel with the component. This was shown by Dow in 1958 in:
"An analysis of Certain Errors in Electronid Differential Analyzers II - 'IRE Transactions on Electronic Computers. Vol EC-7, March 1958'." This is one of the best references. It was VERY important on those days when analog computers lost accuracy because of problems with caps. Pease did good work, but he is incorrect that he invented this stuff, or that he was the only one who looked into it in a significant way.
It's not about frequency resp changes, and I'm not sure it relates at all to the cable's LCR properties, or even it's linearity.The point of DA in other scenarios is that the dielectric stores energy and releases it later. In other words, what you're looking for is an echo of the original signal that appears after the signal has changed (or stopped). Thus the importance in sample-and-hold circuits.
Given the low impedances of the amp-speaker environment, I would epxect that this stored energy would be effectively shorted, hence my comment about the magnitude of the effect.
The connection to the Nordmark stuff is that we will potentially be forced to use a much finer threshold for considering timing-related errors audible. This implies that a very small, delayed version of the original signal could produce audible changes. In other words, Nordmark changes the threshold for "not important".
It's not about frequency resp changes, and I'm not sure it relates at all to the cable's LCR properties, or even it's linearity.Ok.
The point of DA in other scenarios is that the dielectric stores energy and releases it later.
So? Inductance and capacitance stores energy and releases it later too. What's different about DA?
In other words, what you're looking for is an echo of the original signal that appears after the signal has changed (or stopped).
Ok. So how is the "echo" of this energy storage any different than the "echo" of the energy storage of inductance and capacitance?
Thus the importance in sample-and-hold circuits.
I thought we were talking about amplifiers and such?
Given the low impedances of the amp-speaker environment, I would epxect that this stored energy would be effectively shorted, hence my comment about the magnitude of the effect.
How does an amp-speaker with respect to the cable behave like a sample-and-hold circuit?
The connection to the Nordmark stuff is that we will potentially be forced to use a much finer threshold for considering timing-related errors audible.
I don't know that we'll be forced to do anything until someone can show that DA has the effect of causing frequency-dependent inter-aural time delays.
In other words, Nordmark changes the threshold for "not important".
Whose "not important" threshold do you mean?
se
Steve Eddy: ""Mmmm. Don't quite see what Nordmark has to do with DA. What's Nordmark to do with DA?""Is it possible for a dielectric effect to change the timing content of any component of the audio signal, in a speaker cable? This would be to the tune of 2 to say 5 uSec?
Honestly, given the impedance levels and the voltage gradients involved, I would seriously doubt non linearities of speaker wire insulation would be of any significance..
Capacitors have seriously higher gradients involved. My experience with kapton and tefzel DA were at about 2.5 million volts per inch gradients, I don't see many stereo's capable of that level.
Is it possible for a dielectric effect to change the timing content of any component of the audio signal, in a speaker cable? This would be to the tune of 2 to say 5 uSec?What do you mean by "any component" of the audio signal?
From what I've been able to gather about the Nordmark paper, it has to do with image localization (relative direction of the source in this case) vis a vis inter-aural time delay.
So I'm wondering what DA has to do with this. I don't see any particular relevance.
se
Hypothetically, is DA capable of time shifting a hf signal or cue as a result of a larger, low frequency signal.Being stereo, the larger signals on each channel are not the same..if there is an effect, it could be different on each channel.
I still consider it as probably nonexistant..But I think that was what Peter was referring to.
nt
Hypothetically, is DA capable of time shifting a hf signal or cue as a result of a larger, low frequency signal.Time shifting relative to what? Far as I'm aware any energy storage mechanism will have an associated delay. But here we're talking about inter-aural time delay, yes?
Being stereo, the larger signals on each channel are not the same..if there is an effect, it could be different on each channel.
Perhaps. But you'd have to show DA having some sort of amplitude-dependent delay, yes?
But for the moment, let's look at this from a bit different perspective. You seem to be looking at this from the assumption that the listener has their head locked in a vice. 1.5 uS with regard to the speed of sound at normal temperature and pressure comes to about 0.02". What happens if one of the listener's ears happens to move 0.02" closer or farther from the source?
Also, what are the rammifcations of this 1.5 uS delay in the context of loudspeakers where there is a tremendous amount of inter-aural crosstalk between channels? Did Nordmark use loudspeakers or headphones in his tests?
I still consider it as probably nonexistant..But I think that was what Peter was referring to.
Dunno. I'll wait to hear from Peter before I conclude what he was referring to. :)
se
Steve Eddy: ""But for the moment, let's look at this from a bit different perspective. You seem to be looking at this from the assumption that the listener has their head locked in a vice. 1.5 uS with regard to the speed of sound at normal temperature and pressure comes to about 0.02". What happens if one of the listener's ears happens to move 0.02" closer or farther from the source?""Hey Steve????
If 20 mils is 1.5 uSec...then 2 mils is 150 nSec, and 8 mils is 600 nSec..
That would mean that a woofer that has lf content making it move about ten thousanths of an inch, and high frequency content (say 2Khz), also in the woofer drive and within the woofer response....then the woofer excursion is capable of jittering the 2 K signal over 600 nanoseconds just by the distance between the woofer and the ear. Course, my woofer typically moves just a tad bit more than that..
Hmmm..that makes the discussion of the hi fi system rather complicated, doesn't it?
I had been wondering where, in a typical system, a source of 600 nanosecond jitter could come from..and for stereo, how the left and right jitter content could differ..
It would also provide a basis for why some systems give better imaging..
Cheers, John
Hey Steve????If 20 mils is 1.5 uSec...then 2 mils is 150 nSec, and 8 mils is 600 nSec..
That would mean that a woofer that has lf content making it move about ten thousanths of an inch, and high frequency content (say 2Khz), also in the woofer drive and within the woofer response....then the woofer excursion is capable of jittering the 2 K signal over 600 nanoseconds just by the distance between the woofer and the ear.
Mmmm. Yup. Seems so. Not to mention the frequency domain Dopper distortion. :)
Course, my woofer typically moves just a tad bit more than that..
Well I ain't gonna ask you to whip it out and prove it so I'll just take your word for it. :)
Hmmm..that makes the discussion of the hi fi system rather complicated, doesn't it?
When was it ever made out to be simple? It's always been complicated. Many of the debates have centered around what's actually important and what can be relatively safely ignored.
I had been wondering where, in a typical system, a source of 600 nanosecond jitter could come from..and for stereo, how the left and right jitter content could differ..
Glad I inadvertantly gave you a clue. :)
It would also provide a basis for why some systems give better imaging..
Could be.
Course, my woofer typically moves just a tad bit more than that..Steve: ""Well I ain't gonna ask you to whip it out and prove it so I'll just take your word for it. :)""
Awww Geeeze...ok...I gave ya that one...
Hmmm..that makes the discussion of the hi fi system rather complicated, doesn't it?Steve Eddy: ""When was it ever made out to be simple? It's always been complicated. Many of the debates have centered around what's actually important and what can be relatively safely ignored.""
Hmmm..my tongue in cheek stuff never comes out right...guess I won't give up my day job.
I had been wondering where, in a typical system, a source of 600 nanosecond jitter could come from..and for stereo, how the left and right jitter content could differ..
Steve Eddy: ""Glad I inadvertantly gave you a clue. :)""
Hey...credit where credit is due..
While discussing the Nordmark paper, I'd been troubled for a while as to where there could be a jitter source that would allow his 1.5 uSec stuff to be applicable to home stereo, as I was concerned it may be only some lab curiosity when testing humans using headphones..but it may well easily apply to sound systems..at least, if anyone says it doesn't apply because there is no jitter, I'll have something halfway intelligent to say..
Maybe you guys are onto something.....(as opposed to on something)Couple random thoughts here:
Makes the whole IM discussion more interesting in general, but particularly in loudspeakers.
Since we are talking about "stereo", it's implicit that there are signal content differences between the channels. What happens if two different systems respond differently to that normal L-R difference by creating different amounts of timing error a la Nordmark? So timing differences between channels aren't introduced by the hardware, but different hardware combinations respond to the different content in each channel by introducing errors in the content that should be the same. Huh?
Makes horns interesting. Perhaps one of the reasons horns sometimes sound more dynamic is not just the simple IM reduction of better cone loading; perhaps it's the fact that the introduce less of a time-related error signature.
Rambling, I know, but food for thought.
Yah...what you said...:-)A horn would have less cone movement for the same spl, so I would think less cone excursion induced jitter.
Peter: ""Maybe you guys are onto something.....(as opposed to on something)""
My vote is "on something".
As in, it's past 5 here, and I have a very important date with home depot, a spackle hawk, and a martini...not necessarily in that order. (well, yah, after home depot).
Peter: ""What happens if two different systems respond differently to that normal L-R difference by creating different amounts of timing error a la Nordmark?""
I would expect different..larger woofers would have less excursion, and wouldn't provide as much 1.2K and up content that could be jittered. Hey, is it possible Bose backed into that with the 8 rear fired baby's?
And, at low levels, since nothing is moving too far relative to the ear, there is less jittered signal, therefore the lateralization is not enhanced. Low spl auditioning is by humans who can lateralize at 20 uSec, while turning up the volume makes us hear in the 1.5 uSec realm, cause jitter is being introduced by the woof..
Den ya gots ya programs where right and left woof see different content. And, woof stuff on one side jittering only one side......
Hey, youze not the only one who can ramble..
Till tomorrow.
John
Yes, we are talking about inter-aural delays.Yes, we'd have to show an amplitude dependent delay of some kind.
Yes, that would require a head vice if one wants to lock the image in absolute space relative to the head.. But, if an image location is blurred as a result of variations in the delay, then it would be shifting relative at some rate, so head position and movement is relatively unimportant..you could "see" the image blurring regardless of the absolute head angle..within reason of course..
Ten feet away center stage, 20 uSec represents about a foot shift right to left..Seriously, I could not think of image accuracy to 1/2 inch, which is about 1.5 uSec, ten feet away...one foot, yes..and that is 20 uS. Way beyond what a CD should reasonably maintain w/r to origional analog content.
He used headphones.
Inter aural crosstalk? Don't know, Nordmark did not discuss the ramifications of that, from what I recall..but I'll be honest, my image blurred as I was reading past page 5..
My premise for Nordmark is that speaker wires, with the inductance and capacitance, may have less than desireable effect on the passing through of slew based lateralization info..and I'm not sure if there needs to be a non linear wire effect (violation of superposition) for the different frequency currents involved..Skin effect does seem to be a reasonable candidate, with the inductance vs frequency relation, assuming the 1.5 uSec based speeds..
He provided 1.5 uSec measured capability from about 1.5Khz up to about 12 Khz. So, for a non perfect wire to be heard, it would have to be able to delay the 12 Khz info more than 1.5 uSEc more than it did the 1.2 Khz information, or visa versa..
Since that should be measureable using SOTA equipment, and it has not, (to the best of my knowledge), I don't know what to make of that.
Cheers, John
He provided 1.5 uSec measured capability from about 1.5Khz up to about 12 Khz. So, for a non perfect wire to be heard, it would have to be able to delay the 12 Khz info more than 1.5 uSEc more than it did the 1.2 Khz information, or visa versa..Wait a minute. You seem to be talking apples to oranges here.
Let's say the wire did delay the 12kHz info more than 1.5 uS more than it delayed the 1.2kHz information. What has that to do with inter-aural time delay?
se
Steve : ""Let's say the wire did delay the 12kHz info more than 1.5 uS more than it delayed the 1.2kHz information. What has that to do with inter-aural time delay?""Beats me...:-)
For an impact sound, like a cow bell or sumptin, the location of the bell's image is determined (near center stage) by the left right time delay.
IFF that time delay is different for different frequencies, that will cause the different spectral components of the image to appear to be at different locations in space, smearing of the image.
I've witnessed that when I used a (very bad), 11 band, eq on my system. The end result of my playing with that eq was a sibilance component of female vocals that was to one side of the rest of her voice..ugly, at best.
For a wire to do this, each channel would have to do that shift in different ways, to give the same effect. Or, the wire caused the amp to do such, in some as yet unknown fashion...
That implies a non linear handling of the current at different frequencies, and the channel content, being different, as causing some different shifts within each channel....
I've not seen or measured such, but at least Nordmark is implying that 20Khz Fr/phase is not looking deeply enough..
Hey...it's a start...certainly not found, maybe never. but an avenue...
Cheers, John
Beats me...:-)For an impact sound, like a cow bell or sumptin, the location of the bell's image is determined (near center stage) by the left right time delay.
IFF that time delay is different for different frequencies, that will cause the different spectral components of the image to appear to be at different locations in space, smearing of the image.
I've witnessed that when I used a (very bad), 11 band, eq on my system. The end result of my playing with that eq was a sibilance component of female vocals that was to one side of the rest of her voice..ugly, at best.
For a wire to do this, each channel would have to do that shift in different ways, to give the same effect. Or, the wire caused the amp to do such, in some as yet unknown fashion...
That implies a non linear handling of the current at different frequencies, and the channel content, being different, as causing some different shifts within each channel....
I've not seen or measured such, but at least Nordmark is implying that 20Khz Fr/phase is not looking deeply enough..
Hey...it's a start...certainly not found, maybe never. but an avenue...
Ok. :)
At this point however I'm looking at DA as less an avenue and more a blind alley given that DA's going to be pretty much completely swamped by the other more basic parameters of the cable.
se
It's all Dan's fault -- he's the one who started this by providing the link to that unfortunate article.
You said:
Ok. :)At this point however I'm looking at DA as less an avenue and more a blind alley given that DA's going to be pretty much completely swamped by the other more basic parameters of the cable.
I tend to agree, but it's certainly unproven one way or the other. I simply provided the Pease article link so that folks could easily see that Gene's "debunking" article didn't even describe, much less debunk, DA at all. The only remaining question is whether he really doesn't know what it is, or chose to misrepresent it. (Of course, there's also the possiblity that I am the one misunderstanding the difference...)
There's also a very interesting article by (amongst others) John Curl that clearly shows the error signals generated by different types of capacitors due to DA. However, I figured that quoting JC on anything was likely to stir up more debate, and get me accused of brown-nosing....;-)
Hi Peter, why don't you come over again sometime and we can measure some more 'microdiodes'? I got SY, a PhD in materials science over recently. He sees what you and I have seen. Heck if I know if it is completely accurate, but it sure is consistent.
When it comes to DA, only an asymmetrical pulse really pulls out DA. Pease's work is also very good and we referenced him in our own research paper, even though he doesn't think much about audio quality, himself. Of course, SE would have to discount both Scott Wurcer and Walt Jung, as well as me, in order to attack my DA measurements, since I got the technique from them. We have varified our measurements by computer simulation. I can show you sometime. Keep on truckin!
You obviously have no idea the lengths that people will go to in order to suck up to you John! ;-)Look at me (clearly a sycophant), and JR (guru-megalomaniac), and now Jung!!! And Wurcer!!
I haven't checked; did SY post anything over at DIY after visiting your place?
Just for the record, I visited John a couple months back. He was quite open about everything he was doing and let me look at anything I liked and try anything I liked. At the time, I promised to hold any results I got in confidence until I was finished and John could look at my conclusions and either approve, argue me out of them, or ask me to not say anything (this was my suggestion, not John's). I'm still honoring that, but feel the need to comment on one or two things brought up here.First, John is correct about noise pickup issues. Some aluminum foil and a clip lead made a large difference!
Second, the artifacts did seem to be quite repeatable as we switched cables around, reversed direction, plugged the same cables in and out... the usual high school science fair stuff.
Third, there were some clear follow-up experiments that needed to be done. The time limiting factor has been me, not John- the past couple of months have been rather tumultuous at work, and I've had a lot of child-care commitments. The last 5 times I've been down in Berkeley, I've had my 3 year old with me, and I don't want him running around loose trying to destroy John's nice speakers, or pulling a spectrum analyzer off of the top shelf and onto his little head. That could be very damaging to the spectrum analyzer.
In any case, we don't have enough data yet to say categorically whether those artifacts are really due to wire issues and if so, what the mechanism is, but I have a pretty clear idea on what the next set of experiments ought to be and I've made up the appropriate cables to do them. And John is ready to have me back whenever I want. If I can find some more reliable babysitters, I hope to be able to finish this up pretty soon.
SY/ slummin' it away from my cyberhome
Sy:Thanks for the input. I had the same experience when I visited John, in that the results are clearly repeatable and each cable has a distinct signature. Of course, as discussed ad nauseum around here, it's still not clear whether it's a signature that is created by the cable or the test set up.
I think this is very interesting, even if it is due to analyzer-cable interaction, in that we could be seeing an example of what happens in real-world audio equipment-cable interactions.
Peter: ""I think this is very interesting, even if it is due to analyzer-cable interaction, in that we could be seeing an example of what happens in real-world audio equipment-cable interactions.""That's exactly what I said bout half a year ago..And, that the equipment is designed NOT to interact as it is, so the effect would of course be much lower.
That the test setup is not designed to interact, and therefore the error signals at JC's should be LOWER than real life... orThat real audio equipment is not designed to interact, therefore the error signals at JC's should be HIGHER than real life?
Oh, sorry...I meant that the test equip has been designed to not interact, so any error signal JC finds should be much lower than what happens with actual audio equip.
It may have been over at AR, where I had responded to somebody who said JC was stating that he could hear the stuff at -125 db, or something to that effect. I pointed out that he is measuring that low, but has not stated he can hear it, just that he is trying to correlate the really low numbers with "sound".
Nope! Was here ;o)
And some of the stuff he is seeing (like odd harmonics 7 - 11) wouldn't have to be too much higher in level before it would do something to the sound.I haven't had a chance to make good on my threat (months ago) to look at the overall harmonic spectrum of my system w/different cables.
I need a 30 hour day.....
No, but if you want to talk to SY about it, I could get you in contact. I did again invite him over recently, and he said he could come in a week or so. I asked him to give me any feedback that he can think of about the test. Maybe you could come over as well, and we can learn something.
I do have an external RF field pickup problem that appears to come primarily from the HP3563 itself, due to airborne switching supply components leaking out. I HAVE to get better shielding, or physically move the 3563, (a 2 man job), but then these extraneous inputs can still be discounted by simply ignoring what is not mathematically related to the test signal.
I got SY, a PhD in materials science over recently. He sees what you and I have seen.Did you borrow a cup of red herrings from Jon, John?
I've never said you weren't seeing what you were reporting to see. I've only addressed what you claimed to be the the CAUSE of what you were seeing.
Since you hold SY's Ph.D. in materials science in such high esteem (higher than he does), why don't you ask him about dielectric absorption? I did. You probably won't like much of what he has to say about it though.
When's he finally going to finish his gauge R&R on your test setup?
When it comes to DA, only an asymmetrical pulse really pulls out DA.
So what? Tell me, John, how does DA behave fundamentally any differently with regard to an asymmetrical pulse than any other RC circuit or RL circuit for that matter?
Pease's work is also very good and we referenced him in our own research paper, even though he doesn't think much about audio quality, himself.
So what? Are you saying his understanding of DA's fundamental behavior is flawed?Of course, SE would have to discount both Scott Wurcer and Walt Jung, as well as me, in order to attack my DA measurements, since I got the technique from them.
The technique is fine. But the technique gives you effectively the same result whether you're measuring DA or an equivalent RC circuit.
So what makes DA any more a problem than any other RC or RL circuit element?
We have varified our measurements by computer simulation.
Sure. It's verified by computer simulation using ideal RC circuit elements. So what makes DA worse than any other RC circuit elements in the system or for that matter RL circuit elements?
se
It's all Dan's fault -- he's the one who started this by providing the link to that unfortunate article.Thought I caught a whiff of kosher chicken fat. :)
I tend to agree, but it's certainly unproven one way or the other. I simply provided the Pease article link so that folks could easily see that Gene's "debunking" article didn't even describe, much less debunk, DA at all.
The only remaining question is whether he really doesn't know what it is, or chose to misrepresent it. (Of course, there's also the possiblity that I am the one misunderstanding the difference...)
Well, I haven't any answer for that.
There's also a very interesting article by (amongst others) John Curl that clearly shows the error signals generated by different types of capacitors due to DA.
Interesting if you're building a sample-and-hold system. But I don't see that it's terribly interesting with regard to actual music signals.
However, I figured that quoting JC on anything was likely to stir up more debate, and get me accused of brown-nosing....;-)
Well, he did claim to have measured "micro diodes" in wire so you'll pardon me if I take his measurements with a grain or two of salt. :)
Ok.
Yep; it's all my fault. Soon kosher chicken fat will rule the world and the Dark Knights will be vanquished.
I find it amazing that we can get a long arguement on something as trivial as wire, but when it comes to real problems such as grounding or the non linearities of loudspeakers; most folks just shut up. A very interesting set of priorities if you ask me.
The Ever Evil Doctor Steel
I've tried to support the grounding threads, but there don't seem to be too many interested parties...Perhaps we need to find something to argue about in grounding?
Peter, you are still invited to the AES convention this fall. ;-)
"it's probably more pronounced in high-impedance line level connections."
Maybe; but when you think about paralleling a 50k ohm input impedance with 10 M ohms of Dielectric impedance, it still looks a bit out whack. Oh Well. Sounds like it's more of an issue for RF.
The Ever Evil Doctor Steel
vf
No! Only guys named Larry on every third tuesday.
The Ever Evil Doctor Steel
Nice to see the article by Ch. Hansen that runs contrary to what thy say at AH. Wonder if they think the skies Blue?
Whether better dielectrics are snake oil is in the eye of the beholder. If one is driving a long interconnect cable with a high source impedance, for example (like from a passive line stage), the dielectric does have a bearing on HF extension due to cable capacitance, all other physical parameters being equal. A better dielectric like Teflon will lower cable capacitance per unit length, and in the case of a high source impedance driving the cable, it can make a measurable difference in HF extension in frequency response.I personally think dielectrics impact the sonics of wire. Unlike the metallurgy, where I do not necessarily consider silver superior to copper, I've consistently preferred wire with either a PE or Teflon dielectric over wire with a PVC dielectric. If you think this perception is in my head (due to lack of measurable substantiation), oh well...
Although it is likely that AH and Gene will once again silently and without any explanation, correct or change the article from it's current content and wording, the fact is, IT COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT!He claims in the title, that the article 'debunks' cable DA.
Yet the article content is almost entirely devoted to DF, or dissipation factor!!!!!
THIS IS A DIFFERENT PARAMETER THAN DA, or Dielectric Absoprtion.
The article title is wrong, and misleading at best.This is not the first time this has happened at AH, nor will it be the last. They clearly do not understand cable physics, and are so intent on 'debunking' and 'de-mything', that the truth gets lost in the zeal to show folks just how misguided they are for actually HEARING sonic difference in audio cables!
Now, I don't recall that anyone, myself included, has ever claimed that cable dielectric DF has an influence on the sound of a cable. But if they had, the ONLY property that was looked at in relation to DF in the AH article, was how much amplitude loss would be involved?
ONLY looking at amplitude loss is a classic indication that we are dealing with a very limited and "blinders-on" view of the situation, and NOT a true attempt to actually figure out if there really is (or could be) a basis for some dielectric parameter to have a sonic effect.
You would have to consider and model or measure dozens of different factors in order to truly explore the possibilities, rather than focus on only one trivial aspect.What really is dielectric DA? It is not DF, as they try to sell you at AH.
See:
http://www.capacitors.com/picking_capacitors/pickcap.htmWhat does the AH article show? It shows that PVC insulated 12 ga. zip cord has a non-linear capacitance within the audio band (see the bottom figure on page 1) This behavior of PVC is a known factor, and has been pointed out before, see:
http://bwcecom.belden.com/college/Techpprs/ciocahalf.htm
Fig. 3
Note the PE insulated wire DOES NOT show this change in dielectric constant and thus the capacitance, so Gene's contention that "What we are seeing here is a slight fluctuation in measurement due to instrumentation error of cable inductance isolating the very small value of capacitance as frequency increases. " is total BS. He just doesn't know, and is publishing pure cr_p instead.This is reminiscent of one of the first cable articles at AH, the " Component Video Cables - The Definitive Guide", where there were 16 major errors committed to 'print', and when I pointed them out, I was lambasted by the die-hard staunch naysayers, I was said to be "all wrong". Yet, quietly, and without any fanfare, 12 of those 16 major errors were corrected, with only a small print citation as to a date and the statement that "a correction was made". I note that this original correction note is no longer shown, only later ones. Ah, the power of electronic ink. I also note that since the last two of three revisions to that article, two more major errors have crept in, for a total of 6 major errors, and several more minor ones.
Other examples of completely missing the point:
The AH article "Debunking the Myth of Speaker Cable Resonance"
talks about the electrical resoances of speaker cables, and concludes that none will reonate within the audio band, and therefore, it is all just snake-oil. But wait, who was it that was saying that we had to be concerned about electrical resonances in speaker cables?
The AH article cites Stereophile and Transparent Cable, but the only cable resonances that Stereophile has ever discussed were related to the mechanical resonances of a speaker cable! (Along the lines of motor/generator distortions, and how the physical movement or resonance can affect the sound).This is completely different than electrical LCR related resonances as per the AH article!
BTW, even if we were only concerned about LCR electrical resonances, there are two articles that contradict the AH article:
http://passlabs.com/pdf/spkrcabl.pdf
and
http://sound.westhost.com/cable-z.htm
Where legitimate concerns about the speaker cable interacting with the power amplifier output stage to cause potential instability are raised.As another example, in the AH article "Speaker Cable Face Off", only zip cords of various types were measured, and two other examples touted as "high end" cables, one of which was a separated pair of wires, which is NOT typical of most aftermarket high performance cables. This VERY limited look at speaker cables makes a big point of how the "high end" cables really didn't measure that much better, or measured worse than the zip cords. Well, duh! This reminds me of the oft cited listening test for speaker cables, where the ONLY DUT's were various zip cords, and no other geometries or types. Gee, I can't imagine why they didn't sound (or in the case of AH, measure) very different, can you?
The most bizarre thing is, that AH never even LISTENED to any of these cables in their "face-off"!!!!On the whole, AH has time and again, shown they will do ANYTHING to try and prove their point that audio cables don't matter beyond 10/12 ga. zip cords, and RS grade IC's. Including ignoring certain aspects of physics, repeatedly touting bad measurements, ignoring critiques of their articles (and then quietly editing them later), and generally approaching the whole issue from such an obviously biased POV, that only a naysayer can love 'em for their steadfast refusal to entertain even a shred of real science where audio/video cables are concerned.
Aside from all the factual information in this post, the rest of the contents are, of course, strictly my personal opinion, based on my extensive experience with audio and video cables, and my engineering background.
Gene has added an addendum in response to your post. Again; you are invited to discuss this further at audioholics.com
The Ever Evil Doctor Steel
JR: ""What does the AH article show? It shows that PVC insulated 12 ga. zip cord has a non-linear capacitance within the audio band (see the bottom figure on page 1) This behavior of PVC is a known factor, and has been pointed out before, see:
http://bwcecom.belden.com/college/Techpprs/ciocahalf.htm
Fig. 3
Note the PE insulated wire DOES NOT show this change in dielectric constant and thus the capacitance, so Gene's contention that "What we are seeing here is a slight fluctuation in measurement due to instrumentation error of cable inductance isolating the very small value of capacitance as frequency increases. " is total BS. He just doesn't know, and is publishing pure cr_p instead.""Hmmm.I've seen that link...where was that?...Oh yah, I saw it in the article you are trashing...you make it look like you are presenting new facts here.
For long lengths of wire pair, be it zip, or coax, many meters are incapable of isolating the series inductance presented by the wire from the actual capacitance measurement, therebye confounding the measurement of both series resistance and capacitance.
To correct for that effect is quite simple. Cut the cable into foot long lengths, and measure the parallel capacitance of all of them. That gets rid of the long inductance in question.(Of course, it also gets rid of the cable..something I believe that vendor had no desire to allow )
Jon..
You're statements here are unwanted and unwelcome..If you have some actual facts to provide...do so..but do not waste my time and the time of others spouting typical bullshit vindictive attitude.
JR: ""Aside from all the factual information in this post, the rest of the contents are, of course, strictly my personal opinion,""
You have not made any distinction between the two..So, for all intents and purposes, you have provided nothing but garbage in your overzealous response..
Please try to keep it both factual and technical..Otherwise, many others besides me will simply toss out your entire dialogue, regardless of actual accuracy of any of it's components.
Your post is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem.
John
I just read your response to another JR post in which you ripped him for quoting partially and out of context. Perhaps you should re-read your own post above.You took one (minor) point out of JR's post (re non-linear capacitance of PVC), argued with it, and then proceeded to trash the entire post without ever referring to, or commenting on, the primary point(s) of the post.
What about the DF vs. DA question? Since that question goes right to the heart of the thread, and was the first point JR raised, perhaps it should be addressed?
The AH article used the inflammatory "debunking the myth of DA" title, and then completely misses the point technically. Quite a screw-up!
If you want to be on a crusade to clean up JR that's your business. I'm not defending his posts or his style. However, criticizing him for the way he posts and then doing EXACTLY the same thing is just sad.
Do you plan to provide any TECHNICAL input on the primary point of the post, or are you sticking to the op-ed commentary?
Peter: ""I just read your response to another JR post in which you ripped him for quoting partially and out of context. Perhaps you should re-read your own post above. (preamble for continuity)Peter: ""You took one (minor) point out of JR's post (re non-linear capacitance of PVC), argued with it, and then proceeded to trash the entire post without ever referring to, or commenting on, the primary point(s) of the post.""
What is your purpose for this particular fiction? At no point in my post did I argue with the non-linearity of PVC...You had better re-read the post, to correct your opinion.. To wit, this is exactly what I said:
For long lengths of wire pair, be it zip, or coax, many meters are incapable of isolating the series inductance presented by the wire from the actual capacitance measurement, therebye confounding the measurement of both series resistance and capacitance.
To correct for that effect is quite simple. Cut the cable into foot long lengths, and measure the parallel capacitance of all of them. That gets rid of the long inductance in question.(Of course, it also gets rid of the cable..something I believe that vendor had no desire to allow ).
So where exactly did I argue the point? In point of fact, the measurement of 10 feet of zip does carry with it the issue of series inductance getting in the way of accurate capacitance measurement as you scan up the frequency range..meter sensitive, of course..so, a sharp person would have noticed that, and gone back to re-read the dielectric using this new test method, to assure that one's own measurements were accurate.?
Peter: ""What about the DF vs. DA question? Since that question goes right to the heart of the thread, and was the first point JR raised, perhaps it should be addressed?
Yes, it should...and he raised it..what is it you are requesting of me???
Peter: ""The AH article used the inflammatory "debunking the myth of DA" title, and then completely misses the point technically. Quite a screw-up!
I also have difficulty with the "debunking" schtick..because it allows for no advancement in the science of human hearing and binaural image restoration. So, my work on PC's and lateralization is actually heading towards rendering a lot of the AH commentary irrelevant. If what I am considering is correct, he'll have a lot of re-typing to do, as his science rug could be pulled out from under his feet..
But hey, that debunking stuff does provide site hits..and for now, at least for what I know well, he is within the realm of known engineering. Rod M should be concerned here with the ridiculous reactions produced here by people associated with AA..the cult style..
Peter: ""If you want to be on a crusade to clean up JR that's your business. I'm not defending his posts or his style. However, criticizing him for the way he posts and then doing EXACTLY the same thing is just sad.""
You don't get it..You do so defend his arrogant posts and style by both your disregard for his blatant attacks, and by running interference for him by making up fiction to attack me as you just did.
If you wish to show my behaviour as incorrect...do so using actual facts...not by making up things as you just did..
Peter: ""Do you plan to provide any TECHNICAL input on the primary point of the post, or are you sticking to the op-ed commentary?
technical input? I did, with an explanation of capacitance measuring errors, how to correct them, and why AH did not..
Please read the posts a little slower...you jumped the gun on this one..
Cheers, John
John:Here's my summary of the points in JR's original post. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, simply summarizing:
1) AH Misses the point
2) Title is debunking DA, but article is about DF. They are different, therefore article is incorrect
3) This is typical of AH
4) Nobody has claimed that DF has an effect on cable sonics, so there is nothing to debunk.
5) Only factor examined was amplitude loss. Picking one factor typically indicates a narrow, “blinders-on” view
6) AH shows that 12ga PVC has non-linear capacitance. Explanation by AH is flawed.
7) Reference to earlier AH errors in component video article
8) Other examples of AH errors according to JR
9) AH has shown that they will do anything to prove that cable sonics do not exist. When corrected, they edit with no reference to the mistakes.All on-topic, and related to the thread. To make it easier, I have highlighted the ONE point you quoted.
You said:
"Hmmm.I've seen that link...where was that?...Oh yah, I saw it in the article you are trashing...you make it look like you are presenting new facts here"
I WILL correct my earlier statement in one respect: you didn't "argue", you simply dismissed. You picked one point out of the post, a point that was only peripheral to the essence of the post, and then you made it appear irrelevant.
Then you jumped straight to:
"You're statements here are unwanted and unwelcome..If you have some actual facts to provide...do so..but do not waste my time and the time of others spouting typical bullshit vindictive attitude".
Nothing to do with the points raised, nothing to do with the TECHNICAL distinction between DA and DF. Nothing about the other 8 points. No comment about whether you believe the criticism of AH is accurate or inaccurate. No defense of the TECHNICAL accuracy of the AH article. If something Jon said about AH was incorrect, you should be able to point it out.
IN FACT, YOU DIDN'T REFUTE A SINGLE THING JON SAID. YOU SIMPLY ATTACKED WITH THE SAME BULLSHIT VINDICTIVE ATTITUDE YOU WON'T TOLERATE.
As to my defense of Jon: I have said nothing to defend him. Perhaps you confuse the absence of attack with support. Perhaps you feel that if I take exception to your behavior, it must be because I suport JR (as opposed to thinking you're being a jerk)
If you think that your "Now,Now" post was an example of taking the high road, you're a very sorry human being.
IMO, taking the high road would mean addressing the technical issues raised, and the correctness questions, and leaving out all the personality bullshit.
Try it.
Funny how all those points were just whizzed on past by jneutron.Re the one point he tried to turn into a mountain, he failed to answer my further comments about cable inductance, and whether or not 8-10 feet of zip cord had enough inductance from one end to the other to mask some of the capacitance at the far end.
Given the referenced URL re dielectric constant of PVC DROPPING with increasing frequency, I still think that the dominant effect is going to be that, and not the masking of capacitance due to cable inductance.
I find it telling that in his other article, The Speaker Face Off, see:
http://audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SpeakerCableFaceoff.htmhe shows that the two cables that did not have PVC insulation, the Stealth brand cables which used teflon, did NOT show a decrease in capacitance with frequency, despite the one Stealth model have MUCH higher inductance than zip cords, see Fig. 3. on page 2. In this article, he stated that he used either 6 or 12 foot lengths to take the measurements, which would be enough to see if there were a per foot inductance masking issue.
I think that this blows jneutron's supposition out of the water, and corraborates my take on the matter. Or perhaps we have another huge error on Gene's part, either way, it buttresses my point, and Gene/AH is wrong.
Over how to address your post.I prefer not to waste my time here detailing in a point by point fashion, how what you posted is in error..
If you had read all the posts presented here, prior to yours, you would have seen how foolish and inaccurate your entire post is.
It is not my desire at this time, to methodically make you out a fool..
Please read all the posts that are timestamped prior to your tirade, and then if you choose to continue acting foolhardy and make things up, I will be happy to address your errors on a point by point basis..
Yah, guess I deserved your comment...:-)Peter: ""you didn't "argue", you simply dismissed.(the PVC thingy)You picked one point...... and then you made it appear irrelevant.
NO, again you are stating inaccurately..apparently you are mis-reading, or bring your own conclusions into the fray..
The issue of measurement of capacitance was one I discussed with Gene. Since he could not follow my suggestion to either prove or refute the capacitance numbers he got, I cannot say whether or not the measured numbers are real. Not having any direct experience with the measurement of the cable being referred to (and not really caring), I could only mention the way to test the cable if you think the inductance is wreaking havoc with the measurements..as to irrelevancy, you are allowed to draw your own conculsions, but you are being biased in that regard..
Peter : ""Then you jumped straight to:""
"You're statements here are unwanted and unwelcome..If you have some actual facts to provide...do so..but do not waste my time and the time of others spouting typical bullshit vindictive attitude".
Peter : ""Nothing to do with the points raised, nothing to do with the TECHNICAL distinction between DA and DF. Nothing about the other 8 points. No comment about whether you believe the criticism of AH is accurate or inaccurate. No defense of the TECHNICAL accuracy of the AH article. If something Jon said about AH was incorrect, you should be able to point it out.""
Hello....re-read his post, Peter..where exactly did I state that??? Here, I'll refresh your memory...
JR: ""Note the PE insulated wire DOES NOT show this change in dielectric constant and thus the capacitance, so Gene's contention that "What we are seeing here is a slight fluctuation in measurement due to instrumentation error of cable inductance isolating the very small value of capacitance as frequency increases. " is total BS. He just doesn't know, and is publishing pure cr_p instead.""
Peter? Did you miss that, or did you simply ignore it for the convienience of bashing me?? You know, the statement that he was publishing "total BS, and pure crap?? Yah, I know, you ignored it..
As, immediately after that unwarranted comment, I posted how to test the assumption that the slight fluctuation was a result of the inductance. Plain, simple..a nice method to verify what was stated..
And then, after that, I pointed out that BS and crap are invectives that should be left out..because it diminishes the strength of the argument..he has better command of the english language, he should be able to post without those.
As for the accuracy of the balance of his points?? Who knows? If I were cognizent of all the required issues (IOW, if I really knew all the points), I would comment. Since I knew only about the measurement technique, that is all I could provide input on.
Peter: ""If something Jon said about AH was incorrect, you should be able to point it out.""
I pointed out all the things I found Jon to be in error of, w/r to what I know..
Peter: ""Perhaps you confuse the absence of attack with support.
Perhaps you confuse the absence of support with attack..
Peter : ""as opposed to thinking you're being a jerk)... you're a very sorry human being.""
Hey...I've had worse things said to me...stand in line..:-)
Peter: ""IMO, taking the high road would mean addressing the technical issues raised, and the correctness questions, and leaving out all the personality bullshit...Try it.
Geeze, Peter...now you're parroting exactly what I just said to Jon..
Funny thing is, you neglect to admonish him when he does it...only when I react to his "personality bullshit"...
Peter....stop for a while, stand back, and review what it is you are saying..
When Jon bashes people with BS and CRAP invective, you simply ignore it..I don't care who he is attacking with that stuff..YOU IGNORE IT.
And then, when anyone has the balls to call his unwarranted invective to the table, YOU take offense..In other words, Jon is allowed, by YOUR standards to say anything he wants to anyone, about anyone...while for anyone to react to that, you attack..
Hmmmmm..
Cheers, John
There's something in your message that I can't parse.....You said:
"Hello....re-read his post, Peter..where exactly did I state that???"
I can't tell what you're referring to....
It was after I quoted your message, and listed the things I thought were NOT in your response...hence my confusion about the thing I'm supposed to have accused you of saying :-)
I don't want to create any unnecessary miscommunication, so I would like to clarify that before I respond....
You are correct, I did not write that well..My statement was to show the order of things..in other words, immediately after Jon stated that ""Gene was full of BS and publishing crap"", I provided the test method that would resolve easily the question about Gene's "inductance in the way of the capacitance" statement. I did not state that either party was correct, nor incorrect, as I do not know the details of the cable or equipment used to test the capacitance..I just provided details to allow one or both to verify or refute the issue.
It was after I provided that test method that I took exception to Jon's use of the words bs and crap.
So I was (poorly) providing a timeline to show that I was simply pointing out that the invective which Jon introduced for the first time to the thread...was unwanted, and best left...on the cutting room floor..
BTW, the intent of my statement "someone has to take the high road" was aimed at Jon and Gene, that was not a statement that I was the person taking it while everybody else wasn't..It was a statement of request..
That's clearer.....I feel like dropping this whole argument about the earlier posts....
Agreed. Our bandwidth is better spent.
[ Hmmm.I've seen that link...where was that?...Oh yah, I saw it in the article you are trashing...you make it look like you are presenting new facts here. ]Guess where they got it from? I have been posting/citing that link for about 5-6 years now, before there even WAS an AH site. I use the orginal Belden URL, which has changed twice over the years. Perhaps they felt that they couldn't use the Belden URL, or it might be found that it is the same one I have been citing for years?
[ To correct for that effect is quite simple. Cut the cable into foot long lengths, and measure the parallel capacitance of all of them. ]
Doesn't this essentially throw out the window the nearly constant claim that lumped LCR parameters are all that is necessary to consider? You are saying that the correct model would be a clasic transmission line model and NOT a lumped parameter model.
If you think it holds true for zip cord, with it's fairly small capacitance, then certainly the higher C cables would HAVE to be modeled this way.
In any case, the bottom line is that the capacitance drop at HF's would be much more influenced by the dropping dielectric constant, and not the series inductance. Sometimes the simple reason is the one.
He doesn't state what length he used for this measurement, but in earlier AH forum posts, he had been talking about measuring 8 foot lengths, and dividing by 8 to get the per foot amount. I note for the record, this was ONLY after I pointed out that trying to measure inductance (or any other parameter) for a one foot cable sample was ludicrous.
Are you saying that 8 feet of zip cord is enough to mess with the measured capacitance? Or is it more likley that the large change in PVC's dielectric constant from LF to HF's is responsible? Where was that questioning jneutron whe it was needed?
[ Please try to keep it both factual and technical. ]
OK, lets address the facts, the ones that you did not even comment on.
THE ARTICLE TITLE AND CONCLUSION WAS (and IS) INCORRECT. He was suppossed to be talking about DA, and instead, the entire text was about DF. This is a huge technical gaffe, and it is not the only one they have committed over the years. That is what I point out with other examples, their articles are terrible!
You say he has added an addendum. I say to this, so what? IT IS STILL WRONG!!!!!
The article content is about Dissipation Factor, NOT about DA. Adding this addendum does not correct the completely WRONG statements that the article is about DA!!!!!What really burns me, is that with all the posturing about "Pursuing the Truth in Audio", they are one of the worst offenders in terms of half-truthes and bias and putting a spin on matters.
In the cited cases, they are absolutely and completely WRONG, and are publishing false information, incorrect physics, and furthering the classic naysayer position through BS.
[ Your post is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. ]
They ARE the problem!!! How am I a part of the problem, if I call to attention the incorrect technical content of their "articles"?
Can you legitimately defend ONE of the cited technical errors?As I have been puzzled about before, you have been very rigorous with me and my posts, but when it comes to posts or sites where the content is definitely anti-cable sonics, for some reason, they can miss the mark by a country mile, and hardly anything is said. I feel that indicates a bias on your part, or at the very least, a sensitization to what I post and write, while the other folks are ignored.
[ PS..Someone has to take the high road.. ]
I won't argue with that, but it sure as hell is not AH!
The only way to "correct" the article, is to relabel it "Debunking the Myth of Dissipation Factor", and change all the references in the article to DA to DF.
Only that doesn't make any sense, because no one that I know of has ever directly claimed that DF affected cable sonics.This is just the most recent (and one of the more obvious) examples of the fact that AH just doesn't have a clue when it comes to audio cable technical matters.
I think the most revealing aspect of all of this, is that they have never once mentioned LISTENING to cables, or that they have ever conducted any listening sessions with audio cables, only measurements and their biased and peculiar brand of physics.
IT'S DF, NOT DA!!!!!
No amount of spanking JR will change that fact.
[ Hmmm.I've seen that link...where was that?...Oh yah, I saw it in the article you are trashing...you make it look like you are presenting new facts here. ]
JR: ""Guess where they got it from? I have been posting/citing that link for about 5-6 years now, before there even WAS an AH site. I use the orginal Belden URL, which has changed twice over the years. Perhaps they felt that they couldn't use the Belden URL, or it might be found that it is the same one I have been citing for years?""JN: I pointed out that both of you are using the same source of information
[ To correct for that effect is quite simple. Cut the cable into foot long lengths, and measure the parallel capacitance of all of them. ]
JR: ""Doesn't this essentially throw out the window the nearly constant claim that lumped LCR parameters are all that is necessary to consider? You are saying that the correct model would be a clasic transmission line model and NOT a lumped parameter model.
No. You are reading way too much into it. I simply provided a method to use if you think the inductance of the long run is interfering with the measurement of the capacitance of the wire, regardless of the type of wire...by cutting it into many 1 foot lengths, and tying them all together, the capacitance will actually be the same, just without a long interfering component of inductance.
JR: ""In any case, the bottom line is that the capacitance drop at HF's would be much more influenced by the dropping dielectric constant, and not the series inductance.""
My method would either confirm or refute that simple construct. I note that I have had the inductance interfere with capacitance measurement of longer lengths of wire, and segmentation works. The measurement tradeoff is dependent on the meter type and complexity, as well as where on the L*C=1031 * DC curve the wire is.
JR: ""He doesn't state what length he used for this measurement, but in earlier AH forum posts, he had been talking about measuring 8 foot lengths, and dividing by 8 to get the per foot amount. I note for the record, this was ONLY after I pointed out that trying to measure inductance (or any other parameter) for a one foot cable sample was ludicrous.
Yes, I recall him using 1 foot lengths initially, as that was what he had available, some kind of cutoff piece for some samples, if I remember correctly.(?) And I recall you correcting his method. But for you to question it again is only self serving...It's over, done...not necessary to badger someone repeatedly for an error a year ago, to bolster one's own standing.
JR: ""Are you saying that 8 feet of zip cord is enough to mess with the measured capacitance? Or is it more likley that the large change in PVC's dielectric constant from LF to HF's is responsible? Where was that questioning jneutron whe it was needed?""
As I stated in the previous post, I recommended a test procedure (segmentation) to either prove, or refute that question. The vendor did not want his cable destroyed to determine which possibility it was.
[ Please try to keep it both factual and technical. ]
JR: ""OK, lets address the facts, the ones that you did not even comment on.""
I did not address any "facts" in my post, as I only wish for the dialogue on this forum to remain factual, without the vindictive components as you included in your post.
JR: ""You say he has added an addendum. I say to this, so what? IT IS STILL WRONG!!!!!""
I did not state that..you are confusing the posts, so I will not address that.
JR: ""What really burns me, is that with all the posturing about "Pursuing the Truth in Audio", they are one of the worst offenders in terms of half-truthes and bias and putting a spin on matters.""
It is obvious that something "burns" you. I would like, however, for the vindictive stuff be left on the cutting room floor.
You are no stranger to spin and half truths, Jon. Again, I see fault on both sides here. You for not persuing lateralization, which has been known since 1903 to be 10 uSec, and 1976, as 1.5 Usec. Him for assuming that 20Khz is the limit, neglecting imaging possibilites. I do note that he is now running the tests up to 100 Khz, and sometimes a Megahertz. Although I confess I also don't know how 100K plus parameters are to be used, from Nordmark, I am confident that it will eventually.
[ Your post is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. ]
JR: ""They ARE the problem!!! How am I a part of the problem, if I call to attention the incorrect technical content of their "articles"? ""
Your POST and it's concurrent attitude are the problem. I am not addressing the technical content. If you continue your vindictive posts of that nature, then you indeed are the problem.
JR: ""Can you legitimately defend ONE of the cited technical errors?""
I am pointing out that; for YOU to be considered as legitimately correcting anything, you have to leave your attitude behind, and focus on the technical aspects. Your message is lost in that attitude, and soils the forum HERE.
JR: ""As I have been puzzled about before, you have been very rigorous with me and my posts, but when it comes to posts or sites where the content is definitely anti-cable sonics, for some reason, they can miss the mark by a country mile, and hardly anything is said. I feel that indicates a bias on your part, or at the very least, a sensitization to what I post and write, while the other folks are ignored.
Your puzzlement here is rather amusing...perhaps I'll explain why so.
In my pointing out Nordmark and the ramifications of his research, and applying that research to the issue of high end imaging, cables, amps, and tying it all together with valid e/m theory, I have provided a more scientific basis for "cable sonics" than anyone I have found to date. I, more than anyone, have provided a huge avenue of research which needs to be addressed
While you and others rant and rave like obsessed lunatics about how "their" science does not have all the answers....I have been working on re-shaping their science..
So, after all these years, of "lunatics" defying science, I will have provided more of a basis for audibility of cables than all the rants and raves of the last couple of decades..
[ PS..Someone has to take the high road.. ]
JR: ""I won't argue with that, but it sure as hell is not AH!
Play nice.
JR: ""No amount of spanking JR will change that fact.""
It was not a spanking..more like a wake up call
Cheers, John
I'm not laughing. JR is right.
I would respond ; but I'm too busy laughing. I would once again like to suggest that you put this post up at audioholics and have your discussion there. As you have observed in the past you will be treated politely.
The Ever Evil Doctor Steel
Dan:This link only looks at losses due to dielectric absorption, which are clearly very low in level. It doesn't look at the energy storage/release effect that has been fairly well documented in capacitors.
Since all cables are also capacitors, why would they not exhibit the same dielectric-dependent storage behavior? It would be low in level (given the relatively small capacitance) but would still exist.
BTW, the page you referenced appears to be self-contradicting at one point:
Gene writes " Since both G and Ycapacitance are both functions of frequency, the tangent (or ratio of the two) is frequency independent " , then he presents a table that appears to show how it varies with frequency.
Hi Pete;
There is a discussion forum that goes with the article at audioholics.com. I would like to suggest that you post your comments there.
The Ever Evil Doctor Steel
OK, I went to the forum you suggested, but it's pretty sad. I'm sorry these people were so abused by cable vendors as children, and it must get tiring carrying such a large chip on the shoulder. Not a therapy group I particularly want to join......IMO, it doesn't look like a place for productive interaction. I find that there's little to be gained from discussion with dogmatists, no matter what their viewpoint. Like the bumper-sticker says..."minds are like parachutes; they only function when open".
Gene did a nice job summarizing his position:
To be of the mindset that one can hear differences in cables... that they cannot measure implies:
1) Lack of understanding of basic electronics.
2) Lack of understanding of how the human ear and psychological perception affects ones hearing.
3) Motivated sales agenda to promote esoteric, high profit margin cables.
In my experience, such assurance that all possible knowledge is already at hand is usually a sign of a closed mind. I'm not saying they're wrong; just that it feels like a pointless place to discuss anything subtle.....
Now Peter; you have been well trained here at Propellor Head Plaza, and I expect you to stand up on your own. Besides; not only are folks reasonably polite over there, but I'm sure Gene DellaSalla will be happy to answer your questions.
The Ever Evil Doctor Steel
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: