|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.176.194.130
In Reply to: Re: Electronics 101010010010 posted by Presto on February 13, 2007 at 22:51:28:
I'm not about to tell you inch by inch of what works, what doesn't work and why. This was all something that i had to learn on my own AFTER many lengthy debates coming from a "cable naysayer" point of view. Some here will remember these debates, as they were "schooling" me based on their own personal experiences and audible observations.The education that i picked up along the way has been quite valuable. That education, along with the test results that i obtained, helped to confirm the aural observations that i had made with my own two ears using very differently designed gear. I could only wish that you might have a similar experience and awakening. Without actually doing something and trying things out for yourself, there's little hope in convincing a follower of theory / desk jockey. Not everything goes according to theory in the real world, simply because the real world is far more complex with tons of unknown variables present at any given time. Sean
>
Follow Ups:
-I have custom braided AC cords (just for fun). I got about 1 whole twist per inch into that 12gauge wire!! (I want to experiment with multiple twisted pairs next, or maybe some concentric geometry stuff. Or maybe BOTH as you suggested! Bwah ha ha ha ha!!-I have custom UTP unbalanced interconnects using various kinds of wire - PVC insulation, FEP Teflon, Kynar, with small gauge / mega-twist construction. No shielding at all. Just UTP. Work great.
-I also have MIL Spec teflon insulated and jacketed silver plated OFC cable for my balanced to unbalanced 6-channel conversion cable/snake for using 3-way stereo digital or analog active crossovers with unbalanced gear. Very pretty.
-I made a digital cable out of 75ohm CATV cable with a nice copper braid (the foil and foil drain wire stuff doesn't solder worth a lick). Added nice nylon braiding and blue heat shrink for added psychoacoustic benefit. Did not use transmission line theory to come up with the length - which I chose to be 3.128954348 feet. SNIP!! Cable is RCA to XLR, pins 1-3 tied, conversion cable for 2-wire SPDIF to 3-wire XLR AES/EBU/SPDIF input. (Works nice with Behringer AES/EBU/SPDIF input)
-I have a nice pair of Allen Wright's braided 2+1 conductor "three-nine" solid silver 'fine-wire' interconnects using teflon tubing (and some air!) as a dielectric (similar geometry Kimber braided stuff in theory).
-I have custom speaker cables, some are from Allen Wright's super-cables cook book (similar to interconnect design) and some CAT V jobbies I whipped up using 3 parallel twisted pairs, re-twisted and re-wrapped in their original skin and sealed up with black expanding nylon brade. Used banana jacks for amp end and Neutrik Speak-On cord ends and sockets for the speakers. Pairs were separated and color matched in true "audio obessive" manner. In the end, I only used the blue and white ones.
C'mon Sean. Does this sound like the work of a desk-jockey propeller head engineer?? No way man. This is shoot-from-the-hip DIY madman stuff done by a technologist caught in the chasm between theory and practive man!
Do these crazy DIY products make a difference? I can't honestly say. Sometimes I believe it does and other times I think lamp cord and $10 interconnects and IEC cords sound just as good. One thing that scares me... if I didn't engineer these products and they sound good it means that either:
a) the basic topologies are of sound design
b) the topoligies used are crap and I just can't hear it
c) the topoligies really don't matter as much as once thoughtWhich is it?? And for which cables?
Ah... but there is the RUB!
Sounds like you've been busy building and trying various cabling. Kudo's to you and thanks for sharing that. You originally came across as a "cable naysayer" that simply wanted to crunch numbers with no concerns for actual real world component interaction.I started out doing much the same, then i let the science that i knew and understood start working for me. Optimal or near optimal cable designs aren't that hard to figure out when you make a list of the pertinent criteria and analyze it. Then you have to come up with a design that meets all of that criteria as best possible with the least amount of compromises and / or the best that one can do within a given price range. In most cases, phenomenally good cabling can be made for pretty reasonable prices without bending over backwards or resorting to highly exotic materials.
It has been my experience that most people buy poorly designed gear or gear that isn't well suited to work within the same system and then try to band-aid the less than stellar results via cable changes. While this is completely backwards in my way of thinking, it is my opinion that this method of system assembly is what has fueled the high end cable market since the beginning.
Most people end up using cabling as an impedance transformer, hence the inconsistent results from system to system and component to component. When you try to get them to understand what is taking place and how best to deal with it, most folks will typically shrug their shoulders and carry on as if nothing had happened. They are content to waste their money and ignore common sense, even though much of "high end cabling" doesn't really seem very logical when you first get involved.
When it all comes down to it, it is all about impedance and frequency. Nothing more, nothing less. Think about that and how it pertains to the various designs that you've already built and are thinking about building. Sean
>PS... Ohm's law is not a substitute for Thevenin's theory or vice-versa. They are quite different even though they work along similar lines.
"You originally came across as a "cable naysayer" that simply wanted to crunch numbers with no concerns for actual real world component interaction."I don't really want to KNOW how I come across most times! :o)
"It has been my experience that most people buy poorly designed gear or gear that isn't well suited to work within the same system and then try to band-aid the less than stellar results via cable changes."
HA HA HA! You sounded like me there. That was priceless. Using "cable equalisers" to fix problems cables can't really fix? Yeah - sometimes this happens I think.
"Most people end up using cabling as an impedance transformer, hence the inconsistent results from system to system and component to component."
Sucks when you try and mate two otherwise exceptional components with an impedance mis-match. But, some folks don't know when to say when. I tend to avoid gear with atypical impedances because I try SOOOOO many iterations of gear, I like maximum flexibility.
"PS... Ohm's law is not a substitute for Thevenin's theory or vice-versa. They are quite different even though they work along similar lines."
Oh, this I know. In fact you don't need either to add two complex impedances. You just need to know soh-cah-toa or how to draw a triangle! :) (I'm an electrical designer)
In any case, your posts (and Neutrons, and Al's and Jon Risch's) has inspired me to learn more about t-line theory, propagation velocity and delays, RFI transmission concepts (induction versus conduction), cable resonance, traps, filters, shielding for different noise spectra.
What I really want to study is what makes an "end" (reflection point) an end, and what happens when you connect two cables (or wiring methods) in series with different resonances.
This is all Johnny Neutron territory. Real propeller head stuff. :o)
Thanks for being nice even after I was a dick.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: