R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Another crock  (Read 13750 times)

AlexVI

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
  • Real Full Name: Alexander Van Ingen
Re: Another crock
« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2006, 06:27:34 AM »

Almost worse, how much do you think Pymble HiFi paid Nordost for the VIDAR machine? It looks fancy enough...

AVI
Logged

Loco

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 508
Re: Another crock
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2006, 09:18:26 AM »

Well, Phil Taylor said on TapeOp that the silver-core directional digital cables at The Astoria got even better sound after the burn-in period, helped by the shatki stones on top of the cone-supported Weiss anti-Jitter boxes at both ends...  Laughing
Logged
Carlos "El Loco" Bedoya

"There's no right, there's no wrong. There's only popular opinion"   Jeffrey Goines
http://www.tukanart.com

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: Another crock
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2006, 10:45:10 AM »

Loco wrote on Fri, 11 August 2006 14:18

Well, Phil Taylor said on TapeOp that the silver-core directional digital cables at The Astoria got even better sound after the burn-in period, helped by the shatki stones on top of the cone-supported Weiss anti-Jitter boxes at both ends...  Laughing


Yeah, but that's because he did the burn in during a full moon, any other time and it's useless.
Logged

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Another crock
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2006, 01:47:41 PM »

Loco wrote on Fri, 11 August 2006 09:18

Well, Phil Taylor said on TapeOp that the silver-core directional digital cables at The Astoria got even better sound after the burn-in period, helped by the shatki stones on top of the cone-supported Weiss anti-Jitter boxes at both ends...  Laughing


I was a participant on some of the Astoria cable and gizmo tests when they were remodding the studio, while I didn't hear any audible differences, there were some, because some of the examples didn't completely null, I know because I performed the null tests myself. Where those difference came from, or if they can be attributed solely to the cables, or burn in time or whatever, remains to be seen and as far as I was concerned, the tests were inconclusive. BTW, only a couple of people claimed that they heard a difference, Phil being one of them.
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

Ralf Kleemann

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 183
Re: Another crock
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2006, 02:11:58 PM »

Ronny wrote on Sat, 12 August 2006 19:47

I was a participant on some of the Astoria cable and gizmo tests when they were remodding the studio, while I didn't hear any audible differences, there were some, because some of the examples didn't completely null, I know because I performed the null tests myself. Where those difference came from, or if they can be attributed solely to the cables, or burn in time or whatever, remains to be seen and as far as I was concerned, the tests were inconclusive.

If Cable B has a smaller resistance, say 0.05 Ohm, than Cable A with 0.08, then the resulting audio output would be louder with Cable B, thus the diff result would be <> 0. This could happen if you were using an extremely efficient conductor. Maybe this is what caused the difference in your test setup, aside from other possible factors that may or may not be significant.

For the same reason I just sent a Vovox "sound conductor" - which is their word for "copper wire" - back to the shop. There was a minute difference in volume, but when adjusted to the same volume as the reference cable, I could not make out any difference in the sound. At all. Call me ignorant, but I decided to go with my ears, as well as with my 8th grade physics teacher.

Best regards,
Ralf

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997
Re: Another crock
« Reply #20 on: August 16, 2006, 05:07:45 PM »

Ralf Kleemann wrote on Wed, 16 August 2006 19:11

Ronny wrote on Sat, 12 August 2006 19:47

I was a participant on some of the Astoria cable and gizmo tests when they were remodding the studio, while I didn't hear any audible differences, there were some, because some of the examples didn't completely null, I know because I performed the null tests myself. Where those difference came from, or if they can be attributed solely to the cables, or burn in time or whatever, remains to be seen and as far as I was concerned, the tests were inconclusive.

If Cable B has a smaller resistance, say 0.05 Ohm, than Cable A with 0.08, then the resulting audio output would be louder with Cable B, thus the diff result would be <> 0. This could happen if you were using an extremely efficient conductor. Maybe this is what caused the difference in your test setup, aside from other possible factors that may or may not be significant.

For the same reason I just sent a Vovox "sound conductor" - which is their word for "copper wire" - back to the shop. There was a minute difference in volume, but when adjusted to the same volume as the reference cable, I could not make out any difference in the sound. At all. Call me ignorant, but I decided to go with my ears, as well as with my 8th grade physics teacher.

Best regards,
Ralf


So we are talking about cable resistance? Another "audio industry statement" that if left un challenged, may convince someone of a wrong fact...

You are correct to say that if I remove a drop of water out of the Atlantic ocean, I can claim "in a strict sense of the word" that the ocean has changed. But I can say the ocean has not changed in a "practical sense".

Other then for some general philosophy, I can say that a change from .05 to .08 Ohms will make ZERO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE in most cases. The outcome depends on more then just cable resistance. It also depends on LOAD RESISTANCE.

As per your "numbers":
Cable A has .05 OHM
Cable B has .08 OHM

Say the load is 10KOhms then the difference between the levels for cable A and B is 3 nano dB! That is 3 billionth of a dB!

Say the load is 1KOhms then the difference between the levels for cable A and B is 0.3 micro dB! That is 0.3 millionth of a dB!

Say the load is 75Ohms then the difference between the levels for cable A and B is 54 micro dB! That is 54 millionth of a dB!

Say the load is 8Ohms (speaker) then the difference between the levels for cable A and B is 0.019dB! Can anyone hear that? even in an ABX test? Not to mention that the mechanical interconnects on both sides of the cable, plus the compensation network at the amplifier output, the speaker wire resistance itself all out weigh the 30 milli Ohm difference.

To conclude: there will be no audible volume difference due to the resistance difference between .05Ohm and .08Ohm.  

And, those that try to argue that lower resistance due to silver core is a plus for audio, should consider that it is a lot more cost effective to go to the the "next wire gauge" of copper. For example, a 18 gauge solid silver is only about 10% less resistive then 18 gauge copper. So go for a 16 gauge copper and you beat the 18 gauge silver by about 50%, at much lower cost.

Also, I do understand the reasons for silver plating, and at times gold plating, as well as stranded wire (including isolated strands) against solid wire... and so on. There is always a solid technical reason for the variations.

But I have never come up with a technical explanation for silver core (silver on the inside), certainly not for any electronics I know. I would go as far as to say that I would not put it past the sellers of "concepts" such as "silver core" to sell copper wire with zero silver content, while claiming otherwise. Not that it would make a difference in transmission of analog audio or digital audio signals...

Regards
Dan Lavry
http://www.lavryengineering.com    
Logged

Ralf Kleemann

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 183
Re: Another crock
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2006, 05:32:49 AM »

Hi Dan,
My apologies if my number examples were potentially supporting false assumptions. I just measured the resistance of the Vovox cable and one of my older XLR cables with the same length. They both have 0.8 Ohm resistance. I have no intention to promote the manufacturer or any of their claims. That's why I sent the cable back in the first place... AND for putting a directionality flag on them!!

Best regards,
Ralf

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997
Re: Another crock
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2006, 02:50:08 PM »

Ralf Kleemann wrote on Thu, 17 August 2006 10:32

Hi Dan,
My apologies if my number examples were potentially supporting false assumptions. I just measured the resistance of the Vovox cable and one of my older XLR cables with the same length. They both have 0.8 Ohm resistance. I have no intention to promote the manufacturer or any of their claims. That's why I sent the cable back in the first place... AND for putting a directionality flag on them!!

Best regards,
Ralf


I was not saying that you are the source of the claims. There are many sources and they "get propagated" by people that believe the stories, especially when such stories are being pounded over and over.

That arrow directionality marking is a great example for how some real big audio wire companies are responsible for massive public deception. That crock caught on big times, to the point that "other cable companies" felt "a marketing need" to do the same.

It is possible that some cables with arrows are OK, and that the arrows were put after the fact, for "marketing competitive reasons". Personally, I would not bother with any cables with arrows. If they promote that crock, what else are they ready to do?

As a rule, cables for audio and digital audio, are for signals under 25MHz (analog, AES, SPDIF...). In cases where we do not use hundreds of feet length (say for 25MHz and under at 50 feet or less) cables are a lot more about the physical construction, dimensions, mechanical properties, insulation material (dielectric constant). The conductor material is not where the differences are. You want copper, and you will most likely get copper, which by itself is rather "passive material". All the claims about "conditioning" those materials, "giving them directionality", better conductivity and so on is crock.    

The data regarding conductivity of various materials, how conductivity changes with temperature, the dielectric constants of the insulation (effecting cable capacitance and impedance) are all well known for many years and can be found in engineering reference tables and literature. The calculations for impedance, time delay, attenuation due to high current and attenuation due to high frequency for various structures (coax, twisted pair, printed circuit trace over ground plane and so on, is all well studied and known for nearly 50 year. The methods and even some specialized gear to check transmission properties are well established.

The "problem" for some specialized cable makers (or sellers) is that a mass produced cable can be sold for reasonably low cost. So they must find a way to "offer more" in order to charge more. So they come up with "buzz words", and put a lot into the "look" of the cable, making it very "fancy".

I have no problem with "fancy", as long as it is understood that one is paying for "fancy". The problem begins when they start floating "stories". And they are very experienced at spreading baloney.

I am NOT suggesting that making cables is an easy thing to do. The "machinery" used to take row materials and make them into cables is seriously "heavy duty" and impressive. Production tolerances are important, especially when you go to very high frequencies.  

Regards
Dan Lavry
http://www.lavryengineering.com
Logged

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: Another crock
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2006, 11:43:36 PM »


Actually, this "burn in" service may be something.

After all, they do use

"some well-known scientific properties."

What's wrong with that?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.093 seconds with 17 queries.