Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

And just when you thought that shielded coax was the panacea to interference - Shield Induced Current Noise (SICN) from the professional audio company RANE:

http://www.rane.com/pdf/ranenotes/SC...uced_Noise.pdf

These are hard bitten guys - they don't believe in cables sounding different per se - they actually measure things. Their "Rane Notes" are well worth a peruse http://www.rane.com/library.html

Craig

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

The amp in the CD player is built to drive speakers with a potential divider for the head phone output. the spec of the amplifier gives a distortion figure with plenty of "0"s in front for that distortion figure. I bet that is for the headphone output with little load on the output stage.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

It is just possible that cryo treatment could modify valve microphonics. It won't alter distortion etc.

Error correction means that the data entering the DAC is perfect almost all of the time.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

All the right bits, necessarily in the right order, but with timing jitter. That's analogue, and measurable, and has a mathematically demonstrable effect on the audio output - a sort of phase modulation, effectively. It'a also an issue for self-clocking digital audio interfaces like SPDIF, either electrical or optical. Of course, buffering the data and re-clocking it from a low-jitter source fixes the problem, but very few DACs bother with that.

Whether we can hear the effect or not is another matter.

Chris

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

That note is not about coax, but shielded twisted pair. The effect cannot occur with coax, because by definition there cannot be a difference in magnetic coupling between the shield and one inner conductor - for that you need at least two inner conductors.

Re: 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Not CO2, but KrF which is a bit more challenging. I did my DPhil at the Clarendon Lab in Oxford. The people who taught me about 316 machining were the workshop guys there, several of whom remembered Martin Wood (although maybe not the actual technician who did my electrode sets for me). So I'm a bit surprised the knowledge had to be re-learned at Oxford Instruments.

A very good friend of mine did have a one year placement with the Culham CO2 team though.

Cheers,

GJ

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Timing jitter comes from clocks (inside CD players) and cables (to external DACs). The optical drive should not affect this, unless the CD player has quite bad PSU and power distribution design. Buffering and reclocking is an inherent aspect of the data de-interleaving and error correction. Hence what goes to the DAC is locked to a crystal clock. High frequency jitter can be added by external SPDIF connections, but the DAC will then include a PLL to remove this.

Jitter can be a problem, but it is not as big a problem as some people fear. Strangely, the popular 'fix' (a bolted-on oscillator 'upgrade') will often make things worse due to interfacing problems such as ground-bounce.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

CIRC error correction will deal with with significant random and burst errors. But it finds it difficult to deal with systematic errors that tend to cause timing skews as a result of mechanical resonances, or any effect that tends to impact on the raw analogue data stream.

Prof Malcolm Hawkesford at the University of Essex has a good demonstration in which he ac couples the servo signals on a CD player, amplifies them, and demonstrates that they have a distorted version of the analogue audio stream impressed on them. Now this is quite a while ago, and it escapes me whether this was as a result of an electrical coupling mechanism, or an acoustic phenomenon because of the acoustic environment from loudspeakers.

I'll try and find out and report back if I find the information.

Re: 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

KRF is indeed a challenge. Even if clean it tends to pit the electrodes. There are interesting stories about the supersonic flow CO2 TEA laser at Culham - 30kW of light caused some safety headaches.....

Regarding Martin - well he was essentially out the equation when I was there in the early 90's (very much the elder statesman), although I knew him reasonably well. But the detailed information gets diffused and needs to be relearned. Probably periodically.

Of course since I left the 100-strong highly skilled mechanical workforce in the Research Instruments Division has been disbanded, and all the mechanics is subcontracted, with coil winding as far flung as China.

There *might* be some core skills left, but I've been out of there for 20-odd years now, so the current state of the ship is anybody's guess.

My research degree was in Nd:YAG, which was quite a beast in its own right. Some light bedtime reading https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/393635/1/82032212.pdf .

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

As I said, the data going to the DAC has been clocked by a crystal. Uncorrectable errors are rare. Hence we have perfect data at the right time.

I treat with suitable caution any claims made by Hawkesford, and any deductions made from those claims.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Oh dear.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

I bought one of those green pens for CDs, but instead of spending hours painting it around the edge of every CD I own, I used it to paint one huge thick ring right around my whole CD player!

The difference is astounding!

I'm smart!

David

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

I am listening to Youtube on a pair of USB headphones to Slade Yes, Led Zeppelin. ELP amonst others its my 61st Birthday.

You can argue to the cow come home guess What I do not care.

Audipholes are well named.

You can have the best system money can buy yet why is it it you can can enjoy a local band at the pub with shocking acoustics.

It does not mean I dont have a system capable of respectable reproduction but its just that, others will have far better and spent more or less.

Time to stop giving the Phools any oxygen of publicity on this forum just ignor them.

Let them get incresingly anal of their own forums

Gotta Go TRex Get it on is playing.

Cheers

Mike T

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

I must try that David ;D

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Since you are confident in your position too, that is, it is basically ok to tell "Audiofibs" if it appears to be mutually beneficial for customers and sales, I thought I would put this question to a few of my colleagues to see what the general opinion might be. The question was posed in the form:

" Is it wrong for a person with scientific expertise, such as an Engineer, to advise anyone with information that they know is untrue and not based in science, provided there is a mutual benefit to both, and if there is no third party harm ?"

The general response was that on your side of the argument was, on the face of it, it appears harmless. However the Engineer who does this dishonors both themselves and their entire belief in science. In short, it is a dishonorable thing to do.

In this day and age there seems to be less importance placed on this quality, but it was and still is a severe no-no to behave dishonorably in Japan.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Hi,

Really, come on guys some of the posts are now getting rather hurtful for anyone working in the Audio industry and as I said there are some good honest engineers in the audio industry.

I really don’t want to have to get my coat as I said in post 183.

Terry
BVWS Member

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

That's not my position. I tried to make my position clear back in post #73 when I said

Personally I draw the line at misleading people. Not only would it leave a bad taste in my mouth but my professional body (the Institute of Physics) could, in principle at least, chuck me out if I were caught bringing the subject into disrepute . But I hesitate to go out of my way to attack their beliefs. Some of them seem genuinely happy as a result of them and who am I to ruin that ...


However I am aware that hi-fi customers are pursuing a hard-to-reach goal and are happy (I genuinely think that that is the correct word) to pay for things which help them get there.

I was interested in your comments on the Japanese view of this. Would they be compatible with the Kondo philosophy http://www.audionote.co.jp/en/philosophy.html or Leben's use of distinctive capacitors http://lebenhifi.com/products/cs300xs.html or Shindo's attachment to vintage components http://www.coolhunting.com/tech/shindo-laboratories or Luxman's belief in the "elegant tonal quality that is unique to the performance of the TA-300B, a direct heated triode" http://www.luxman.com/product.php?pid=56 ?

Cheers,

GJ

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

There are good guys in the audio industry.

I know one very good engineer who was involved in a famous firm whose products were adulated beyond reason by pundits in the hifi press, yet they were the result of scientific, rational, good, engineering. The chief honcho of that firm was more than a bit of a showman and inclined to say things planned to shock. The press loved him. It must have been difficult deciding how to design things and what not to say so that the 'glamour' wasn't blown away inadvertently. It was certainly very profitable.

The problem with the audio industry as a whole (and plenty of other industries as well) is that those who haven't a clue make a lot more noise than the quiet, considerate folk. But it is the quiet ones who are most valuable.

david

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

I generally agree. But where would you say *Peter Walker stands on this? he was in may ways a great trail blazer and innovator, but he also made some outrageous statements about hifi equipment that most people think were quite stupid and factually wrong. I suppose that was the showman in him, he was a bit of both in my opinion, a rare breed.

* This is an edit, I originally said Richard Walker! (He was the great angler..)

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Peter Walker? Ross Walker? Not sure who Richard Walker is/was - google was no help on that name.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Dohh.. Peter Walker! (Richard walker was the great angler!)

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Yes compatible, because in the case of the Japanese in this area, mostly who propose the benefits of the components/systems, they believe it wholeheartedly 100% and when they express their views they are honest & genuine and there is no dishonor in that.

I was referring to the case where an Engineer becomes involved in remarks and audiophoolery claims of things like sonic performance, that they know for sure have no basis in science and are not true, but they are still prepared to push those for advantage.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Could you give me an example or two ?

Cheers,

GJ

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

For example he said that all good amplifiers sound the same. He later went on to contradict and/or qualify that statement: Last page, top of second column:
http://www.quadrevisie.eu/quadinfo/pdf/a24.pdf

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Setting aside the question of whether this is the case or not (I don't know how to distinguish absolutely between someone who really believes what they say and someone who just says it, unless the latter has a Gerald Ratner moment) I guess the next question is, since the difference affects only the hi-fi designer's honour, has our principal concern become that of saving the designer from him/herself ? I confess when I first raised the question I was thinking more, perhaps, about whether it was right to 'save' the customer from being misled, even if this took their happiness away.

Cheers,

GJ

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

I don't think he contradicts his statement that 'all good amplifiers sound the same' at all, does he ?

He says that "if you took ten modern amplifiers, set the levels correctly and avoided overload, about five of them would sound the same, the other five wouldn't". That's modern amplifiers, not good amplifiers. Later on Walker agrees with Atkinson when Atkinson says "I'm starting to suspect that perhaps there aren't many good amplifiers around." Walker set a very high standard for 'good'.

But just to be clear, which is the bit which is outrageous, stupid and factually wrong ? None of it sounds like any of those things to me, I'm afraid.

Cheers,

GJ

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

When using screened audio cable I always thought only one end of the screening should be connected to earth?

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Basically telling 'white lies?'

Yes I think it's wrong. If there is mutual benefit, then the advice and the sale can still be offered, providing it is qualified: "Look, nobody quite know why, and I can hardly tell any difference myself - but lots of people find that using direction-oriented speaker cables results in a noticeable improvement after 20 hours of running-in. That's why I sell the cable."

I do occasionally have an open mind myself to things which science can't explain yet - I bought a set of magnetic leg wraps for my chronically lame horse some years ago. No reason why they would work, and whether they made her any more comfortable, only she knows, but for £60 I was less concerned about why they would make a difference as to doing anything possible to help her. (When I told vet, he said, "Well if it makes you feel better using them, Peter, then use them!" Which is perfectly fair.)

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Never mind the earth screening, the important thing with all this stuff is that it's folks feet that should be connected to earth :) ;)

Lawrence.

Re: 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

This has to be one of the most impressive posts on this entire thread. joebog1 could have sold his white jacketed OC81's to audiophiles for 40 GBP along with colorful descriptions of how they amplify audio, but he knows they are not worth nearly that, so he offers them for free. Now there is a Engineer who inspires honor, dignity & trust.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Ah yes, the difference twixt screened and coaxial (impedance matched or not). Screened has the signal carrying conductors (plural, feed and return or plus and minus) and an overall screen. Coaxial has the return conductor (usually only referenced to ground*) as the outer bit, in this case the screen should, nay, must be connected at both ends.

*ground, could be chassis, common, 0V, reference or loads of other things.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

With single ended, both ends connected, otherwise there is no signal continuity. The problem is defeating hum loops and other interference. Now you can use ground lift resistors between the chassis safety ground and the analogue ground, often with a bypass cap to drain any HF energy to chassis (safety) ground. But signal interconnection in single ended can be a bit of a minefield. The bibles of this topic are "Grounding and Shielding, Circuits and Interference" by Ralph Morrison; I have both the 3rd and 5th editions; and Ott's book "Noise reduction techniques in Electronic Systems".

But with balanced cable, the guiding principle is to connect the shield directly to the chassis at each end, enshrined in an AES standard and championed by Neil Muncey in 1994.

Having said that, there is a more recent alternative view which connects only the signal source end of the cable shield in balanced systems (see for example Linear Audio, V10, pp25-36).

Ott, as previously mentioned, gave an excellent presentation given to the AES in 2008 covering both balanced and unbalanced cabling, hum, noise, RF susceptibility etc etc. http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/AES-RFI-SF08.pdf

Of course we have strayed off the topic of cable burn-in. Now some years ago I was keeping an open mind about this, and bought a kit of bits from Hagermann in the US for not a great amount, and built it into a box. I've done AB testing of identical cables of various constructions (BNC-BNC for SPDIF, balanced and unbalanced signal cable and speaker cables).

I am happy to report that I could discern absolutely no difference whatever between burnt in and virgin cables. The burn in device collects dust.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

[QUOTE=kalee20;983481]That sounds like a reasonable approach. The person who wants some directional cable gets some. The vendor has mislead no-one and been open about his understanding. Two people with different beliefs have traded fairly.

The only fly in the ointment is me, standing a little distance off, listening, wearing my Dr Evil hat, and wondering "In what way was that directional cable made directional?"

David

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

The misleading bit, well a total lie, is that the cable has directional properties at all, apart from the arrow on it. OK at RF a tapered line is directional, audio?, untapered?, unmatched?, you are having a laugh.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

and whether it's possible to get an un-rectifier to go with it so that it works with ac. Or is there such a thing as directional ac?

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

That is called an inverter, you have to specify in engineering terms what you want out of it, only voltage, frequency and current. Quite simple.

As this thread goes on and on the "explanations" of audio foolery get flakier and flakier. I am enjoying it, so are the engineering department at work. We had a competition for the most ludicrous hifi gadget, that got silly, now it is for the most expensive bit of wire, so far it is $5000 for a one metre phono to phono cable, stereo mind you.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Ex-demo, reduced from £6195

http://www.hifi-intouch.co.uk/produc...er-cables.aspx

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

yesanby, I have been trumped! Must be worth more as it has be broken in, the fools.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

I suppose defying the laws of physics requires something quite expensive. It's not clear what "exceeds all expectations" means. If I expect it to be cr*p then would it be total cr*p or just a bit better than cr*p?

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

[QUOTE=Radio Wrangler;983525]That's a quote I never made, it belongs to someone else, I don't sell cable either !

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Unrectifiers are unrequired. AC power flow has direction. It is given by the phase relationship of the voltage and current waveforms.

The voltage on the mains swings positive and negative, the current goes one way then the other, but the power station is driving your electric fire, not the other way round. At RF we have directional couplers to resolve forwards and backwards power flows on a line. In this way we can measure the reflectivity of a load or its VSWR without slotted lines and probes.

David

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

It was extracted from one of your posts using the forum quotation button and removing the rest of your post, hence it got the word 'quote' attached, but I understand that it is not anything you personally have said or necessarily believe, but you placed those words in a post as an illustration of a point.

I merely happened to think it was a very good point.

David

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

It was actually mine, RW! See post 228. My post started with a quote by Argus, then I went on by myself. Somehow, when pruning my last sentences, you deleted one of the closing quote fields!

I don't sell audiophool cable either, but if I did, this is how I would like to sell it.

Re: 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Seconded. Joe has been very generous with his time, advice, and some very expensive and high quality parts. And not only to me, I know that to be true.

A.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Ah, thanks, Kalee. So that's what happened!

I liked the openness and honesty of the fictional seller.

David

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

I've got the ultimate burned in (out?) cables. I needed some long lengths of speaker wire ( oh how I hate the word "cable", a cable is what you hang an anchor off..............). So i dug around the shed and found a length of that orange coloured double insulated lawnmower 2 core mains flex. Cut it in half for 2 15 foot lengths. connected it up to the hifi using my usual gold plated hand turned 4mm plugs (and here you know why it sounds so good). Well i was gobsmacked! it sounds better than the 2 x 1.5m lengths of fancy chord co speaker wire i used when the amps were behind the speakers. Actually i can't really hear a difference but I have been trying a lot of different things out as part of a room rearrangement................ but so what? The point I am making really is that if you use wire of a sufficient cross sectional area, made from ordinary reasonably pure copper, then you'll get a good result.
Can I respectfully suggest that the mods close this thread on Craig Sawyers last post as it says it all for me.

Regards

Andy

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

It woud perhaps be a shame to stop now Andy:). Who knew that so much surety would ever be involved with a joke:shrug: I'm a bit fascinated-especially by the bits I don't really understand. It just seemed amusing at first but people believe all sorts of things-medicine is still largely predicated on this despite all the technical advances! At the end of the day a lot of it's in the head, even though scientific method suggests there's an absolute truth. You could prove to me that Dylan can't sing by audio analysis. Would I believe it8-\

Dave

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

Well that proves it.
The cable was "broken in" using a lawn mower as a load;D

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

I was happy with the burn in of cables discussion, it's an old chestnut but some still haven't heard of it. I got peed off when it drifted into a general "lets slag off Audio Enthusiasts" jamboree, along with a general poke at the Audio manufacturing industry, when what little is left of the mainstream British audio industry makes its impact based on good sound design, engineering, and constructional quality.

A.

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 

This thread has acted as a relief-valve and has probably improved the quality of the rest of the forum by mopping up comments on audio tomphoolery. I don't suppose anyone would get upset if it got deleted and put out with the toxic waste. Preserving this thread isn't going to help anyone at some future time fix a vintage radio or amplifier. Posterity will get along just fine without it. Perhaps future anthropologists would be interested?

Audiophoolery is not a harmless foible, though. It has distorted the prices of what should otherwise simply be spare parts for classic equipment. It has polluted general knowledge with all sorts of unsubstantiated beliefs. If you go into a mass market electronics shop they'll try to 'upsell' silly wires. Their motive is simple profit and bonus schemes, of course, just as with pushing extended warranties.

What I find scariest is the suspension of curiosity. I'm in a tiny minority in wondering just how directional wire is made directional. I use electrical conductors from DC to microwave frequencies where most imperfections and stray effects are greatly magnified, yet I've not seen the effects that are claimed to exist at audio.

If I had personally experienced some of the effects I've seen described, I'd dig and dig until I'd found what the mechanism was and understood it. I'm disappointed in people who are convinced they can hear something very special but aren't driven to investigate it

David