Tweakers' Asylum

Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ.

Return to Tweakers' Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Old Cable Thread - Figures

207.207.226.156

Posted on March 21, 1999 at 12:05:45
jj


 
Those of you who recall the now archived cable thread and the flippant dismissal that mentioned 1% "distortion" as opposed to the relevant 1% loss (distortion does not imply loss) may wish to know that I regard 1% distortion, in most cases, as rather a problem, depending on the spectrum of the "distortion", but that 1% loss is irrelevant, constituting a loss (in dB) of about .04~ dB.

I must say that I'm quite disappointed in Jon for his flip (and misleading, insulting, and slanted) reply.

Of course, the real point of 1% "distortion" is that as usual, SNR (and distortion, which is a weak stepchild of SNR) is mostly meaningless from the range of 5.5 dB or so to at around 80dB or below.

Ergo, even citing "distortion" figures is misleading as they have nearly no meaning to the human ear, unless one cites something entirely more meaningful than the usual THD or SNR specs. (An error spectrum would be nice.)

One of the reason that tweaks flourish, I think, is that most of the "standard" audio measurements are, shall we say, less than revealing at the very best.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Thin Skin or Skin Effect?, posted on March 21, 1999 at 15:39:31
Copied in full, my reply to /audio/tweaks/messages/160.html :

*************************
jj,

I know that you seem to consider such levels (1%) as immaterial for audio,. perhaps your codec work has displaced your sense of what is relevant, maybe I'm the one who's all wet. It is my opinion that signal distortion that may occur as far down as -80 to -90 dB may be relevant to SOTA audio playback.

If skin effect eddy currents cause a 1% level of effect, then that is only -40 dB down. It would also be likely affected by the homogenity (or lack of it) within the wire, and therefore be less than predictable and wholly
linear in it's effects. Solder junctions, and other such discontinuites come to mind here.

Also, there is no doubt that the propensity for the current to flow toward the outer surface of the wire will magnifiy any surface discontinuities or disruptions (ala tinning or platings). If there is a net difference
between the surface and the center of a wire/wire bundle, then it is possible that effects that range from -40 down to -80 dB or so ARE occuring.

To me, that would be reason enough to look into it, or consider it in a cable design.

Jon Risch
**************************************

Now I don't consider writing that "....maybe I'm the one who's all wet." and that " It is my opinion that......"

qualifies as a flame or a poke at jj that I did not also take at myself, or that I did not consider that what I was stating was anything more than my opinions.

I am quite aware of the difference between loss and distortion, and carefully worded my post:

{ If skin effect eddy currents cause a 1% level of effect, then that is only -40 dB down. ]

An AC signal that is 1% of the original, and inverted, will cause a 0.1 to 0.9 dB drop in voltage amplitude.

[ It would also be likely affected by the homogenity (or lack of it) within the wire, and therefore be less than predictable and wholly linear in it's effects. ]

My point here, that I did not spell out, was that if the eddy current was at a 1% loss level, and was not totally linear in it's nature, then it would be possible for it to create a signal distortion. This would, of course, be X amount of dB down from -40 dB, and if the amoung of eddy currrent distortion was 40 or 50 dB down from the eddy current s themselves, not an inconceivable amount, then the total amount of distortion is in the range of -80 to -90 dB down depending on which set of numbers you pick. Again, not out of the range of potential audibility.

Considering that there have been no studies (that I know of) that address the effect that skin effect would have on a complex musical signal, one with many frequencies present simultaneously, there is no telling exactly how it might affect audibility, based strictly on scientific conjecture and suppositions.

Past posts of yours have given the impression that you were unconcerned with distortion of even higher amounts than 40 dB down, but that series of postings ended with bad feelings on your part also, so I can not be sure

Your statement that the loss of 1% would only constitute a 0.04 dB amplitude drop is correct for POWER, but for the voltage in an interconnect, it would correspond to a 0.09 dB drop, or almost a tenth of dB.

If you don't care to discuss the subject, then don't post a response, that is what I thought had happened. Now you come back posting a tantrum, and claiming to be insulted by my post.

I do not have a mean bone in my body, and try to be very patient in my web postings, it doesn't help when you are imagining insult and intended injury when there is none intended. If I was that unclear, I should try to be more precise, and for any idea that I was trying to really slamm you, I apologize.

If you would care to discuss the issue further, then I welcome any input or thoughts you have on the subject.

Jon Risch

 

Re: Old Cable Thread - Figures, posted on March 22, 1999 at 03:49:25
Hi there,

Not get in on this little personal feud here, but think JJ (John Curl I belive) said something VERY important....

<<>>

My contention for ages.

<<>>

Yup, or how about a Noise-loading test result

(Noise loading test - AKA BBC-TesT passes a bandwidh-limited and comb-filtered spectrum through the Item under test - any difference in spectrum between Input and output of the Device under test MUST be added by the Device tested and hence constitutes DISTORTION, though it lumps HD, IMD and noise together....)

<<>>

Another good one.... Now could someone please include these comments in an Article in Stereo-Review?

Later Thorsten


 

Re: Old Cable Thread - Figures, posted on March 22, 1999 at 05:56:01
MikeP


 
I didn't think Jon's post was flippant or insulting to you. As to the technical questions, you're both so far out of my league....

 

Re: Old Cable Thread - Figures, posted on March 22, 1999 at 06:48:13
gnat


 

Hi, Later


1st: JJ isn't John Curl afaik.

2nd : use of "<<< >>>" syntax for quotings is dangerous:
html hides text between less-sign and more-sign.

3rd: I restored your quotes via view->page source,
using *safe* >>quote<< syntax:

************** BEGIN **************


Hi there,

Not get in on this little personal feud here, but think JJ (John Curl I belive) said something VERY important....

>>Ergo, even citing "distortion" figures is misleading as they have nearly no meaning to the human ear, <<

My contention for ages.

>>Yup, or how about a Noise-loading test result

(Noise loading test - AKA BBC-TesT passes a bandwidh-limited and comb-filtered spectrum through the Item under test - any difference in spectrum between Input and output of the Device under test MUST be added by the Device tested and hence constitutes DISTORTION, though it lumps HD, IMD and noise together....)

>>One of the reason that tweaks flourish, I think, is that most of the "standard" audio measurements are, shall we say, less than revealing at the very best. <<

Another good one.... Now could someone please include these comments in an Article in Stereo-Review?


Later Thorsten

*************** END ***************


regards. gnat


 

Re: Old Cable Thread - Figures, posted on March 22, 1999 at 08:10:01
Hi there,

> 1st: JJ isn't John Curl afaik.

Okay. Who is he then?

> 2nd : use of "<<< >>>" syntax for quotings is dangerous:

ThanX a lot.... I'll keep it in mind.... I forget that these boards are HTML and not text-based....

Later (see you later, exchange messages later etc...) Thorsten.... ;-)

 

Re: Old Cable Thread - Figures, posted on March 22, 1999 at 08:27:00
Rod M


 
jj AKA jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist or jj, curmudgeon and all around grouch, tho he's lost his grouchiness as of late ;)

 

Suit yourself, posted on March 22, 1999 at 08:35:43
jj


 
I'd have to to back and look and I'm not going to (I'm counting AES papers at the minute, you can figure I'm swamped for this week), but I'd swear I said "power loss".


As to "Maybe your codec work ...", if that's not a pure ad hominem slam than I haven't seen one.

It's really simple for MOST wire cases (I'm not talking about power plants here), it's effectively "linear" over the audio frequency range. (Yes, there are cases otherwise, but they don't apply under most settings, to say the least.)

The point is, though, that skin effect is a reduction in admittance of the wire, not some odd distortion mechanism.

The "opposite current" is simply "adding" to the original current to create "no" current, i.e. the current does not penetrate to the middle of the wire.

There are SOME cases where unpleasant things CAN happen, but they are generally not very notable at most audio frequencies.

What's more, even when you increase the wire size beyond the skin depth, you're STILL reducing the total resistance, just by not as much as you might expect from the total area of the conductor, AND unless you've put some kind of semiconductor in the middle of the cable, that's it.


 

Re: Old Cable Thread - Figures, posted on March 22, 1999 at 10:06:48
Hi again,

Ahhhh, it's him.... I have been too long away from the rec.audio.???? flames or totalitarian newsgroups....

I no longer recognise the usual suspects....

Later Thorsten

 

Re: Old Cable Thread - Figures, posted on March 22, 1999 at 10:43:10
Rod M


 
>>>I no longer recognise the usual suspects....

Ah yes, and sometimes the usual suspects might not quite be what rao might suggest. While not tolerating fools any better than Nigel, I do enjoy his posts and he does know the technical stuff. I also doubt you'll find him pushing the ABX agenda either, though he will defend scientific methodology. Got to keep folks honest.....

Cheers

 

Re: Thin Skin or Skin Effect?, posted on March 22, 1999 at 11:37:41
Jon, do you know of a way to MODEL skin effect? Then we could run a computer simulation. Years ago, engineers modeled DA in caps by paralleling series RC networks to an ideal cap. Computer simulations using this model parallel real measurements. If we could do this for 'skin effect' then we could get a better understanding of the problem.

 

Modelling Skin Effect, posted on March 22, 1999 at 12:33:47
I


 
I no longer have one, but in fact models that do reflect reality do exist, and do accurately reproduce the entire array of effects that have been observed from power engineering to waveguide design.

Bear in mind that waveguide design is a direct descendent of the understanding of skin effect, among other things.

So, while I don't have them around any more, they are out there in the industry, you can find how they apply to cable design, and there is little mystery remaining.

 

Careful, Please!, posted on March 22, 1999 at 12:36:13
jj


 
John Curl is likely to be utterly, devastatingly offended by the idea that he is "jj".

He is no more 'jj' than I am John VanderKoey.

 

Re: Measurements, posted on March 22, 1999 at 12:41:50
jj


 
The issue of measurements is indeed a troubling one. At least in the USA, the measurements that amplifier manufacturers (for instance) are required to use are "mostly useless" in just about the same way that the entry in the HHGTTG for "Earth" is "mostly harmless".

THD and SNR do not convey the most important parts of the error signal, in fact, they don't allow any real understanding of the error spectrum at all.

Were manufacturers to show distortion spectra for standard signals, including (but please, not limited to) sine waves, pink noise, and some complex sums of sines, we would see some very enlightening information in the plots of the signal vs. the error signal.

Unfortunately, in the AUDIO field one rarely sees such measurements. Any number of people know this, but unfortunately the political climate is not one that seems to encourage any substantial progress.

 

Mumble - sorry, that 'i' was me (nt), posted on March 22, 1999 at 12:54:15
jj


 
(nt)

 

Apologie to John Curl, posted on March 22, 1999 at 14:45:22
Sorry for the Snafu.

I have been set straight now.

Later Thorsten

 

hehe, I like this word play. TTYL (nt:-), posted on March 22, 1999 at 22:30:55
gnat


 
.

 

Check your log scale Math..., posted on March 23, 1999 at 07:11:11
Jon,

This is just some helpful advice on how the log scale works. A factor of 1% is not -40 dB, but is actually -20 dB (since it represents 1/100th).

A factor of 10 times, or 1/10th, is 10 dB. A factor of 100 times, or 1/100th, is 20 dB (10 dB plus 10 dB). A factor of 1000 times, or 1/1000th, is 30 dB (10 dB plus 10 dB plus 10 dB). A factor of 10,000 times, or 1/10,000th, is 40 dB (four times 10 dB).

An easy way to do this on your scientific calculator is:

10 X log(# times) = # dB


Kind Regards, Chris


 

Re: Check your log scale Math..., posted on March 23, 1999 at 08:45:22
Chris, I think that Jon is talking about voltage measurements, not power measurements. Engineers use 20 log( ) for voltage ratios. Our instruments are calibrated in that manner on their meter faces.

 

Re: Check your log scale Math..., posted on March 23, 1999 at 10:39:25
Audio in general typicaly uses the voltage ratio, or 20 log, and for interconnects, this would be the appropriate way of scaling it.

For amp and loudspeaker power in watts, log 10 or the power ratio is appropriate.

Jon Risch

 

Not that this is disagreeing, BUT, posted on March 23, 1999 at 11:18:45
jj


 
The DeciBel is a ratio of power, by definition.

The definition is dB = 10 log(base 10) ( Power_1/power_ref)


One can assume that measurements made in a given circuit (for instance) or in a given digital domain are all going to reflect signals that are going into the same impedence (although is is not always true, naturally). As such, one can make an equation that says:

Power_1 = alpha * voltage1 * voltage1.
Likewise
Power_ref = alpha * voltage_ref * voltage_ref
When the ratio is taken, the alpha (that's the assumption on impedence) divides out, leaving us with voltage squared on top and bottom...

So the ratio of the squares of the voltage * 10 can also be used.

Bear in mind that log(x*x) = 2* log(x). Ergo, that works out to

dB = 20 log(base 10) v_1/v_ref

Just being pedantic, but the ratio is really of energy, it's just that under most circumstances one can replace energy by voltage (or current, intensity, etc) squared, and get the same result.

Why do I mention this? Knowing the rule and the derivation often makes one able to figure out the need for 10* vs. 20* much more easily. :_)

 

I beg to disagree with this conceptual approach..., posted on March 27, 1999 at 08:48:33
John,

I'm a working RF "Engineer" and I would never use only voltage to describe what has been described in these threads as potentially hearing a Signal to Noise relationship issue. This is, after all, the relationship of the Signal power to the Noise power, not just the Signal voltage to the Noise voltage. The Signal and the Noise both consist of voltages as well as currents, and the characteristic impedance of the transmission line (either interconnect or speaker wire) is the same for both.

I believe the issue is whether our ears will detect the difference of the S/N relationship in the energy transmitted by the ultimate transducer (speaker), which is of course a power issue and not a voltage issue. I find it interesting that at low level Audio Engineers will use one approach, and at the same time will employ a high level approach which in this case amounts to a difference in the S/N relationship of 100 times, in linear units. The power amplifier's gain is the only difference between the two levels, and it is clearly by design a very linear amplifier so that the S/N relationship should be virtually unchanged.

Maybe you meant to say "Audio Engineers", instead of just "Engineers", use 20 Log ()... If so, I then understand where Jon's approach is coming from.

Kind Regards, Chris

 

Re: Careful, Please!, posted on March 28, 1999 at 13:52:32
I am always signed as john curl. So far, so good, no problems with identification. I like jj's input, and the rest of you can learn a lot from him. His approach is a little more formal than what many of you are used to, but it is interesting input.

 

Re: I beg to disagree with this conceptual approach..., posted on March 28, 1999 at 13:59:10
Let's just say that all the HP, Sound Technology, Heathkit, etc equipment is calibrated in dBV. RF engineers are a special breed apart. We bridge signals, in preamps at least, rather than design for maximum power transfer.

 

Indeed., posted on March 29, 1999 at 09:36:29
jj


 
Agreed, until one gets into something more difficult, like long-wire analog telephony, one does not have to worry a lot about reactance in the usual audio signal at the usual audio frequencies (crossovers and filters are an obvious exception, but are usually considered as terminated resistively, which removes that problem again).

Believe it or not, designing long-wire analog telephony is much harder than designing an average interconnect cable.

Of course, there is a real simple reason that telephony has gone digital, and is going digital even closer to the talker.

 

Page processed in 0.020 seconds.