|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Now Now.. posted by jneutron on April 28, 2004 at 10:20:23:
[ Hmmm.I've seen that link...where was that?...Oh yah, I saw it in the article you are trashing...you make it look like you are presenting new facts here. ]Guess where they got it from? I have been posting/citing that link for about 5-6 years now, before there even WAS an AH site. I use the orginal Belden URL, which has changed twice over the years. Perhaps they felt that they couldn't use the Belden URL, or it might be found that it is the same one I have been citing for years?
[ To correct for that effect is quite simple. Cut the cable into foot long lengths, and measure the parallel capacitance of all of them. ]
Doesn't this essentially throw out the window the nearly constant claim that lumped LCR parameters are all that is necessary to consider? You are saying that the correct model would be a clasic transmission line model and NOT a lumped parameter model.
If you think it holds true for zip cord, with it's fairly small capacitance, then certainly the higher C cables would HAVE to be modeled this way.
In any case, the bottom line is that the capacitance drop at HF's would be much more influenced by the dropping dielectric constant, and not the series inductance. Sometimes the simple reason is the one.
He doesn't state what length he used for this measurement, but in earlier AH forum posts, he had been talking about measuring 8 foot lengths, and dividing by 8 to get the per foot amount. I note for the record, this was ONLY after I pointed out that trying to measure inductance (or any other parameter) for a one foot cable sample was ludicrous.
Are you saying that 8 feet of zip cord is enough to mess with the measured capacitance? Or is it more likley that the large change in PVC's dielectric constant from LF to HF's is responsible? Where was that questioning jneutron whe it was needed?
[ Please try to keep it both factual and technical. ]
OK, lets address the facts, the ones that you did not even comment on.
THE ARTICLE TITLE AND CONCLUSION WAS (and IS) INCORRECT. He was suppossed to be talking about DA, and instead, the entire text was about DF. This is a huge technical gaffe, and it is not the only one they have committed over the years. That is what I point out with other examples, their articles are terrible!
You say he has added an addendum. I say to this, so what? IT IS STILL WRONG!!!!!
The article content is about Dissipation Factor, NOT about DA. Adding this addendum does not correct the completely WRONG statements that the article is about DA!!!!!What really burns me, is that with all the posturing about "Pursuing the Truth in Audio", they are one of the worst offenders in terms of half-truthes and bias and putting a spin on matters.
In the cited cases, they are absolutely and completely WRONG, and are publishing false information, incorrect physics, and furthering the classic naysayer position through BS.
[ Your post is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. ]
They ARE the problem!!! How am I a part of the problem, if I call to attention the incorrect technical content of their "articles"?
Can you legitimately defend ONE of the cited technical errors?As I have been puzzled about before, you have been very rigorous with me and my posts, but when it comes to posts or sites where the content is definitely anti-cable sonics, for some reason, they can miss the mark by a country mile, and hardly anything is said. I feel that indicates a bias on your part, or at the very least, a sensitization to what I post and write, while the other folks are ignored.
[ PS..Someone has to take the high road.. ]
I won't argue with that, but it sure as hell is not AH!
The only way to "correct" the article, is to relabel it "Debunking the Myth of Dissipation Factor", and change all the references in the article to DA to DF.
Only that doesn't make any sense, because no one that I know of has ever directly claimed that DF affected cable sonics.This is just the most recent (and one of the more obvious) examples of the fact that AH just doesn't have a clue when it comes to audio cable technical matters.
I think the most revealing aspect of all of this, is that they have never once mentioned LISTENING to cables, or that they have ever conducted any listening sessions with audio cables, only measurements and their biased and peculiar brand of physics.
IT'S DF, NOT DA!!!!!
No amount of spanking JR will change that fact.
Jon Risch
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Now Now.. - Jon Risch 22:21:42 04/28/04 (1)
- Re: Now Now.. - jneutron 06:37:11 04/29/04 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
