The Audiophoolery Thread.

[stevehertz]

Originally Posted by Craig Sawyers

Peter Walker? Ross Walker? Not sure who Richard Walker is/was - google was no help on that name.

Dohh.. Peter Walker! (Richard walker was the great angler!)

[Argus25]

Originally Posted by GrimJosef

I was interested in your comments on the Japanese view of this. Would they be compatible with the Kondo philosophy http://www.audionote.co.jp/en/philosophy.html or Leben's use of distinctive capacitors http://lebenhifi.com/products/cs300xs.html or Shindo's attachment to vintage components http://www.coolhunting.com/tech/shindo-laboratories or Luxman's belief in the "elegant tonal quality that is unique to the performance of the TA-300B, a direct heated triode" http://www.luxman.com/product.php?pid=56 ?

Cheers,

GJ

Yes compatible, because in the case of the Japanese in this area, mostly who propose the benefits of the components/systems, they believe it wholeheartedly 100% and when they express their views they are honest & genuine and there is no dishonor in that.

I was referring to the case where an Engineer becomes involved in remarks and audiophoolery claims of things like sonic performance, that they know for sure have no basis in science and are not true, but they are still prepared to push those for advantage.

[GrimJosef]

Originally Posted by stevehertz

I generally agree. But where would you say *Peter Walker stands on this? he was in may ways a great trail blazer and innovator, but he also made some outrageous statements about hifi equipment that most people think were quite stupid and factually wrong ...

Could you give me an example or two ?

Cheers,

GJ

[stevehertz]

Originally Posted by GrimJosef

Could you give me an example or two ?

For example he said that all good amplifiers sound the same. He later went on to contradict and/or qualify that statement: Last page, top of second column:
http://www.quadrevisie.eu/quadinfo/pdf/a24.pdf

[GrimJosef]

Originally Posted by Argus25

Yes compatible, because in the case of the Japanese in this area, mostly who propose the benefits of the components/systems, they believe it wholeheartedly 100% ...

Setting aside the question of whether this is the case or not (I don't know how to distinguish absolutely between someone who really believes what they say and someone who just says it, unless the latter has a Gerald Ratner moment) I guess the next question is, since the difference affects only the hi-fi designer's honour, has our principal concern become that of saving the designer from him/herself ? I confess when I first raised the question I was thinking more, perhaps, about whether it was right to 'save' the customer from being misled, even if this took their happiness away.

Cheers,

GJ

[GrimJosef]

Originally Posted by stevehertz

For example he said that all good amplifiers sound the same. He later went on to contradict and/or qualify that statement: Last page, top of second column:
http://www.quadrevisie.eu/quadinfo/pdf/a24.pdf

I don't think he contradicts his statement that 'all good amplifiers sound the same' at all, does he ?

He says that "if you took ten modern amplifiers, set the levels correctly and avoided overload, about five of them would sound the same, the other five wouldn't". That's modern amplifiers, not good amplifiers. Later on Walker agrees with Atkinson when Atkinson says "I'm starting to suspect that perhaps there aren't many good amplifiers around." Walker set a very high standard for 'good'.

But just to be clear, which is the bit which is outrageous, stupid and factually wrong ? None of it sounds like any of those things to me, I'm afraid.

Cheers,

GJ

[PJL]

Originally Posted by Craig Sawyers

And just when you thought that shielded coax was the panacea to interference - Shield Induced Current Noise (SICN) from the professional audio company RANE:

http://www.rane.com/pdf/ranenotes/SCIN_Shield_Current_Induced_Noise.pdf

These are hard bitten guys - they don't believe in cables sounding different per se - they actually measure things. Their "Rane Notes" are well worth a peruse http://www.rane.com/library.html

Craig

When using screened audio cable I always thought only one end of the screening should be connected to earth?

[kalee20]

Originally Posted by Argus25

" Is it wrong for a person with scientific expertise, such as an Engineer, to advise anyone with information that they know is untrue and not based in science, provided there is a mutual benefit to both, and if there is no third party harm ?"

Basically telling 'white lies?'

Yes I think it's wrong. If there is mutual benefit, then the advice and the sale can still be offered, providing it is qualified: "Look, nobody quite know why, and I can hardly tell any difference myself - but lots of people find that using direction-oriented speaker cables results in a noticeable improvement after 20 hours of running-in. That's why I sell the cable."

I do occasionally have an open mind myself to things which science can't explain yet - I bought a set of magnetic leg wraps for my chronically lame horse some years ago. No reason why they would work, and whether they made her any more comfortable, only she knows, but for £60 I was less concerned about why they would make a difference as to doing anything possible to help her. (When I told vet, he said, "Well if it makes you feel better using them, Peter, then use them!" Which is perfectly fair.)

[ms660]

Never mind the earth screening, the important thing with all this stuff is that it's folks feet that should be connected to earth

Lawrence.

[Argus25]

Originally Posted by joebog1

I recently noted that a Mullard OC81 used but tested 'white jacketed' transistor sold for £41.00 on an auction site.
Joe

( PM me if you need a couple) (( free ))

This has to be one of the most impressive posts on this entire thread. joebog1 could have sold his white jacketed OC81's to audiophiles for 40 GBP along with colorful descriptions of how they amplify audio, but he knows they are not worth nearly that, so he offers them for free. Now there is a Engineer who inspires honor, dignity & trust.

When using screened audio cable I always thought only one end of the screening should be connected to earth?

Ah yes, the difference twixt screened and coaxial (impedance matched or not). Screened has the signal carrying conductors (plural, feed and return or plus and minus) and an overall screen. Coaxial has the return conductor (usually only referenced to ground*) as the outer bit, in this case the screen should, nay, must be connected at both ends.

*ground, could be chassis, common, 0V, reference or loads of other things.

[Craig Sawyers]

Originally Posted by PJL

When using screened audio cable I always thought only one end of the screening should be connected to earth?

With single ended, both ends connected, otherwise there is no signal continuity. The problem is defeating hum loops and other interference. Now you can use ground lift resistors between the chassis safety ground and the analogue ground, often with a bypass cap to drain any HF energy to chassis (safety) ground. But signal interconnection in single ended can be a bit of a minefield. The bibles of this topic are "Grounding and Shielding, Circuits and Interference" by Ralph Morrison; I have both the 3rd and 5th editions; and Ott's book "Noise reduction techniques in Electronic Systems".

But with balanced cable, the guiding principle is to connect the shield directly to the chassis at each end, enshrined in an AES standard and championed by Neil Muncey in 1994.

Having said that, there is a more recent alternative view which connects only the signal source end of the cable shield in balanced systems (see for example Linear Audio, V10, pp25-36).

Ott, as previously mentioned, gave an excellent presentation given to the AES in 2008 covering both balanced and unbalanced cabling, hum, noise, RF susceptibility etc etc. http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/AES-RFI-SF08.pdf

Of course we have strayed off the topic of cable burn-in. Now some years ago I was keeping an open mind about this, and bought a kit of bits from Hagermann in the US for not a great amount, and built it into a box. I've done AB testing of identical cables of various constructions (BNC-BNC for SPDIF, balanced and unbalanced signal cable and speaker cables).

I am happy to report that I could discern absolutely no difference whatever between burnt in and virgin cables. The burn in device collects dust.

[Radio Wrangler]

[QUOTE=kalee20;983481]

Originally Posted by Argus25

"Look, nobody quite know why, and I can hardly tell any difference myself - but lots of people find that using direction-oriented speaker cables results in a noticeable improvement after 20 hours of running-in. That's why I sell the cable."

That sounds like a reasonable approach. The person who wants some directional cable gets some. The vendor has mislead no-one and been open about his understanding. Two people with different beliefs have traded fairly.

The only fly in the ointment is me, standing a little distance off, listening, wearing my Dr Evil hat, and wondering "In what way was that directional cable made directional?"

David

The misleading bit, well a total lie, is that the cable has directional properties at all, apart from the arrow on it. OK at RF a tapered line is directional, audio?, untapered?, unmatched?, you are having a laugh.

[bluepilot]

Originally Posted by Radio Wrangler

The only fly in the ointment is me, standing a little distance off, listening, wearing my Dr Evil hat, and wondering "In what way was that directional cable made directional?"

and whether it's possible to get an un-rectifier to go with it so that it works with ac. Or is there such a thing as directional ac?

whether it's possible to get an un-rectifier

That is called an inverter, you have to specify in engineering terms what you want out of it, only voltage, frequency and current. Quite simple.

As this thread goes on and on the "explanations" of audio foolery get flakier and flakier. I am enjoying it, so are the engineering department at work. We had a competition for the most ludicrous hifi gadget, that got silly, now it is for the most expensive bit of wire, so far it is $5000 for a one metre phono to phono cable, stereo mind you.

[yesnaby]

Ex-demo, reduced from £6195

http://www.hifi-intouch.co.uk/products/2473/28/speaker-cable...minata-4-ft-loudspeaker-cables.aspx

yesanby, I have been trumped! Must be worth more as it has be broken in, the fools.

[bluepilot]

Originally Posted by yesnaby

Ex-demo, reduced from £6195

I suppose defying the laws of physics requires something quite expensive. It's not clear what "exceeds all expectations" means. If I expect it to be cr*p then would it be total cr*p or just a bit better than cr*p?

[Argus25]

[QUOTE=Radio Wrangler;983525]

Originally Posted by kalee20

That sounds like a reasonable approach. The person who wants some directional cable gets some. The vendor has mislead no-one and been open about his understanding. Two people with different beliefs have traded fairly.

The only fly in the ointment is me, standing a little distance off, listening, wearing my Dr Evil hat, and wondering "In what way was that directional cable made directional?"

David

That's a quote I never made, it belongs to someone else, I don't sell cable either !