Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

You gotta read the posts accurately, and review my diagram.

JR: :""This info has been around for a while, see:
http://www.soundstage.com/articles/pete01.htm
(Been listed in my Annotated Cable Bibliograghy for several years, back to 1999)

It's a very good, well written, piece..Joe did good work there.
However, while good, it does not address what I am talking about. I had expected you to understand more what I was talking about. Perhaps I'll try to explain it a little better.First, he says: The noise current in this loop flows in response to an interchassis potential generated by the interaction of each chassis' differing line and neutral leakage currents with the common-mode impedance of their respective power cords. The current drawn by each power supply, through its interaction with the differential-mode impedance of its power cord and AC mains wiring, can introduce an additional interchassis potential in certain special cases""

My diagram is entirely about the certain special cases..

JR: ""Note his comments about twisted pair with shield IC's reducing this, as well as balanced AC power also reducing the amount of current in the loop.

Balanced IC's will certainly address the issue I speak of, as I stated already.

Joe also says this:Power-supply currents, as drawn from the wall, can also create a chassis potential above ground, but only if the two "Y" caps are not of equal value

Again, my diagram clearly shows a different mechanism. He is playing inductance, impedance and cap games, while I am talking about the assymetrical coupling of the power cord and the ground loop.


So, the next three links you provide are useless for the discussion at hand.
DIY Cables and RFI/ICGP (Inter Chassis Ground Potentials)
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/80108.html

Minimizing AC Power Leakage Currents, OR How to Orient Your Two-prong Non-polarized AC Plugs:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/tweaks/messages/36909.html

DIY AC Balanced Power
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/catch2.htm

JR: ""Rather than attempt to educate the masses up to EE level, I provide designs and recipes for minimizing these issues, as well as advice with regard to addressing ICGP. For this, I have been villified at AR and said to be in the same class as Hitler and the SS.

We are not AT AR, nor have I villified you, nor likened you to Hitler..so why do you obfuscate with this drivel?? STICK TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND, please.

JR: ""It doesn't pay to try and explain one's self, you are already "guilty", you are promoting cables as having sonic differences, therefore you MUST be a bad person and technically incompetent, BECAUSE IN THE NAYSAYER'S MIND, IT CAN'T POSSIBLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE, NO WAY.""

This is where you fall apart, Jon..

Everyone who has learned engineering is taught rules..science rules, physics rules, and how to use them. And the really good ones learn which rules to apply...the REALLY REALLY good ones learn when the rules do not apply, and then, using scientific discipline, re-write the rules.

Humans can hear 20 Hz to 20 Khz..period, end of story..That rule, applied by itself, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that wires and cables CANNOT make a difference. So all the "others" are applying the rules we all live with and understand to the problem. You are also guilty of doing that.

But when the Nordmark analysis and result is included, the old rules fall apart. They have to, 20Hkz bandwidth and 1.5 uSec lateralization are inconcruent.

JR: "" Skeptic at AR is a classic example, as are several others who used to frequent the old AR boards. You seemed to come on like that at first, with almost all of your energy devoted to showing what couldn't possibly be audible (mosquitos.)

You just detailed your analysis of how a speaker wire can be "motor-generator" over on cable..You had a loosley braided wire set, and heard a difference when you sandbagged them to the floor..you "PRESUMED" that it was vibration working on the cable, so made up that motor generator thingy, as well as piezo. What you did incorrectly, was assume the inductance of the wire set made no difference...how could it?, 20 Khz and that incrimental change of inductance can't change the FR that much, it must be something else...So YOU, Jon, fell into the same old 20 to 20k trap that your tormentors use....

You made a mistake in assumption..

Problem is, your conclusions are not based within a well constructed experiment..too many confounding factors that you simply ignored...Very sloppy there, Jon..

JR: ""All the various aspects of audio IC cables do not revolve STRICTLY around the AC power ground loop issue, just as speaker cables do not correlate their sonic quality only with the inductance level.""

I have not stated that. I have shown a coupling loop which has an interaction between the PC, the IC, and the amp/source loop.

JR: ""You make a big point of stating now that you are "the most scientific".

I figured you would take that as a small mind would..you really outta get out more there, Jon..Maybe a coupla scoops...?? That way, you read intent more clearly...I am saying that by discussing and incorperating Nordmark into the discussion, we can start to understand what is really going on..


""In my pointing out Nordmark and the ramifications of his research, and applying that research to the issue of high end imaging, cables, amps, and tying it all together with valid e/m theory, I have provided a more scientific basis for "cable sonics" than anyone I have found to date. I, more than anyone, have provided a huge avenue of research which needs to be addressed

While you and others rant and rave like obsessed lunatics about how "their" science does not have all the answers....I have been working on re-shaping their science..

So, after all these years, of "lunatics" defying science, I will have provided more of a basis for audibility of cables than all the rants and raves of the last couple of decades.. ""

Re-read the entire post, Jon..this is what it said: I find that you are trying to invoke magic to high end audio, and your detractors are applying 20 to 20K bandwidth to shoot you down.

You have wasted what, one or two decades of your life, acting like a crazed looney by arguing against what I consider an inadequate model of human hearing???

While you constantly call up grain boundaries, skin effect, motor-generator, piezo, jitter, DA, a whole host of drivel to explain what you don't understand, a paper detailing how dismal the currently accepted model of human hearing is just wasting away on a shelf somewhere..while you take ridiculously applied physics concepts, and piss in the wind..

YOU CAN'T CHANGE THER MINDS, JON!!!! GET OVER IT, THEY KNOW THEIR ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE WAY TOO WELL...FAR BETTER THAN YOU..FROM ALL THE INAPPROPRIATE EXPLANATIONS YOU CONJURE UP...YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A TARGET..

You are stuck in a decades long rut, Jon.

I, however am not..As I stated, I am not arguing with them, not trying to fight their science...I am going to change their science

JR: you have been turning your nose up at other folks explainations, and their recounting of their experiences. Doing so with claims of "garbage science", when in point of fact, you had never bothered to really think about or fully examine the basis for some of these ideas and speculations.

Wrong, dude..I take each explanation on their merits..And the bulk of your crazy ones have no merit..Doesn't even need a pair of ears to understand the physics..

JR: Cross-Connected 89259.. Then once you did figure it out, gee, it was interesting and had something to offer in temrs of geometry and performance.

Wrong again, dude..I couldn't believe you accepted the higher inductance tradeoff you did..and I showed everyone how to calculate the actual inductance of the compromised cable you made..

JR: You even got so charged up, you built your own versions of low inductance speaker cables, which of course, you decided were superior to everything else out there, CC89259 and Wireworld included.

My cable has a lower LC product of anything on the market I have found..so with respect to L * C, it is demonstratedly and repeatedly better and superior..

But those are electrical parameters..and I have provided no correlation to sound.. So why the red herrring???

JR: In my case, I take the time and make the effort to help others acheive better sound via high performance DIY audio cables, and other audio tweaks that all have a sound basis in engineering and physics,""

Wrong, dude..thinking that your explanations have a "sound basis in engineering and physics" is by far one of your biggest "lies".The fact is, you are guilty of using a poor human hearing model and make up things that you think correlate to sound..But you have not advanced the SOTA, you have just haphazardly changed things by guessing..that is not engineering, that is not science..

The Nordmark paper provides a new avenue towards actually applying sound science to audibility, not the type of guessing you embark on.

John

PS..try keeping your diatribes shorter?

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]