Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #55935 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-02-04 21:56 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-02-11 19:13 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
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 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-05 23:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52f30ae2$0$61510$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #56112 |
Sideline question: What if you have 2 cables going to the speaker, a heavy gauge one, and a smaller gauge one. Would this theoretically translate into better sound ? (I realise no audible difference is likely, but asking about theory). Just thinking that the smaller wire might carry higher frequencies better while heavier gauge will obviously carry bass better since bass requires more current. or is that absolutely no difference at all at the theoretical level ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-06 00:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lcv6fu$582$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56117 |
On 2/5/14, 11:09 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > Sideline question: > > What if you have 2 cables going to the speaker, a heavy gauge one, and a > smaller gauge one. Would this theoretically translate into better sound > ? (I realise no audible difference is likely, but asking about theory). > > Just thinking that the smaller wire might carry higher frequencies > better while heavier gauge will obviously carry bass better since bass > requires more current. > > or is that absolutely no difference at all at the theoretical level ? > I've been reading about skin effect, because of this thread. At 20kHz and below, skin effect won't affect solid 24 gauge copper or smaller, at all. If 14-gauge speaker cable had 10 strands or more, they would be 24-gauge or smaller, so skin effect wouldn't matter. I've decided not to buy any iron speaker cable. The skin is only 1/38th as thick as copper's!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-06 01:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <060220140120492728%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56122 |
In article <lcv6fu$582$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote: > I've been reading about skin effect, because of this thread. At 20kHz > and below, skin effect won't affect solid 24 gauge copper or smaller, at > all. If 14-gauge speaker cable had 10 strands or more, they would be > 24-gauge or smaller, so skin effect wouldn't matter. exactly. speaker wire is stranded, so it's a non-issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-08 16:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <SalmonEgg-4CFE75.16420408022014@news80.forteinc.com> |
| In reply to | #56124 |
In article <060220140120492728%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <lcv6fu$582$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > wrote: > > > I've been reading about skin effect, because of this thread. At 20kHz > > and below, skin effect won't affect solid 24 gauge copper or smaller, at > > all. If 14-gauge speaker cable had 10 strands or more, they would be > > 24-gauge or smaller, so skin effect wouldn't matter. > > exactly. speaker wire is stranded, so it's a non-issue. Although my initial question is not being answered, I am interested in the subject. The discussion, however, would be better off elsewhere. Unless the strands in the wire are insulated, mere stranding will not reduce skin effect. Magnetic field pushes current to the outside. This push is not the Hall effect. I fully agree that skin effect is not a significant factor in speaker installations. Litz wire was used primarily for radio frequency applications when high Q coils were needed to get sharp resonances. Once you get to broadcast band or higher frequency, litz wire has little advantage. Audio amplifiers usually have much bigger bandwidths than you might think. In order to stabilize amplifiers with large negative feedback for fidelity, you need to control characteristics extending a decade or so above audio frequency to prevent oscillation. -- Sam Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection. Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-06 12:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <060220141238475466%jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #56117 |
In article <52f30ae2$0$61510$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Sideline question: > > What if you have 2 cables going to the speaker, a heavy gauge one, and a > smaller gauge one. Would this theoretically translate into better sound > ? (I realise no audible difference is likely, but asking about theory). > > Just thinking that the smaller wire might carry higher frequencies > better while heavier gauge will obviously carry bass better since bass > requires more current. > > or is that absolutely no difference at all at the theoretical level ? > There is absolutely no difference at all between small cables and large cables at audio frequencies with regard to frequency response. The only difference is the small cables will have a slightly larger resistance and will therefore attenuate the signal going to the speakers by some insignificant amount. You may have to turn up the volume a little bit if the speakers are a long way from the amplifier. The smaller cables might get a little hotter because of the increased resistance. You will not be able to hear any difference, provided you set the same volume. Frequency response of conductors at audio frequencies (20-20,000 Hz) is flat. -- Jim Gibson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-07 16:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k-2dnfNzu9cZyGjPnZ2dnUVZ8jYAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #56112 |
On 2014.02.05, 22:16 , Salmon Egg wrote:
> Note however, that the wire on the voice coils is likely to be smaller
> than that in the speaker wire.
Of course. That's where the work is done and the impedance occurs.
Between the amp and there you want as little resistance as possible.
--
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]
| From | Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-05 06:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <SalmonEgg-7A9F6D.06201905022014@news80.forteinc.com> |
| In reply to | #55936 |
In article <7hbnymytl5.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> writes: > > > After bad experience about two years ago with Smith PDF2Office, I > > decided to not get anything from Smith again. Unfortunately, when I saw > > a price too good to be true for a combination audio booster and > > equalizer app called Boom2, I had been look for an application like that > > on and off for a while, so I changed my decision. Has anyone worked with > > Boom? > > Don't know about Smith. > > I know this is a non-commercial group, but I'm selling an app that is > _so_ good you will be happy I told you about it here. > > MonsterAudio. It only costs $39.99. It installs automatically and > invisibly on your system once you pay me for the app. > > Then it makes your system sound exactly as if you have Monster Cable > connecting your speakers to your sound board with gold plated > contacts. It does all this with no measurable extra CPU load, and > without you having to pay a technician to open up your computer and > actually install physical Monster Cable. > > For CSMS regulars, I can discount this to $34.00 for a limited time > only. 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. 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. -- Sam Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection. Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-05 12:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <050220141213207821%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55960 |
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. it's yet another buzzword to impress ignorant consumers. there is an advantage of thicker wire versus thin wire, especially for longer runs, but you can get thick wire at any hardware store for pennies per foot. wire is wire. it's a complete scam, and even audiophiles can't hear a difference. there was a well known test where monster cable was compared with ordinary coat hangers (not even normal wire). experienced audiophiles could not tell which was which and some even said the coat hangers sounded *better*. > 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. compact discs didn't exist 40 years ago. the green marker idea was popular in the early 1990s and generally applied on the outer edge, but some people suggested both inner and outer. and that's nothing compared to some of the ridiculous products that are hawked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-05 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <050220141047077480%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #55988 |
In article <050220141213207821%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > the green marker idea was popular in the early 1990s and generally > applied on the outer edge, but some people suggested both inner and > outer. And it had to be a specific frequency band within the overall green band; ordinary green markers would offer some improvement, but for the maximum effect, you needed audiophile quality green, which certain hucksters would be all to glad to sell you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-05 11:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <SalmonEgg-A6DCA6.11364205022014@news80.forteinc.com> |
| In reply to | #55994 |
In article <050220141047077480%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > In article <050220141213207821%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam > <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > the green marker idea was popular in the early 1990s and generally > > applied on the outer edge, but some people suggested both inner and > > outer. > > And it had to be a specific frequency band within the overall green > band; ordinary green markers would offer some improvement, but for the > maximum effect, you needed audiophile quality green, which certain > hucksters would be all to glad to sell you. I do not remember the time line on this. When I first mentioned it, I just used 40 years off the top of my head. None of the audiophiles ever explained how these green markers would work on a digital recording--but it just did. I do remember going to an IEEE meeting which demonstrated some great sound from small speakers. The demonstrators insisted that vinyl was better than digital. Others insisted that tube amplifiers were better than transistor amplifiers. None of this makes sense. One conclusion popular was that people liked the distortion of their youth rather than true high fidelity. It is beyond my understanding as to what would prevent a transistor amplifier from distorting or imitating a tube amplifier if you were able to find out what was different. -- Sam Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection. Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-05 15:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <050220141539289914%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56021 |
In article <SalmonEgg-A6DCA6.11364205022014@news80.forteinc.com>, Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > None of the audiophiles ever explained how these green markers would > work on a digital recording--but it just did. minimize reflections, which supposedly cause read errors and thereby degrading the sound. what they neglect to mention is there's error correction built into the spec. > I do remember going to an IEEE meeting which demonstrated some great > sound from small speakers. The demonstrators insisted that vinyl was > better than digital. then they're idiots. > Others insisted that tube amplifiers were better > than transistor amplifiers. more idiots. > None of this makes sense. of course not. > One conclusion > popular was that people liked the distortion of their youth rather than > true high fidelity. that's exactly why. it sounds like what they're used to. it's nostalgic. it's not because it's better. > It is beyond my understanding as to what would > prevent a transistor amplifier from distorting or imitating a tube > amplifier if you were able to find out what was different. nothing. if you want the distortion imparted by tubes, you can add it back, just as you can add back pops&clicks, tape hiss or whatever else you want. it all can be digitally modeled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-05 18:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sPOdnbFHQOpUWW_PnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #56021 |
On 2014.02.05, 14:36 , Salmon Egg wrote:
> In article <050220141047077480%michelle@michelle.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <050220141213207821%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> the green marker idea was popular in the early 1990s and generally
>>> applied on the outer edge, but some people suggested both inner and
>>> outer.
>>
>> And it had to be a specific frequency band within the overall green
>> band; ordinary green markers would offer some improvement, but for the
>> maximum effect, you needed audiophile quality green, which certain
>> hucksters would be all to glad to sell you.
>
> I do not remember the time line on this. When I first mentioned it, I
> just used 40 years off the top of my head.
>
> None of the audiophiles ever explained how these green markers would
> work on a digital recording--but it just did.
>
> I do remember going to an IEEE meeting which demonstrated some great
> sound from small speakers. The demonstrators insisted that vinyl was
> better than digital. Others insisted that tube amplifiers were better
> than transistor amplifiers. None of this makes sense. One conclusion
> popular was that people liked the distortion of their youth rather than
> true high fidelity. It is beyond my understanding as to what would
> prevent a transistor amplifier from distorting or imitating a tube
> amplifier if you were able to find out what was different.
There's a discontinuity from +ve to -ve current in a common push-pull
class B amplifier (one transistor shutting off, the other on, the biases
create a brief transition movement discontinuity (aka crossover
distortion)).
However, it is at a near 0 voltage condition in the middle of the
speaker travel. Inertia prevails and nobody can hear it.
--
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]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-05 22:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lcuunb$4np$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56056 |
On 2/5/14, 6:10 PM, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2014.02.05, 14:36 , Salmon Egg wrote: >> In article <050220141047077480%michelle@michelle.org>, >> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: >> >>> In article <050220141213207821%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam >>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> the green marker idea was popular in the early 1990s and generally >>>> applied on the outer edge, but some people suggested both inner and >>>> outer. >>> >>> And it had to be a specific frequency band within the overall green >>> band; ordinary green markers would offer some improvement, but for the >>> maximum effect, you needed audiophile quality green, which certain >>> hucksters would be all to glad to sell you. >> >> I do not remember the time line on this. When I first mentioned it, I >> just used 40 years off the top of my head. >> >> None of the audiophiles ever explained how these green markers would >> work on a digital recording--but it just did. >> >> I do remember going to an IEEE meeting which demonstrated some great >> sound from small speakers. The demonstrators insisted that vinyl was >> better than digital. Others insisted that tube amplifiers were better >> than transistor amplifiers. None of this makes sense. One conclusion >> popular was that people liked the distortion of their youth rather than >> true high fidelity. It is beyond my understanding as to what would >> prevent a transistor amplifier from distorting or imitating a tube >> amplifier if you were able to find out what was different. > > There's a discontinuity from +ve to -ve current in a common push-pull > class B amplifier (one transistor shutting off, the other on, the biases > create a brief transition movement discontinuity (aka crossover > distortion)). > > However, it is at a near 0 voltage condition in the middle of the > speaker travel. Inertia prevails and nobody can hear it. > > I remember in 1982 plugging my headphones into a receiver at a stereo shop to compare it to my 1972 receiver at home. I was amazed at the fidelity of the sound of running water. This receiver used ICs for the outputs, and I guess the crossover distortion was much lower than my old receiver with discrete transistors (and simpler circuitry).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-07 16:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hd6dnaH_9ZObyWjPnZ2dnUVZ8lIAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #56110 |
On 2014.02.05, 22:14 , J Burns wrote:
>>
> I remember in 1982 plugging my headphones into a receiver at a stereo
> shop to compare it to my 1972 receiver at home. I was amazed at the
> fidelity of the sound of running water. This receiver used ICs for the
> outputs, and I guess the crossover distortion was much lower than my old
> receiver with discrete transistors (and simpler circuitry).
Could be many other things including the amplification stage prior to
the power amps. FWIW my old discrete H-K (1985 ish) sounds great and my
home theatre amp (2006 ish) in straight stereo mode (bypasses signal
processing) sounds just as good. (The old H-K does start noisily - the
balance control seems to be noisy - but a few twists of the knob work it
out; also a small but noticeable channel imbalance. Got to bring home
an o-scope and sort that out).
Filtering for the crossover is typically resistors that absorbs the
current during crossover distortion - smoothing the output a little (the
voltage is low so there isn't mcuh current - still there's what looks to
be a pair of 25W or thereabouts resistors for each output in my home
theatre amp in the vicinity of the push pull transistors.
I bought a Yamaha home theatre amp last year (really nice machine) but
the sound was noticeably different from the H-K. For that and other
reasons I returned the Yamaha.
--
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]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-07 23:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ld4cbq$ur9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56188 |
On 2/7/14, 4:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2014.02.05, 22:14 , J Burns wrote: > >>> >> I remember in 1982 plugging my headphones into a receiver at a stereo >> shop to compare it to my 1972 receiver at home. I was amazed at the >> fidelity of the sound of running water. This receiver used ICs for the >> outputs, and I guess the crossover distortion was much lower than my old >> receiver with discrete transistors (and simpler circuitry). > > Could be many other things including the amplification stage prior to > the power amps. FWIW my old discrete H-K (1985 ish) sounds great and my > home theatre amp (2006 ish) in straight stereo mode (bypasses signal > processing) sounds just as good. (The old H-K does start noisily - the > balance control seems to be noisy - but a few twists of the knob work it > out; also a small but noticeable channel imbalance. Got to bring home > an o-scope and sort that out). > > Filtering for the crossover is typically resistors that absorbs the > current during crossover distortion - smoothing the output a little (the > voltage is low so there isn't mcuh current - still there's what looks to > be a pair of 25W or thereabouts resistors for each output in my home > theatre amp in the vicinity of the push pull transistors. > > I bought a Yamaha home theatre amp last year (really nice machine) but > the sound was noticeably different from the H-K. For that and other > reasons I returned the Yamaha. > I don't understand the electronic and loudspeaker advances, but it impressed me that some speakers in 1982 could reproduce a violin better than speakers I'd heard in the past. Sometime after 2000, I bought a $10 MP3 player and $5 headphones. They reproduced the acoustics of Bob Dylan's guitar from his coffee-house days better than I'd thought possible, better than a CD played on a full-sized stereo. I don't understand it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-08 09:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <he-dnZ12xOrE3WvPnZ2dnUVZ_rAAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #56214 |
On 2014.02.07, 23:38 , J Burns wrote:
> On 2/7/14, 4:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2014.02.05, 22:14 , J Burns wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> I remember in 1982 plugging my headphones into a receiver at a stereo
>>> shop to compare it to my 1972 receiver at home. I was amazed at the
>>> fidelity of the sound of running water. This receiver used ICs for the
>>> outputs, and I guess the crossover distortion was much lower than my old
>>> receiver with discrete transistors (and simpler circuitry).
>>
>> Could be many other things including the amplification stage prior to
>> the power amps. FWIW my old discrete H-K (1985 ish) sounds great and my
>> home theatre amp (2006 ish) in straight stereo mode (bypasses signal
>> processing) sounds just as good. (The old H-K does start noisily - the
>> balance control seems to be noisy - but a few twists of the knob work it
>> out; also a small but noticeable channel imbalance. Got to bring home
>> an o-scope and sort that out).
>>
>> Filtering for the crossover is typically resistors that absorbs the
>> current during crossover distortion - smoothing the output a little (the
>> voltage is low so there isn't mcuh current - still there's what looks to
>> be a pair of 25W or thereabouts resistors for each output in my home
>> theatre amp in the vicinity of the push pull transistors.
>>
>> I bought a Yamaha home theatre amp last year (really nice machine) but
>> the sound was noticeably different from the H-K. For that and other
>> reasons I returned the Yamaha.
>>
> I don't understand the electronic and loudspeaker advances, but it
> impressed me that some speakers in 1982 could reproduce a violin better
> than speakers I'd heard in the past.
>
> Sometime after 2000, I bought a $10 MP3 player and $5 headphones. They
> reproduced the acoustics of Bob Dylan's guitar from his coffee-house
> days better than I'd thought possible, better than a CD played on a
> full-sized stereo. I don't understand it!
My hearing isn't what it used to be either...
--
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]
| From | Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-09 16:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <SalmonEgg-5AF128.16151809022014@news80.forteinc.com> |
| In reply to | #56222 |
In article <he-dnZ12xOrE3WvPnZ2dnUVZ_rAAAAAA@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2014.02.07, 23:38 , J Burns wrote: > > On 2/7/14, 4:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote: > >> On 2014.02.05, 22:14 , J Burns wrote: > >> > >>>> > >>> I remember in 1982 plugging my headphones into a receiver at a stereo > >>> shop to compare it to my 1972 receiver at home. I was amazed at the > >>> fidelity of the sound of running water. This receiver used ICs for the > >>> outputs, and I guess the crossover distortion was much lower than my old > >>> receiver with discrete transistors (and simpler circuitry). > >> > >> Could be many other things including the amplification stage prior to > >> the power amps. FWIW my old discrete H-K (1985 ish) sounds great and my > >> home theatre amp (2006 ish) in straight stereo mode (bypasses signal > >> processing) sounds just as good. (The old H-K does start noisily - the > >> balance control seems to be noisy - but a few twists of the knob work it > >> out; also a small but noticeable channel imbalance. Got to bring home > >> an o-scope and sort that out). > >> > >> Filtering for the crossover is typically resistors that absorbs the > >> current during crossover distortion - smoothing the output a little (the > >> voltage is low so there isn't mcuh current - still there's what looks to > >> be a pair of 25W or thereabouts resistors for each output in my home > >> theatre amp in the vicinity of the push pull transistors. > >> > >> I bought a Yamaha home theatre amp last year (really nice machine) but > >> the sound was noticeably different from the H-K. For that and other > >> reasons I returned the Yamaha. > >> > > I don't understand the electronic and loudspeaker advances, but it > > impressed me that some speakers in 1982 could reproduce a violin better > > than speakers I'd heard in the past. > > > > Sometime after 2000, I bought a $10 MP3 player and $5 headphones. They > > reproduced the acoustics of Bob Dylan's guitar from his coffee-house > > days better than I'd thought possible, better than a CD played on a > > full-sized stereo. I don't understand it! > > My hearing isn't what it used to be either... Continue on alt.engineering.electrical. I think that you cannot judge fidelity of running water because there is no standard for it. Water in bathtub is going to sound different that in yours. Resistive filters for crossover makes no sense. It is reactive components or their electronic equivalents that actually separates the bands of audio from one another. Resistive filter by itself can give equivalent signals out but no frequency response modification. With enough negative feedback, there is no reason why amplifiers cannot be perfect reproducers of their inputs as far as human ears can determine. In the end, it will be transducers, microphones, speakers, headphones, and listening environments, that would be the big distorters. See you on alt.engineering.electrical. -- Sam Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection. Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-09 21:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ld9eta$d1h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56315 |
On 2/9/14, 7:15 PM, Salmon Egg wrote: > In article <he-dnZ12xOrE3WvPnZ2dnUVZ_rAAAAAA@giganews.com>, > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > >> On 2014.02.07, 23:38 , J Burns wrote: >>> On 2/7/14, 4:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>> On 2014.02.05, 22:14 , J Burns wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I remember in 1982 plugging my headphones into a receiver at a stereo >>>>> shop to compare it to my 1972 receiver at home. I was amazed at the >>>>> fidelity of the sound of running water. This receiver used ICs for the >>>>> outputs, and I guess the crossover distortion was much lower than my old >>>>> receiver with discrete transistors (and simpler circuitry). >>>> >>>> Could be many other things including the amplification stage prior to >>>> the power amps. FWIW my old discrete H-K (1985 ish) sounds great and my >>>> home theatre amp (2006 ish) in straight stereo mode (bypasses signal >>>> processing) sounds just as good. (The old H-K does start noisily - the >>>> balance control seems to be noisy - but a few twists of the knob work it >>>> out; also a small but noticeable channel imbalance. Got to bring home >>>> an o-scope and sort that out). >>>> >>>> Filtering for the crossover is typically resistors that absorbs the >>>> current during crossover distortion - smoothing the output a little (the >>>> voltage is low so there isn't mcuh current - still there's what looks to >>>> be a pair of 25W or thereabouts resistors for each output in my home >>>> theatre amp in the vicinity of the push pull transistors. >>>> >>>> I bought a Yamaha home theatre amp last year (really nice machine) but >>>> the sound was noticeably different from the H-K. For that and other >>>> reasons I returned the Yamaha. >>>> >>> I don't understand the electronic and loudspeaker advances, but it >>> impressed me that some speakers in 1982 could reproduce a violin better >>> than speakers I'd heard in the past. >>> >>> Sometime after 2000, I bought a $10 MP3 player and $5 headphones. They >>> reproduced the acoustics of Bob Dylan's guitar from his coffee-house >>> days better than I'd thought possible, better than a CD played on a >>> full-sized stereo. I don't understand it! >> >> My hearing isn't what it used to be either... > > Continue on alt.engineering.electrical. > > I think that you cannot judge fidelity of running water because there is > no standard for it. Water in bathtub is going to sound different that in > yours. The sound of water running into a bathtub is like white noise. A sound-effects man could probably simulate it in different ways. The sound I heard was trickling or dripping. It was familiar in real life, but I hadn't known it could come over a radio so clearly. > > Resistive filters for crossover makes no sense. It is reactive > components or their electronic equivalents that actually separates the > bands of audio from one another. Resistive filter by itself can give > equivalent signals out but no frequency response modification. We're talking about crossing over from positive to negative in a push-pull amplifier. A feedback resistor sounds like the way to mitigate it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-05 11:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <SalmonEgg-FF55F5.11223205022014@news80.forteinc.com> |
| In reply to | #55988 |
In article <050220141213207821%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > there is no skin effect at audio frequencies. it's yet another buzzword > to impress ignorant consumers. 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. Skin effect at 60Hz is one reason to use dc for long distance power transmission. -- Sam Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection. Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-05 15:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <050220141539269786%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56020 |
In article <SalmonEgg-FF55F5.11223205022014@news80.forteinc.com>, Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > there is no skin effect at audio frequencies. it's yet another buzzword > > to impress ignorant consumers. > > 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. it's just another buzzword that impresses those who don't know any better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web