Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #55935 > unrolled thread

Experience with Smith Micro?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-04 21:56 -0800
    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-02-04 22:14 -0800
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-02-05 05:03 -0800
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-02-05 06:22 -0800
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 12:24 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-05 10:52 -0700
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 12:53 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 13:04 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 13:34 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 17:48 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-05 23:40 +0000
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 20:14 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 21:59 -0500
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-05 22:18 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 23:12 -0500
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 11:02 -0800
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-02-05 11:16 -0800
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 17:54 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 15:39 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 17:53 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 21:56 -0500
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-06 18:12 +0000
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-06 17:59 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-06 18:18 -0800
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-07 03:09 +0000
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-08 16:51 -0800
                        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-09 03:51 +0000
                    Re: soured vibrations J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-07 10:10 -0500
                      Re: soured vibrations Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-07 16:39 -0800
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-07 16:50 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-07 18:11 -0500
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-09 15:49 -0800
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-09 21:01 -0500
                        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-10 00:26 -0800
                          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-10 11:39 -0500
                            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-10 16:51 -0800
                              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-13 05:48 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-08 22:53 -0800
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-09 09:16 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 19:16 -0800
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-05 23:09 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-06 00:27 -0500
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-06 01:20 -0500
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-08 16:42 -0800
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-06 12:38 -0800
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-07 16:52 -0500
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 06:20 -0800
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 12:13 -0500
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-05 10:47 -0700
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 11:36 -0800
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 15:39 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 18:10 -0500
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 22:14 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-07 16:45 -0500
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-07 23:38 -0500
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-08 09:34 -0500
                        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-09 16:15 -0800
                          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-09 21:52 -0500
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 11:22 -0800
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 15:39 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 18:36 -0800
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 21:43 -0500
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 18:04 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 18:19 -0500
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 21:03 -0500
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 21:40 -0500
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-02-05 23:21 -0800
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? android <here@there.was> - 2014-02-06 08:47 +0100
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-07 16:55 -0500
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-07 18:43 -0500
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-07 18:48 -0500
                        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-08 02:09 +0000
                          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-07 22:23 -0500
                        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-07 22:23 -0500
                          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-08 09:32 -0500
                            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-08 12:54 -0500
                              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-09 16:32 -0800
                                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-09 22:38 -0500
                      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-07 19:48 -0500
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-05 10:25 -0700
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-02-05 12:58 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 11:48 -0800
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 13:34 -0500
            Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-05 12:13 -0700
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-02-05 11:18 -0800
              Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 15:39 -0500
                Re: Experience with Smith Micro? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-02-05 22:34 +0000
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-05 23:10 +0000
                  Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-05 18:19 -0500
                    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-02-06 23:56 +0000
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-05 17:45 -0500
    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Jim Jaeger <jimjaeger@example.com> - 2014-02-04 23:04 -0800
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-05 06:28 -0800
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Jim Jaeger <jimjaeger@example.com> - 2014-02-05 11:04 -0800
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-05 20:47 +0000
    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Alan Ralph <alan.ralph@gmail.com> - 2014-02-05 18:22 +0000
      Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-08 16:09 -0800
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-08 20:01 -0500
          Re: Experience with Smith Micro? Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-09 16:46 -0800
        Re: Experience with Smith Micro? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-09 01:26 +0000
    Re: Experience with Smith Micro? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Kiraly) - 2014-02-05 23:49 +0000
    Re: Experience Smith Micro Progress maybe Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-02-11 15:56 -0800
      Re: Experience Smith Micro Progress maybe Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-11 19:13 -0500

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#56100

In article <050220141539269786%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > While I agree that there is no significant skin effect at audio 
> > frequencies, there may be some measurable amount when you get to 20kHz 
> > or so. IIRC, the skin depth for copper at power frequency of 60Hz is about 
> > 6mm 
> > and less than 8mm. The depth varies inversely as the frequency. So at 
> > 20kHz, it is a bit more than 0.3mm. At 60Hz, the effect is significant 
> > enough to affect transmission lines and electrical machinery. Even 
> > monster cable is not big enough to have much effect at low audio 
> > frequencies.
> 
> speaker cable uses stranded wire, with each strand being thicker than
> .3mm, so therefore it's a non-issue, even at 20khz.

Litz wire, is a cable made from individual INSULATED wires spun or 
braided in such a way that each filament see the same magnetic 
environment on average over the run. In estimating the skin depth, I 
should have said the depth is inversely proportional to the SQUARE ROOT 
of the frequency. The 0.3mm depth is about right. A wire would have to 
be larger than 0.6mm to start showing skin/proximity effects at 20kHz. 
The litz filament are usually less than that. The individual filaments 
are connected only at the ends. I would not be surprised if monster 
cables are made with no insulation between filaments. If you are 
scamming, why worry about adding a bit more scam?

-- 

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56102

In article <SalmonEgg-5C6C06.18365205022014@news80.forteinc.com>,
Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Litz wire, is a cable made from individual INSULATED wires spun or 
> braided in such a way that each filament see the same magnetic 
> environment on average over the run. In estimating the skin depth, I 
> should have said the depth is inversely proportional to the SQUARE ROOT 
> of the frequency. The 0.3mm depth is about right. A wire would have to 
> be larger than 0.6mm to start showing skin/proximity effects at 20kHz. 
> The litz filament are usually less than that. The individual filaments 
> are connected only at the ends. I would not be surprised if monster 
> cables are made with no insulation between filaments. If you are 
> scamming, why worry about adding a bit more scam?

some of the audiophile speaker wire does use individually wrapped
strands. 

it's just more snake oil. 

nobody is going to hear a difference, but it does look cool.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56054

On 2014.02.05, 12:13 , nospam wrote:
> In article <SalmonEgg-7A9F6D.06201905022014@news80.forteinc.com>,
> Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> The mere mention of monster cable drives me up the wall. Its use makes
>> no sense to me at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but monster cable is
>> what is called litz wire. It is a way of minimizing skin and proximity
>> effects in large conductors. Its only effect is to lower resistance in
>> the cable at high frequencies. for most people above the age of 20 it
>> would make no difference. A little high frequency boost would compensate
>> for the extra loss.
>
> there is no skin effect at audio frequencies.

There is a skin effect at any frequency.  The issue is whether it 
affects audio performance.  It does not.

(Eg: power lines (50/60 Hz) have stainless steel cores (which do not 
conduct well) for strength and aluminum conductor layers outside.  The 
skin effect pushes most of the current through the outer layers so there 
is less overall material by using stronger stainless steel in the core 
where there is less current.  Also why many high voltage transmission 
lines (750 kV) use 2 or 3 or 4 conductors on each phase - the air gap is 
"inside the skin" of the conductors).

-- 
   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.

                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56061

In article <3f-dnZBmyp8TXm_PnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> >> The mere mention of monster cable drives me up the wall. Its use makes
> >> no sense to me at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but monster cable is
> >> what is called litz wire. It is a way of minimizing skin and proximity
> >> effects in large conductors. Its only effect is to lower resistance in
> >> the cable at high frequencies. for most people above the age of 20 it
> >> would make no difference. A little high frequency boost would compensate
> >> for the extra loss.
> >
> > there is no skin effect at audio frequencies.
> 
> There is a skin effect at any frequency. 

when the skin effect is thicker than the wire itself, it makes no
difference whatsoever, which is the case for speaker wire.

> The issue is whether it 
> affects audio performance.  It does not.

of course not. it doesn't affect anything because the wire is thinner
than the skin depth. 

> (Eg: power lines (50/60 Hz) have stainless steel cores (which do not 
> conduct well) for strength and aluminum conductor layers outside.  The 
> skin effect pushes most of the current through the outer layers so there 
> is less overall material by using stronger stainless steel in the core 
> where there is less current.  Also why many high voltage transmission 
> lines (750 kV) use 2 or 3 or 4 conductors on each phase - the air gap is 
> "inside the skin" of the conductors).

power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56098

On 2014.02.05, 18:19 , nospam wrote:
> In article <3f-dnZBmyp8TXm_PnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>> The mere mention of monster cable drives me up the wall. Its use makes
>>>> no sense to me at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but monster cable is
>>>> what is called litz wire. It is a way of minimizing skin and proximity
>>>> effects in large conductors. Its only effect is to lower resistance in
>>>> the cable at high frequencies. for most people above the age of 20 it
>>>> would make no difference. A little high frequency boost would compensate
>>>> for the extra loss.
>>>
>>> there is no skin effect at audio frequencies.
>>
>> There is a skin effect at any frequency.
>
> when the skin effect is thicker than the wire itself, it makes no
> difference whatsoever, which is the case for speaker wire.
>
>> The issue is whether it
>> affects audio performance.  It does not.
>
> of course not. it doesn't affect anything because the wire is thinner
> than the skin depth.

>
>> (Eg: power lines (50/60 Hz) have stainless steel cores (which do not
>> conduct well) for strength and aluminum conductor layers outside.  The
>> skin effect pushes most of the current through the outer layers so there
>> is less overall material by using stronger stainless steel in the core
>> where there is less current.  Also why many high voltage transmission
>> lines (750 kV) use 2 or 3 or 4 conductors on each phase - the air gap is
>> "inside the skin" of the conductors).
>
> power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.

Not for the subject at hand - skin effect.

You said "there is no skin effect at audio frequencies."

Which is wrong all the way to the lowest audible frequencies and below.


-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.

                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56101

In article <rsSdnTcq4vn2cG_PnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> >>>> The mere mention of monster cable drives me up the wall. Its use makes
> >>>> no sense to me at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but monster cable is
> >>>> what is called litz wire. It is a way of minimizing skin and proximity
> >>>> effects in large conductors. Its only effect is to lower resistance in
> >>>> the cable at high frequencies. for most people above the age of 20 it
> >>>> would make no difference. A little high frequency boost would compensate
> >>>> for the extra loss.
> >>>
> >>> there is no skin effect at audio frequencies.
> >>
> >> There is a skin effect at any frequency.
> >
> > when the skin effect is thicker than the wire itself, it makes no
> > difference whatsoever, which is the case for speaker wire.
> >
> >> The issue is whether it
> >> affects audio performance.  It does not.
> >
> > of course not. it doesn't affect anything because the wire is thinner
> > than the skin depth.
> >
> >> (Eg: power lines (50/60 Hz) have stainless steel cores (which do not
> >> conduct well) for strength and aluminum conductor layers outside.  The
> >> skin effect pushes most of the current through the outer layers so there
> >> is less overall material by using stronger stainless steel in the core
> >> where there is less current.  Also why many high voltage transmission
> >> lines (750 kV) use 2 or 3 or 4 conductors on each phase - the air gap is
> >> "inside the skin" of the conductors).
> >
> > power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.
> 
> Not for the subject at hand - skin effect.

> You said "there is no skin effect at audio frequencies."
> 
> Which is wrong all the way to the lowest audible frequencies and below.

not on speaker cables it isn't, which is the topic.

this isn't about high voltage power distribution and you know it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56125

On 2014-02-06 02:40:46 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:

> In article <rsSdnTcq4vn2cG_PnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
>>>>>> The mere mention of monster cable drives me up the wall. Its use makes
>>>>>> no sense to me at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but monster cable is
>>>>>> what is called litz wire. It is a way of minimizing skin and proximity
>>>>>> effects in large conductors. Its only effect is to lower resistance in
>>>>>> the cable at high frequencies. for most people above the age of 20 it
>>>>>> would make no difference. A little high frequency boost would compensate
>>>>>> for the extra loss.
>>>>> 
>>>>> there is no skin effect at audio frequencies.
>>>> 
>>>> There is a skin effect at any frequency.
>>> 
>>> when the skin effect is thicker than the wire itself, it makes no
>>> difference whatsoever, which is the case for speaker wire.
>>> 
>>>> The issue is whether it
>>>> affects audio performance.  It does not.
>>> 
>>> of course not. it doesn't affect anything because the wire is thinner
>>> than the skin depth.
>>> 
>>>> (Eg: power lines (50/60 Hz) have stainless steel cores (which do not
>>>> conduct well) for strength and aluminum conductor layers outside.  The
>>>> skin effect pushes most of the current through the outer layers so there
>>>> is less overall material by using stronger stainless steel in the core
>>>> where there is less current.  Also why many high voltage transmission
>>>> lines (750 kV) use 2 or 3 or 4 conductors on each phase - the air gap is
>>>> "inside the skin" of the conductors).
>>> 
>>> power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.
>> 
>> Not for the subject at hand - skin effect.
> 
>> You said "there is no skin effect at audio frequencies."
>> 
>> Which is wrong all the way to the lowest audible frequencies and below.
> 
> not on speaker cables it isn't, which is the topic.
> 
> this isn't about high voltage power distribution and you know it.

Do you have any solutions for resolving the issue of the drought in California?
I just thought I would tap into that well of encyclopedic wisdom that 
is "nospam".

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56126

In article <2014020523213641363-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2014-02-06 02:40:46 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:
> 
> > In article <rsSdnTcq4vn2cG_PnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > 
> >>>>>> The mere mention of monster cable drives me up the wall. Its use makes
> >>>>>> no sense to me at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but monster cable is
> >>>>>> what is called litz wire. It is a way of minimizing skin and proximity
> >>>>>> effects in large conductors. Its only effect is to lower resistance in
> >>>>>> the cable at high frequencies. for most people above the age of 20 it
> >>>>>> would make no difference. A little high frequency boost would 
> >>>>>> compensate
> >>>>>> for the extra loss.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> there is no skin effect at audio frequencies.
> >>>> 
> >>>> There is a skin effect at any frequency.
> >>> 
> >>> when the skin effect is thicker than the wire itself, it makes no
> >>> difference whatsoever, which is the case for speaker wire.
> >>> 
> >>>> The issue is whether it
> >>>> affects audio performance.  It does not.
> >>> 
> >>> of course not. it doesn't affect anything because the wire is thinner
> >>> than the skin depth.
> >>> 
> >>>> (Eg: power lines (50/60 Hz) have stainless steel cores (which do not
> >>>> conduct well) for strength and aluminum conductor layers outside.  The
> >>>> skin effect pushes most of the current through the outer layers so there
> >>>> is less overall material by using stronger stainless steel in the core
> >>>> where there is less current.  Also why many high voltage transmission
> >>>> lines (750 kV) use 2 or 3 or 4 conductors on each phase - the air gap is
> >>>> "inside the skin" of the conductors).
> >>> 
> >>> power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.
> >> 
> >> Not for the subject at hand - skin effect.
> > 
> >> You said "there is no skin effect at audio frequencies."
> >> 
> >> Which is wrong all the way to the lowest audible frequencies and below.
> > 
> > not on speaker cables it isn't, which is the topic.
> > 
> > this isn't about high voltage power distribution and you know it.
> 
> Do you have any solutions for resolving the issue of the drought in 
> California?
> I just thought I would tap into that well of encyclopedic wisdom that 
> is "nospam".

There was some pondering in Saudi about importing icebergs from 
Antarctica... Too something 4 them! 

Just being helpful 'n stuff...
-- 
teleportation kills
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6mheuok6a15nzfd/CfBx9UCovc/android

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56191

On 2014.02.05, 21:40 , nospam wrote:
> In article <rsSdnTcq4vn2cG_PnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>>> The mere mention of monster cable drives me up the wall. Its use makes
>>>>>> no sense to me at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but monster cable is
>>>>>> what is called litz wire. It is a way of minimizing skin and proximity
>>>>>> effects in large conductors. Its only effect is to lower resistance in
>>>>>> the cable at high frequencies. for most people above the age of 20 it
>>>>>> would make no difference. A little high frequency boost would compensate
>>>>>> for the extra loss.
>>>>>
>>>>> there is no skin effect at audio frequencies.
>>>>
>>>> There is a skin effect at any frequency.
>>>
>>> when the skin effect is thicker than the wire itself, it makes no
>>> difference whatsoever, which is the case for speaker wire.
>>>
>>>> The issue is whether it
>>>> affects audio performance.  It does not.
>>>
>>> of course not. it doesn't affect anything because the wire is thinner
>>> than the skin depth.
>>>
>>>> (Eg: power lines (50/60 Hz) have stainless steel cores (which do not
>>>> conduct well) for strength and aluminum conductor layers outside.  The
>>>> skin effect pushes most of the current through the outer layers so there
>>>> is less overall material by using stronger stainless steel in the core
>>>> where there is less current.  Also why many high voltage transmission
>>>> lines (750 kV) use 2 or 3 or 4 conductors on each phase - the air gap is
>>>> "inside the skin" of the conductors).
>>>
>>> power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.
>>
>> Not for the subject at hand - skin effect.
>
>> You said "there is no skin effect at audio frequencies."
>>
>> Which is wrong all the way to the lowest audible frequencies and below.
>
> not on speaker cables it isn't, which is the topic.
>
> this isn't about high voltage power distribution and you know it.

Again, you made a simple declarative statement that is false.

Indeed, 1) in speaker wire at audio frequencies there is a skin effect 
but (as previously covered) 2) it has no audible effect.  So your 
statement should have been "yep, but it doesn't affect the sound at all" 
or words to that effect.

But in typical form you're trying to weasel your way out as I and 
several others have pointed out to you on many, many an occasion.

-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56197

In article <k-2dnfJzu9fQy2jPnZ2dnUVZ8jadnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> >>>>>> The mere mention of monster cable drives me up the wall. Its use makes
> >>>>>> no sense to me at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but monster cable is
> >>>>>> what is called litz wire. It is a way of minimizing skin and proximity
> >>>>>> effects in large conductors. Its only effect is to lower resistance in
> >>>>>> the cable at high frequencies. for most people above the age of 20 it
> >>>>>> would make no difference. A little high frequency boost would
> >>>>>> compensate
> >>>>>> for the extra loss.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> there is no skin effect at audio frequencies.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a skin effect at any frequency.
> >>>
> >>> when the skin effect is thicker than the wire itself, it makes no
> >>> difference whatsoever, which is the case for speaker wire.
> >>>
> >>>> The issue is whether it
> >>>> affects audio performance.  It does not.
> >>>
> >>> of course not. it doesn't affect anything because the wire is thinner
> >>> than the skin depth.
> >>>
> >>>> (Eg: power lines (50/60 Hz) have stainless steel cores (which do not
> >>>> conduct well) for strength and aluminum conductor layers outside.  The
> >>>> skin effect pushes most of the current through the outer layers so there
> >>>> is less overall material by using stronger stainless steel in the core
> >>>> where there is less current.  Also why many high voltage transmission
> >>>> lines (750 kV) use 2 or 3 or 4 conductors on each phase - the air gap is
> >>>> "inside the skin" of the conductors).
> >>>
> >>> power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.
> >>
> >> Not for the subject at hand - skin effect.
> >
> >> You said "there is no skin effect at audio frequencies."
> >>
> >> Which is wrong all the way to the lowest audible frequencies and below.
> >
> > not on speaker cables it isn't, which is the topic.
> >
> > this isn't about high voltage power distribution and you know it.
> 
> Again, you made a simple declarative statement that is false.
> 
> Indeed, 1) in speaker wire at audio frequencies there is a skin effect 
> but (as previously covered) 2) it has no audible effect.  So your 
> statement should have been "yep, but it doesn't affect the sound at all" 
> or words to that effect.
> 
> But in typical form you're trying to weasel your way out as I and 
> several others have pointed out to you on many, many an occasion.

nothing of the sort.

what *you* are doing is desperately trying to find the slightest thing
wrong with what i post, so much so that you bring up irrelevant things.

it's quite clear that this discussion is about speaker cable and the
audible effects of audiophile scams, not about power distribution
cables. whether there's skin effect in the power grid is *not* part of
this. 

although it's technically true there is a skin effect on any cable,
when it is deeper than the thickness of the wire itself, there is no
skin effect, which is why i said what i did.

but of course, you have nothing better to do than nitpick every little
detail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56198

On 2014.02.07, 18:43 , nospam wrote:
> In article <k-2dnfJzu9fQy2jPnZ2dnUVZ8jadnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> The mere mention of monster cable drives me up the wall. Its use makes
>>>>>>>> no sense to me at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but monster cable is
>>>>>>>> what is called litz wire. It is a way of minimizing skin and proximity
>>>>>>>> effects in large conductors. Its only effect is to lower resistance in
>>>>>>>> the cable at high frequencies. for most people above the age of 20 it
>>>>>>>> would make no difference. A little high frequency boost would
>>>>>>>> compensate
>>>>>>>> for the extra loss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there is no skin effect at audio frequencies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a skin effect at any frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>> when the skin effect is thicker than the wire itself, it makes no
>>>>> difference whatsoever, which is the case for speaker wire.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue is whether it
>>>>>> affects audio performance.  It does not.
>>>>>
>>>>> of course not. it doesn't affect anything because the wire is thinner
>>>>> than the skin depth.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (Eg: power lines (50/60 Hz) have stainless steel cores (which do not
>>>>>> conduct well) for strength and aluminum conductor layers outside.  The
>>>>>> skin effect pushes most of the current through the outer layers so there
>>>>>> is less overall material by using stronger stainless steel in the core
>>>>>> where there is less current.  Also why many high voltage transmission
>>>>>> lines (750 kV) use 2 or 3 or 4 conductors on each phase - the air gap is
>>>>>> "inside the skin" of the conductors).
>>>>>
>>>>> power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.
>>>>
>>>> Not for the subject at hand - skin effect.
>>>
>>>> You said "there is no skin effect at audio frequencies."
>>>>
>>>> Which is wrong all the way to the lowest audible frequencies and below.
>>>
>>> not on speaker cables it isn't, which is the topic.
>>>
>>> this isn't about high voltage power distribution and you know it.
>>
>> Again, you made a simple declarative statement that is false.
>>
>> Indeed, 1) in speaker wire at audio frequencies there is a skin effect
>> but (as previously covered) 2) it has no audible effect.  So your
>> statement should have been "yep, but it doesn't affect the sound at all"
>> or words to that effect.
>>
>> But in typical form you're trying to weasel your way out as I and
>> several others have pointed out to you on many, many an occasion.
>
> nothing of the sort.
>
> what *you* are doing is desperately trying to find the slightest thing
> wrong with what i post, so much so that you bring up irrelevant things.

Not at all.  You just make indefensible statements and then get in a 
tangle when they are pointed out - this happens with me and just about 
anyone you engage with on the NG's - whether here or elsewhere.

And when you do help me, and it has happened a number of times over the 
years, I am quick to thank you in the NG's.

-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56208

On 2014-02-07, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.02.07, 18:43 , nospam wrote:
>>
>> nothing of the sort.
>>
>> what *you* are doing is desperately trying to find the slightest thing
>> wrong with what i post, so much so that you bring up irrelevant things.
>
> Not at all.  You just make indefensible statements and then get in a 
> tangle when they are pointed out - this happens with me and just about 
> anyone you engage with on the NG's - whether here or elsewhere.
>
> And when you do help me, and it has happened a number of times over the 
> years, I am quick to thank you in the NG's.

He has a distinct inability to admit he is wrong.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56209

In article <bllhu7FcrlrU4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> nothing of the sort.
> >>
> >> what *you* are doing is desperately trying to find the slightest thing
> >> wrong with what i post, so much so that you bring up irrelevant things.
> >
> > Not at all.  You just make indefensible statements and then get in a 
> > tangle when they are pointed out - this happens with me and just about 
> > anyone you engage with on the NG's - whether here or elsewhere.
> >
> > And when you do help me, and it has happened a number of times over the 
> > years, I am quick to thank you in the NG's.
> 
> He has a distinct inability to admit he is wrong.

what you consistently fail to understand and likely never will is that
simply saying i'm wrong does not mean i'm wrong.

what alan did was nitpick on a totally inconsequential detail, which
while technically true, is completely irrelevant to what was being
discussed.

he brought it up solely to find *something* wrong in what i said, no
matter how slight it was. it was obvious what i meant, and he even
*agreed* with it, which means it wasn't actually wrong (except for the
one irrelevant detail). 

could it have been worded more clearly? sure. most usenet posts could.
that doesn't make them wrong. it just means there could be additional
clarification in some cases. 

however, since it's blatantly obvious what i meant, there was no need
to do that.

it's as if someone were to say 'the ipad is an 10 inch tablet' and then
someone else says 'no, you're wrong!! it's 9.7 inches!'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56210

In article <f6qdnZlam4lG7WjPnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> >>>>> power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not for the subject at hand - skin effect.
> >>>
> >>>> You said "there is no skin effect at audio frequencies."
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is wrong all the way to the lowest audible frequencies and below.
> >>>
> >>> not on speaker cables it isn't, which is the topic.
> >>>
> >>> this isn't about high voltage power distribution and you know it.
> >>
> >> Again, you made a simple declarative statement that is false.
> >>
> >> Indeed, 1) in speaker wire at audio frequencies there is a skin effect
> >> but (as previously covered) 2) it has no audible effect.  So your
> >> statement should have been "yep, but it doesn't affect the sound at all"
> >> or words to that effect.
> >>
> >> But in typical form you're trying to weasel your way out as I and
> >> several others have pointed out to you on many, many an occasion.
> >
> > nothing of the sort.
> >
> > what *you* are doing is desperately trying to find the slightest thing
> > wrong with what i post, so much so that you bring up irrelevant things.
> 
> Not at all.  You just make indefensible statements and then get in a 
> tangle when they are pointed out - this happens with me and just about 
> anyone you engage with on the NG's - whether here or elsewhere.

there's nothing indefensible about what i said.

it's completely correct given the context and you know it. you even
agreed with it.

once again, when the skin effect is deeper than the thickness of the
wire itself, the skin effect is considered to be zero, i.e., there is
no skin effect. that much should be obvious and any electrical
engineering professor will agree.

> And when you do help me, and it has happened a number of times over the 
> years, I am quick to thank you in the NG's.

that is true, you do, however, you also nitpick inconsequential
details, as you did above.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56221

On 2014.02.07, 22:23 , nospam wrote:
> In article <f6qdnZlam4lG7WjPnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not for the subject at hand - skin effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You said "there is no skin effect at audio frequencies."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is wrong all the way to the lowest audible frequencies and below.
>>>>>
>>>>> not on speaker cables it isn't, which is the topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> this isn't about high voltage power distribution and you know it.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you made a simple declarative statement that is false.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, 1) in speaker wire at audio frequencies there is a skin effect
>>>> but (as previously covered) 2) it has no audible effect.  So your
>>>> statement should have been "yep, but it doesn't affect the sound at all"
>>>> or words to that effect.
>>>>
>>>> But in typical form you're trying to weasel your way out as I and
>>>> several others have pointed out to you on many, many an occasion.
>>>
>>> nothing of the sort.
>>>
>>> what *you* are doing is desperately trying to find the slightest thing
>>> wrong with what i post, so much so that you bring up irrelevant things.
>>
>> Not at all.  You just make indefensible statements and then get in a
>> tangle when they are pointed out - this happens with me and just about
>> anyone you engage with on the NG's - whether here or elsewhere.
>
> there's nothing indefensible about what i said.
>
> it's completely correct given the context and you know it. you even
> agreed with it.
>
> once again, when the skin effect is deeper than the thickness of the
> wire itself, the skin effect is considered to be zero, i.e., there is
> no skin effect. that much should be obvious and any electrical
> engineering professor will agree.
>
>> And when you do help me, and it has happened a number of times over the
>> years, I am quick to thank you in the NG's.
>
> that is true, you do, however, you also nitpick inconsequential
> details, as you did above.

Your history speaks for itself.  Your errors are pointed out and you go 
into weasel mode.  As above and as will continue into the future, I 'spect.

-- 

   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56241

In article <he-dnWJ3xOptomvPnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2014.02.07, 22:23 , nospam wrote:
> > In article <f6qdnZlam4lG7WjPnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> power lines are very different than stranded speaker wire.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not for the subject at hand - skin effect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You said "there is no skin effect at audio frequencies."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which is wrong all the way to the lowest audible frequencies and below.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> not on speaker cables it isn't, which is the topic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> this isn't about high voltage power distribution and you know it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, you made a simple declarative statement that is false.
> >>>>
> >>>> Indeed, 1) in speaker wire at audio frequencies there is a skin effect
> >>>> but (as previously covered) 2) it has no audible effect.  So your
> >>>> statement should have been "yep, but it doesn't affect the sound at all"
> >>>> or words to that effect.
> >>>>
> >>>> But in typical form you're trying to weasel your way out as I and
> >>>> several others have pointed out to you on many, many an occasion.
> >>>
> >>> nothing of the sort.
> >>>
> >>> what *you* are doing is desperately trying to find the slightest thing
> >>> wrong with what i post, so much so that you bring up irrelevant things.
> >>
> >> Not at all.  You just make indefensible statements and then get in a
> >> tangle when they are pointed out - this happens with me and just about
> >> anyone you engage with on the NG's - whether here or elsewhere.
> >
> > there's nothing indefensible about what i said.
> >
> > it's completely correct given the context and you know it. you even
> > agreed with it.
> >
> > once again, when the skin effect is deeper than the thickness of the
> > wire itself, the skin effect is considered to be zero, i.e., there is
> > no skin effect. that much should be obvious and any electrical
> > engineering professor will agree.
> >
> >> And when you do help me, and it has happened a number of times over the
> >> years, I am quick to thank you in the NG's.
> >
> > that is true, you do, however, you also nitpick inconsequential
> > details, as you did above.
> 
> Your history speaks for itself.  Your errors are pointed out and you go 
> into weasel mode.  As above and as will continue into the future, I 'spect.

there's absolutely nothing weasel about it.

technically you are correct that there is skin effect at audio
frequencies, however, this discussion was about speaker cable where the
effect is nonexistent, so it is entirely reasonable to say 'no skin
effect' and be correct, which is why i said that. 

any competent engineer would have *zero* problems with that and would
understand *exactly* what was meant, without being anal retentive and
arguing over inconsequential details.

all you're doing is trying to find *something* wrong with what i said,
no matter how trivial and irrelevant it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56316

In article <080220141254485519%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> technically you are correct that there is skin effect at audio
> frequencies, however, this discussion was about speaker cable where the
> effect is nonexistent, so it is entirely reasonable to say 'no skin
> effect' and be correct, which is why i said that. 
> 
> any competent engineer would have *zero* problems with that and would
> understand *exactly* what was meant, without being anal retentive and
> arguing over inconsequential details.
> 
> all you're doing is trying to find *something* wrong with what i said,
> no matter how trivial and irrelevant it is.

Respond via alt.engineering.electrical.

Technically, there is MORE skin effect for audio frequencies above 60Hz 
than at power frequencies. Solid monster cable would be very susceptible 
to it because of smaller skin depths. Monster cable, I believe, is litz 
wire so that the skin effect is tiny Even if not tiny, the effect would 
not show up for ordinary listening because the resistance and inductive 
reactance at important audio frequencies would be to small to notice.

At power frequencies. maximum conductor diameter is set by the economics 
of wasted copper (or aluminum) if you make them too large. Monster cable 
would be too large if stranded without insulation.

See you at alt.engineering.electrical.

-- 

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56335

re: wiring stuff

To scale stuff from speaker wires...

Hydro Québec is one of the few utilities with experience with very long
transmission lines.

It was first to implement 735kV  3 phase lines over long distances. And
was also first to do a long distance DC line between the James Bay
complex and Boston MA  (roughly 1500km).

The DC power line, while advertised as 450kV, is actially -450 and +450
and thus a 900kV difference and requires less amperage to carry the load
(so there is less loss over long distances).


The wires have a steel core for support, surrounded by stranded
aluminium power carriers.


At a smaller scale, consider that a TGV draws somewhere around 5
megawatts when it accelerates to cruise speed. All this power flows
through 1 pantograph, which has a very small contact area with the
overhead wires.


Transmitting 100 watts to a speaker (and most of the time, far less) is
no more difficult than lighting a 100 watts incandescent light.

And consider that when you get wiring that is too thick, it will not fit
easily into the speaker terminals and you may end up with sigificant
loss at the connection between the wire that doesn't fit and the terminal.

And consider that if those terminals, designed to carry amplified sounds
to speaker, are not meant to handle such thick wires that they don't fit
properly, it probably means that you don't need such thick wires to
begin with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56202

The solution to the speaker wiring is simple:

TOSlink fibre to each speaker, and each speaker then has a 110AC cable
plugged into a wall socket to power its own amplifier. This way, you do
away with any speaker wiring and all the esoteric debate that Surrounds
this very Dolby  problem.
 :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55991

In article <SalmonEgg-7A9F6D.06201905022014@news80.forteinc.com>,
Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> This reminds of a fad of about 40 years ago when the inside hole of CD 
> audio disks were coated with green markers to improve the fidelity of 
> the output.

Was it really that long ago?  I remember the fad as if it were just a
decade or so ago.

Anyway, high-end audio equipment is wasted on me.  Based on an
unscientific study using a Mac application called Tuning Fork
(available for free from the Mac App Store) and the built-in speakers
of my late 2012 iMac, I can't hear above 5 KHz without my hearing aids,
and not much above that frequency with my hearing aids.  (I think the
limitation is more on the iMac than on my hearing, though.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web