| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio Discussions » We who are about to die... (a cable thread) (34 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (34 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Do not touch that used tonearm!..  Tonearm running-in...  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     7  55204  01-30-2007
  »  New  Any good sounding AES/EBU interfaces out there?..  Crossing the Same River Twice...  Didital Things  Forum     40  234953  09-17-2007
  »  New  Purist Audio Design vs. Purist Audio Design..  Jim Aud nice pic...  Audio Discussions  Forum     24  150728  04-06-2008
  »  New  The “Wet and Fuzzy” cable...  The “Wet and Fuzzy” cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     0  10967  05-09-2008
  »  New  Cable Current Loading..  The Purist’s Problems...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  25535  05-14-2008
  »  New  Chasing utopian better phono interconnect...  Did I miss something?...  Analog Playback Forum     6  78903  06-05-2008
  »  New  FM and … cables…..  Nordost and the schmalts...  Off Air Audio Forum     2  23850  04-15-2009
  »  New  The BEST bass cable?..  Dialectic biased cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  27591  04-22-2011
06-30-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 21
Post ID: 7709
Reply to: 7708
I don't know about the "cord"...
but you have just +/- described an approach to cooty fighting that is already pretty popular with the tech-ies out there.  This general idea is the basis for some very sophistocated attempts to quiet lines used for lab equipment, including imaging equipment, and that most-interesting/amazing laboratory, SONAR and related listening devices/schemes.  I think present SOTA attempts are mostly going off to digital sampling/analysis with super computers; however, there is still some interesting stuff on the "old" analog versions floating around out there.  If I run across a link, I'll toss it in the ring.

But I'm so pathetic, I always have the same initial reaction to this sort of thing as my cousin, Ned (Ludd), that by the time you add all the technology needed to do it, you have introduced another host of equally-annoying problems.  Now, if it could be done passively...

Meanwhile, how about a Ferrite bead?

Best regards,
Paul S
06-30-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
tuga


Posts 174
Joined on 12-26-2007

Post #: 22
Post ID: 7710
Reply to: 7682
Who's had tagliatelle?
I know I'm moving slightly off topic here, but has anyone tried those flat, pasta like coper cables such as those by 47labs?

Are there any other manufacturers doing anything similar? I've always wondered what would be the electrical and sonic benefits of such a configuration...



"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes
06-30-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 23
Post ID: 7711
Reply to: 7710
Protecting the thread

The question is not really "off Topic", tuga (this is a cable thread), but it's pretty close to fishing, IMO, and that makes me jumpy.

I would really hate to see this thread go so soon where it was doomed to go from the start (hence, the original header...).

Best regards,
Paul S

06-30-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bud
upper left crust united snakes
Posts 87
Joined on 07-07-2005

Post #: 24
Post ID: 7712
Reply to: 7711
Hammers as the only solution
Romy,

Try wrapping a copper wire around a power cable, then "inject" it into the power line through an isolation transformer. The wrapping only to help defeat the antenna event of other signal sources that only have one vector.

et all,

For cables, the most neutral cable available is a true Litz lay up, of insulated magnet winding wire. I use 140 strands of # 40 wire, twisted in a triple spinning loom, that weaves the individual strands from the inside to the outside of one of the lay up hanks, while twisting them in a spiral, within the tndividual hanks, that are also then twisted in a spiral.

This stuff can be used without any sheilding, as an interconnect, and even parallel power cords do not add an audible AC signal, even closely paralleled power cords. The sound of this Litz, in a woven cotton XXL shoe lace tube, is dead neutral and dead boring. Sounds like extremely detailed Brownian noise, no matter what is playing. This is a neutral reference if there is such a thing. Everything else has "color" added. Adding anything else to these cables adds colorful dynamics back. Too much of anything else added begins to slew the phase and smear the transients.

Same is true for using it for speaker cables. Island Pink has a full set of this stuff, IC's and speaker cables, and equates it with a single strand of wire in a teflon tube, but shlightly better in all cases of performance criteria.

There is a pure silver Litz coil winding wire too. The cost is in the thousands of $ per pound, there is a 6 pound minimum and a 6 month wait. I am thus very happy with copper....

Bud
06-30-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 25
Post ID: 7713
Reply to: 7712
Boring? Perfect (sounds interesting)!
OK, Bud:  This does appear, as I projected earlier, to be case in point for the "expert approach", using technology/techniques/machines that don't pencil for DIY, to say the least.  I mean, you're not saying you lay this stuff up yourself, right?

Off the top of your head, what is net gauge (140X40)?

How the hell do you dress/terminate it?

I just can't envision back winding and stripping 140 40 ga wire ends and prepping for cold-welding...

...like frickin' fiber optics...

Two mile minimum on the shoe lace, I presume?

Obviously, I'm Jake with Litz...  but now I am confused again about the 2" EMF vis this mega-Litz and its "collective" dielectric, per yours, above...

Best regards,
Paul S
06-30-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Bud
upper left crust united snakes
Posts 87
Joined on 07-07-2005

Post #: 26
Post ID: 7714
Reply to: 7713
If not hammers, then glass?
Hi Paul,

The net gauge for one cable of the 140 strands of #40 stuff is #15 AWG, as far as circular mils of area vs current induced heating goes. The surface area is some 13 times that of a solid #15 gauge copper wire. A minimum of 10 times the surface area of an equivalent solid wire is the Litz standard. There are two or three varieties of Litz lay up though. Also, this is only for insulated strands. Bare wire in this sort of mad plan is not considered Litz by the RF folks, because it does not have the external field isolation that the insulated stuff has.

We buy the wire from a company that used to make wire for magnetic memory and are thus the premier redraw house in the US, though,  I suppose there are two others just as good in the rest of the world. They do all of the lay up and present us with the final cable on a spool, ready for use in coil winding for audio transformers, which we do to get to live indoors.

The only feasible way to dress the ends is with a solder pot. Just forget about bare copper here, you cannot mechanically strip this many fine wires and remain sane. Since we are not talking about minimalist energy transfer here, the dissimilar metals question really doesn't raise it's argumentative head. I am sure bare copper to bare copper would be best, but the cupric contamination rate would be phenomenal in such a case and you would end up removing a new length of wire insulation about every six months.

The 2 inch radius is really an infinite one, but 2 inches is about the limit for interference that brings an audible change in a high resolution system, where the information that has been stripped away by poor grounds and sodden transformers/capacitors, has been kept to a minimum.

The Litz immunity to external field events just comes from the intermittant exposure of the individual strands as the outer surface, down the length of the cable, as opposed to the continuous exposure of the surface of a solid cable, or even a typical multi strand cable.

The use of small amounts of low dielectric constant material is allowed beecause you space the peices down the length of the entire cablee and it is just a resevoir to aid the dielectric coating on the wires and that supplied by the cotton sleeve. Using this many, or more, strands of bare copper, even in a pure vihyl or nylon sleeve, is audibly more colored than the Litz in a cotton tube without any extra dielectric added. Bare Litz wire is not audibly different from that in cotton, except in the information content of very wide band, low amplitude signals, like hall echo. Musical instrument sound is equivalent for direct tones and their constituent harmonies.

Bud
07-01-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
be
Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts 86
Joined on 02-12-2007

Post #: 27
Post ID: 7720
Reply to: 7704
Cu vs. Ag vs. diameter
Gregm, you wrote: "Yet, the best result -- i.e. most homogeneous sonically -- came from the thinner wires in interconnects."

Did you use silver wire for your comparison?
07-02-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 498
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 28
Post ID: 7724
Reply to: 7720
Thinner wires
Well,

I also did this comparison a long while back and found the same result.  The thinner the wire, the better for the preservation of the sound.  But it is important to recognize that the sound we hear from a something even perfectly reproducing the recorded stereo sounds will not at all be the same as the Sound of the actual musical event.  What is recorded is only a small part of the musical event, like trying to represent an apple with a tiny sliver off the skin.

The problem is that we (or at least I) want to reproduce the original musical event with a stereo system, so the strong temptation is when we hear something that reminds us of the musical even, even if it is a distortion which leads us away from accurately reproducing the recording, we are drawn to it.  But so often, we tire of this one small aspect and move on to another different small aspect; hence the audiophile cult.

The key for me is to stay true to getting the reproduction of the recording correct.  When this happens, I am getting closer to the actual Sound.

But yes, silver wires.
07-02-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Gregm
Greece
Posts 91
Joined on 02-16-2005

Post #: 29
Post ID: 7725
Reply to: 7724
Cu then Ag, and sound
 be wrote:
Gregm, you wrote: "Yet, the best result -- i.e. most homogeneous sonically -- came from the thinner wires in interconnects."

Did you use silver wire for your comparison?
I used copper in my example above. Later on, I received reports about identical results using silver wire.

 drdna wrote:
...the sound we hear from a something even perfectly reproducing the recorded stereo sounds will not at all be the same as the Sound of the actual musical event.  What is recorded is only a small part of the musical event, like trying to represent an apple with a tiny sliver off the skin.

The problem is that we (or at least I) want to reproduce the original musical event with a stereo system...
Why on earth would anyone want to attempt that? First of all, the only sensorial connection
between reproduction & actual event is auditory. Not one of the other senses participate in the reproduction! Moreover, you do not have the presence of musicians, the hall is different, there are no other spectators, etc etc. How on earth does anyone expect to recreate anything.

I think that an honest comment somewhere in the '70s perhaps to the effect that one can use acoustic instruments -- live, real music, a musical event -- as a gauge to determine how (in)correctly a system/ component was reproducing a musical instrument, was turned into a gross generalisation.


Rather, I propose the following "vision" for reproduction: to create a completely "new" event, in your living room (or wherever the system is). This event uses music recorded during a musical session, and it uses sound reproduction hardware put together in your best way, etc. It also uses the venue (i.e. your living your) your taste in decorating and your taste in placing the speakers, the chairs, etc.



 drdna wrote:
The key for me is to stay true to getting the reproduction of the recording correct.  When this happens, I am getting closer to the actual Sound.
Well, at least you're getting close to what became of the recording after the mastering. Please allow me to note that this approach is slightly philosophical; it departs from a ligical premise but may be stomped by reality & at the end of the day, may be less important than we (I) once thought. Regards
07-02-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 30
Post ID: 7727
Reply to: 7725
Different animals all together…

 Gregm wrote:
Why on earth would anyone want to attempt that? First of all, the only sensorial connection between reproduction & actual event is auditory. Not one of the other senses participate in the reproduction! Moreover, you do not have the presence of musicians, the hall is different, there are no other spectators, etc etc. How on earth does anyone expect to recreate anything.

I think that an honest comment somewhere in the '70s perhaps to the effect that one can use acoustic instruments -- live, real music, a musical event -- as a gauge to determine how (in)correctly a system/ component was reproducing a musical instrument, was turned into a gross generalisation.

Rather, I propose the following "vision" for reproduction: to create a completely "new" event, in your living room (or wherever the system is). This event uses music recorded during a musical session, and it uses sound reproduction hardware put together in your best way, etc. It also uses the venue (i.e. your living your) your taste in decorating and your taste in placing the speakers, the chairs, etc.

Although it will be way off the topic of the thread but I can’t resist commenting on it as what Gregm said is a very accurate description of my views about audio practice. We should not look for fidelity of truthfulness of reproduction of an actual event but rather we should care about the adequacy of perceptual reaction.

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=2466#2466

Live music and audio are different animals with different language and different expressive methods – they both have a common denominator - the human consciousness that harvest the result. So instead of imitating one over another why do not talk to the consciousness directly using the means of purely audio language? In fact there is something else in there …

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=7412

..but I would avoid talking about it publicly for now.

Rgs, Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
07-02-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 498
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 31
Post ID: 7731
Reply to: 7727
What is a Connection to the music?
 Romy the Cat wrote:

 Gregm wrote:
Why on earth would anyone want to attempt that? First of all, the only sensorial connection between reproduction & actual event is auditory. Not one of the other senses participate in the reproduction! Moreover, you do not have the presence of musicians, the hall is different, there are no other spectators, etc etc. How on earth does anyone expect to recreate anything.

I think that an honest comment somewhere in the '70s perhaps to the effect that one can use acoustic instruments -- live, real music, a musical event -- as a gauge to determine how (in)correctly a system/ component was reproducing a musical instrument, was turned into a gross generalisation.

Rather, I propose the following "vision" for reproduction: to create a completely "new" event, in your living room (or wherever the system is). This event uses music recorded during a musical session, and it uses sound reproduction hardware put together in your best way, etc. It also uses the venue (i.e. your living your) your taste in decorating and your taste in placing the speakers, the chairs, etc.

Although it will be way off the topic of the thread but I can’t resist commenting on it as what Gregm said is a very accurate description of my views about audio practice. We should not look for fidelity of truthfulness of reproduction of an actual event but rather we should care about the adequacy of perceptual reaction.

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=2466#2466

Live music and audio are different animals with different language and different expressive methods – they both have a common denominator - the human consciousness that harvest the result. So instead of imitating one over another why do not talk to the consciousness directly using the means of purely audio language? In fact there is something else in there …

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=7412

..but I would avoid talking about it publicly for now.

Rgs, Romy the caT


Yes, you are both correct; I absolutely agree and this is what I thought I was saying?!?  I used a very poor choice of words apparently when I said to try to "reproduce the original Musical event" although I hoped from the context my meaning would be obvious.  Wasn't it?  I guess not. 

When I used this phrase, I am trying to say get the same feelings and human perceptual experience from the reproduced event as the original musical event.  I think it might be a better choice to say "connect to the original event." So thanks guys for clarifying my statement so that it will not be misunderstood.

Adrian
07-20-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 32
Post ID: 7850
Reply to: 7731
Double-twisting 2 1/2; a tail of synergy
OK, I should have done this back when I first thought of it; basically, if I had a tail, I'd wag it:  Twisted cotton-wrapped POCC silver and urethane-coated POCC copper with WBT silver Next-Gen connectors; 4 wires/cable; 1 25.5 ga. Cu and 1 26 ga. Ag per leg.

Until I got into today's session, I was thinking it takes the copper longer to break in than the silver, and I was thinking I was getting less than the sum of the parts (parts as descroibed earlier).  I was also concerned that there might be a sense of "striation" or "stratification".  But then things began to come into focus, and I am quite pleased with the results so far, with the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.  Focus and "integrity" are significantly improved, along with more natural (and less gratutous) harmonics and better bass, with improved dynamics as a bonus.  This latter effect likely comes from a less "homoginized" sound, so each instrument in the ensemble "registers" much better, along with a clear "sense" of "felt" impact that's better than copper alone.  The "sense of clarity" is also backed up with actual clarity that is better than silver alone.  Also, the soundfield (not the "stage")...is larger, with the walls gone altogether, and performers are now a little tiny bit closer.

I really enjoyed the effects with massed instruments, like flutes and even violins, which are sounding better than ever.

When the ML2s finally settle well into their own integrity (about 2 1/2 hours in), the focus, density and sense of ensemble play are amazing and quite captivating.

Of course none of this would add up if it took away from the music; but I am happy to say that the opposite is true.  Another day when I just hated to shut it down.

Returning to the "Real World": this is just one run of IC we're talking about, here...

Go figure...

Paul S
10-04-2018 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 33
Post ID: 25125
Reply to: 7850
A "Shielded" Version of the Above (for all it's worth...)
Over 10 year later, I finally "finished" and installed a shielded version of the above cable for the short run between my phono SUT and my phono stage, replacing the nondescript Placette cables I've been using there all this time.  As anyone experienced in this sort of thing (myself, for instance) might have predicted, the ultra-quiet grounding scheme I used for all these years (with the Placette cables) does not work with the new cables.  I spent less than an hour futzing with the ground scheme this go.  At one point I was listening to Elvis despite there was "no input" , just system gain, so RFI (obviously).  The quietest I got it before I ran out of patience was a still too annoying, fairly pure 60 Hz hum.  Other than this, I like the sound now better than the Placettes.  I hope I can stifle the hum before I die from old age.  Something besides the shield and bleed wires I did different this time was using Eichmann Silver Bullet connectors (with plastic sleeves) vs. (metal sleeved) WBTs .  I hope this isn't the problem, although I suppose any other fix procedure would beat having to re-fish each "layer" through each subsequent sleeve; what a PITA that was!  And despite I use a very tiny soldering iron (Thermaltronics), soldering tiny wire to the tiny Eichmann terminals was also a major PIT, including melting the plastic jacket where the negative stud terminal runs through it!

Construction was: a twisted pair of the silver wires mentioned above, and twisted over them a single, coated copper wire (as above) for signal only.  Then foamed PTFE tube over that.  Then braided, tinned copper wire tubing for the shield.  Then braided poly tubing for the jacket over that.  Heat shrink tubing binds the ends.  Stud screws hold the connector jackets to the heat shrinked sleeve ends.  I soldered tinned Cu bleeder wires to the shield near one end of each cable.  Eichmann Silver Bullet connectors (RCA), as mentioned above.



Paul S



10-27-2018 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 34
Post ID: 25143
Reply to: 25125
Guy Hammel Would Laugh!
Not that I have a lot of patience for audio, but I finally ran out my allotment for the effing shielded phono cables when the clock sounded 12 before I figured out a quiet grounding scheme.  On the up side, I cleaned and re-greased all the contacts for the first time in years, and at least the system is hum and RFI free with the Placette cables in place.  As far as I know, these cables are also shielded, but there are no "bleeder wires" for the shields, so I guess the shields are tied to the negative jack terminal.  Who knows?  Anyway, even though the Placette cables "don't sound as good" as my new Ag/Cu multi-metal cables, I will stick with them for now because I have them here, and they don't add 60Hz hum.  Not sure how I'd go about tying my cables' high mass shields to the teeny, tiny Eichmann negative poles, if I want to try them that way!  Something funny, I think, is that Guy never advertised the fact that he made or makes proprietary cables, and I've never seen other Placette cables, so this is likely something that he just "knocked out", like, no big deal.  And a funny story came with these Placette cables: I bought them from a local fellow who turned out to have been involved in a class action law suit against Dave Fletcher/SOTA, saying the vacuum hold down feature ruined his priceless record collection by embedding dust into the vinyl!  And (of course...) I've used a SOTA vacuum TT since 1984 with no problems whatsoever, so (of course...) the litigant was misguided at best, or a sue-happy jerk at worst.  Poor David Fletcher!


Paul S
Page 2 of 2 (34 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Do not touch that used tonearm!..  Tonearm running-in...  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     7  55204  01-30-2007
  »  New  Any good sounding AES/EBU interfaces out there?..  Crossing the Same River Twice...  Didital Things  Forum     40  234953  09-17-2007
  »  New  Purist Audio Design vs. Purist Audio Design..  Jim Aud nice pic...  Audio Discussions  Forum     24  150728  04-06-2008
  »  New  The “Wet and Fuzzy” cable...  The “Wet and Fuzzy” cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     0  10967  05-09-2008
  »  New  Cable Current Loading..  The Purist’s Problems...  Audio Discussions  Forum     5  25535  05-14-2008
  »  New  Chasing utopian better phono interconnect...  Did I miss something?...  Analog Playback Forum     6  78903  06-05-2008
  »  New  FM and … cables…..  Nordost and the schmalts...  Off Air Audio Forum     2  23850  04-15-2009
  »  New  The BEST bass cable?..  Dialectic biased cable....  Audio Discussions  Forum     4  27591  04-22-2011
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts