In Reply to: Dielectric Absorption posted by Dan Banquer on April 27, 2004 at 08:52:52:
Although it is likely that AH and Gene will once again silently and without any explanation, correct or change the article from it's current content and wording, the fact is, IT COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT!He claims in the title, that the article 'debunks' cable DA.
Yet the article content is almost entirely devoted to DF, or dissipation factor!!!!!
THIS IS A DIFFERENT PARAMETER THAN DA, or Dielectric Absoprtion.
The article title is wrong, and misleading at best.This is not the first time this has happened at AH, nor will it be the last. They clearly do not understand cable physics, and are so intent on 'debunking' and 'de-mything', that the truth gets lost in the zeal to show folks just how misguided they are for actually HEARING sonic difference in audio cables!
Now, I don't recall that anyone, myself included, has ever claimed that cable dielectric DF has an influence on the sound of a cable. But if they had, the ONLY property that was looked at in relation to DF in the AH article, was how much amplitude loss would be involved?
ONLY looking at amplitude loss is a classic indication that we are dealing with a very limited and "blinders-on" view of the situation, and NOT a true attempt to actually figure out if there really is (or could be) a basis for some dielectric parameter to have a sonic effect.
You would have to consider and model or measure dozens of different factors in order to truly explore the possibilities, rather than focus on only one trivial aspect.What really is dielectric DA? It is not DF, as they try to sell you at AH.
See:
http://www.capacitors.com/picking_capacitors/pickcap.htmWhat does the AH article show? It shows that PVC insulated 12 ga. zip cord has a non-linear capacitance within the audio band (see the bottom figure on page 1) This behavior of PVC is a known factor, and has been pointed out before, see:
http://bwcecom.belden.com/college/Techpprs/ciocahalf.htm
Fig. 3
Note the PE insulated wire DOES NOT show this change in dielectric constant and thus the capacitance, so Gene's contention that "What we are seeing here is a slight fluctuation in measurement due to instrumentation error of cable inductance isolating the very small value of capacitance as frequency increases. " is total BS. He just doesn't know, and is publishing pure cr_p instead.This is reminiscent of one of the first cable articles at AH, the " Component Video Cables - The Definitive Guide", where there were 16 major errors committed to 'print', and when I pointed them out, I was lambasted by the die-hard staunch naysayers, I was said to be "all wrong". Yet, quietly, and without any fanfare, 12 of those 16 major errors were corrected, with only a small print citation as to a date and the statement that "a correction was made". I note that this original correction note is no longer shown, only later ones. Ah, the power of electronic ink. I also note that since the last two of three revisions to that article, two more major errors have crept in, for a total of 6 major errors, and several more minor ones.
Other examples of completely missing the point:
The AH article "Debunking the Myth of Speaker Cable Resonance"
talks about the electrical resoances of speaker cables, and concludes that none will reonate within the audio band, and therefore, it is all just snake-oil. But wait, who was it that was saying that we had to be concerned about electrical resonances in speaker cables?
The AH article cites Stereophile and Transparent Cable, but the only cable resonances that Stereophile has ever discussed were related to the mechanical resonances of a speaker cable! (Along the lines of motor/generator distortions, and how the physical movement or resonance can affect the sound).This is completely different than electrical LCR related resonances as per the AH article!
BTW, even if we were only concerned about LCR electrical resonances, there are two articles that contradict the AH article:
http://passlabs.com/pdf/spkrcabl.pdf
and
http://sound.westhost.com/cable-z.htm
Where legitimate concerns about the speaker cable interacting with the power amplifier output stage to cause potential instability are raised.As another example, in the AH article "Speaker Cable Face Off", only zip cords of various types were measured, and two other examples touted as "high end" cables, one of which was a separated pair of wires, which is NOT typical of most aftermarket high performance cables. This VERY limited look at speaker cables makes a big point of how the "high end" cables really didn't measure that much better, or measured worse than the zip cords. Well, duh! This reminds me of the oft cited listening test for speaker cables, where the ONLY DUT's were various zip cords, and no other geometries or types. Gee, I can't imagine why they didn't sound (or in the case of AH, measure) very different, can you?
The most bizarre thing is, that AH never even LISTENED to any of these cables in their "face-off"!!!!On the whole, AH has time and again, shown they will do ANYTHING to try and prove their point that audio cables don't matter beyond 10/12 ga. zip cords, and RS grade IC's. Including ignoring certain aspects of physics, repeatedly touting bad measurements, ignoring critiques of their articles (and then quietly editing them later), and generally approaching the whole issue from such an obviously biased POV, that only a naysayer can love 'em for their steadfast refusal to entertain even a shred of real science where audio/video cables are concerned.
Aside from all the factual information in this post, the rest of the contents are, of course, strictly my personal opinion, based on my extensive experience with audio and video cables, and my engineering background.
Jon Risch
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Sigh. More Red Herring Anyone? - Jon Risch 21:13:19 04/27/04 (16)
- Re: Sigh. More Red Herring Anyone? - Dan Banquer 11:48:47 04/28/04 (0)
- Now Now.. - jneutron 10:20:23 04/28/04 (12)
- Hey, JN... - Commuteman 10:07:26 05/04/04 (9)
- Peter...please read a little more slowly... - jneutron 10:47:24 05/04/04 (8)
- Let's take this one step a time (slow enough for ya?) - Commuteman 13:20:21 05/04/04 (7)
- So some one else noticed too? - Jon Risch 21:21:54 05/05/04 (1)
- I puzzled for a while.. - jneutron 08:07:26 05/06/04 (0)
- Hooooo baby...dissed big time....:-) - jneutron 14:04:18 05/04/04 (4)
- logistical question before I try to answer anything else - Commuteman 15:12:43 05/04/04 (3)
- Re: logistical question before I try to answer anything else - jneutron 06:08:30 05/05/04 (2)
- Ahhhhh...... - Commuteman 14:44:59 05/05/04 (1)
- Re: Ahhhhh...... - jneutron 05:58:31 05/06/04 (0)
- Re: Now Now.. - Jon Risch 22:21:42 04/28/04 (1)
- Re: Now Now.. - jneutron 06:37:11 04/29/04 (0)
- Re: Sigh. More Red Herring Anyone? - john curl 09:44:55 04/28/04 (0)
- Re: Sigh. More Red Herring Anyone? - Dan Banquer 05:22:23 04/28/04 (0)