Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Let us hope that the 'Randiites' do not prevail to the point that audio progress is EVEN MORE actively suppressed.

John, show me this imaginary 'suppression' from AES members, as opposed to people who want to make money at the lowest common denominator, of which there are certainly many out there.

Quite easy from your previous strings J_J.

1) Attacking Niteshade Audio as incorrect when Niteshade stated that using a lower output impedance on an 8 ohm speaker would tend to flatten the response. Thus you went against, or didn't know basic 1st year electronics theory while degrading Niteshade's name.

2) Your example in the Teo string. You used an extreme example of 1.1/1 ratio in order to infer Teo cables may have ultra high capacitance and therefore altering the sound if used, thus degrading the company, or at least creating doubt in the public's mind.

Let's take a look at the 1.1/1 ratio J_J used in the Teo thread, part of the forumula for calculating capacitance of a coax cable, and see how extreme it was.

1.1/1 ratio is the ratio of the inner diameter of the outer shielding (D) divided by the outer diameter of the center conductor (d) of a coax. The difference in radius is the thickness of the dielectric insulation between the conductors.

So for a large 10 gauge inner conductor of a coax, J_J's ratio would require the insulation thickness to be only slightly more than the thickness of one sheet of typing paper. And that is for a huge diameter interconnect cable.

For a 16 gauge center wire of a coax, J_J's ratio would require the dielectric insulation thickness to be little more than 1/2 the thickness of a sheet of paper.

For a 20 gauge center wire "d", J_J's ratio of 1.1/1 would require the dielectric insulation thickness to be a little more than a fourth, 1/4, that of the thickness of a sheet of paper.

I think one gets the idea of how easy it is to manipulate scientific conclusions and cause doubt. In this case just a simple change in the ratio of D to d and the average individual would be no more the wiser, all the while wondering if Teo cables have extraordinarily high capacitance. By the way I don't have any affiliation with Teo, haven't even met or talked to the gent.

You will have to come to your own conclusions as to why the degrading of these two companies.

Hope this helps the public.

(original copied for evidence)

What this shows is that you take things out of context, misrepresent the context, and/or simply didn't understand the original point.

Furthermore, it shows that you have failed to cease and desist in your stalking.

J_J

No reply with facts would have been presented and you would not have been embarrassed/exposed if you had been honest in the first place. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Niteshade:

Quote:
I stand by what I said. In fundamental terms, a feedback circuit is like a governor, a regulator. It works by monitoring voltages at the output stage (secondary of audio transformer). If the amp sees a higher impedance (which equates to a higher voltage) at a specific frequency, it will attenuate that voltage. With tube amps, this voltage is fed into a cathode circuit. As the cathode's voltage increases, the gain of that section decreases.

You just can't disagree and not provide a reason. How do we know your reason is valid?

Notice Niteshade is making a specific, fundamental point; that of signal voltage regulation and its affect on frequency response to varying impedances it sees.

J_Js response:

Quote:
Well, I've disagreed and provided only the reason that your statement is just wrong, so guess what, I can and I have.

As to "valid", well, sorry, you're making the extraordinary assertion, perhaps you should look into who has the burden of proof here.

Sorry JJ but I suggest you take a course in basic 1st year course in electronics. The burden of proof is on you.

Secondly, you were the one who used the ridiculous 1.1 to 1 ratio stating Teo cables could have ultra high capacitance which would influence the sound. Using such a ridiculous ratio was not forced upon you, and is not only your problem but demonstrates intent to cause doubt if not more. Again, you have only yourself to blame for your predicament.

Quote:

Quote:
Actually, Randi and I have a lot in common. His Educational Foundation attracts pseudo skeptics like flies on horse manure. So do my products.

Your pigasus found?
If so, you might have a point.
Otherwise, same-o

I'm 5 shades of green. Oh well, pretty sure I still hold the record for the most Randi Swift Reports. 4 or 5, kinda lost track.

"(original copied for evidence)"

Good lord!

That pecular form of BS trash verbiage crops up on Internet forums from time to time. Let me help you - that is the most singularly ineffectual phrase ever posted, anywhere.

If you're gonna roll like that, go get teacher and tell on SAS right now.

Quote:

Quote:
Oh well, pretty sure I still hold the record for the most Randi Swift Reports. 4 or 5, kinda lost track.

Gods above you have a swelled head! You're not even in the running.

Crikey, that sure lets the air out of my tires! If true. Can you prove it?

Quote:

Quote:
Niteshade:

Quote:
I stand by what I said. In fundamental terms, a feedback circuit is like a governor, a regulator. It works by monitoring voltages at the output stage (secondary of audio transformer). If the amp sees a higher impedance (which equates to a higher voltage) at a specific frequency, it will attenuate that voltage. With tube amps, this voltage is fed into a cathode circuit. As the cathode's voltage increases, the gain of that section decreases.

You just can't disagree and not provide a reason. How do we know your reason is valid?

Notice Niteshade is making a specific, fundamental point; that of signal voltage regulation and its affect on frequency response to varying impedances it sees.

It is telling that you fail to admit what Nightshade said further down in the thread in your rush to engage in defamation. And, no, the feedback Nightshade is referring to does not sense impedence, it senses voltage, which can result from impedence issues, amplifier issues, or what-have-you. Not that voltage feedback is a bad thing, done right, of course.

Your misrepresentation in asserting that I need to take a "basic first year course" in electronics is false and defamatory, and does not follow, even from your misrepresentation of the situation!

Your coax "issue" is made of nothing but your own omission of part of what I said. As such, it constitutes a lie by omission.

Retract your entire set of claims forthwwith, and make no such further claims.

First off this is not a he said he said argument. And if there was an omission on my part you would have posted it to embarrass me.

I presented facts. I suggest you study how regulators work for more insight since the last time I looked, the laws are still in effect regarding voltage, current, reactance etc. And Niteshade was only specifically referring to output Z of the amp, impedance changes and how lowering the output Z of the amp tends to flatten the response. Pretty clear cut.

Secondly, you presented the ridiculous 1.1 to 1 ratio as an example so you have no complaint to present. The fact that you can only present a prepared generalized vague statement speaks of your predicament.

Is it any wonder we have seen post after post expressing doubts whether we can believe you.

You have only yourself to blame.

Quote:
"(original copied for evidence)"

Good lord!

That pecular form of BS trash verbiage crops up on Internet forums from time to time. Let me help you - that is the most singularly ineffectual phrase ever posted, anywhere.

If you're gonna roll like that, go get teacher and tell on SAS right now.

I know Buddha. J_J attempts every trick in the book to get himself off the hook. Notice he is again calling me a stalker for presenting evidence/facts. Also notice J_J can not respond to a single piece of evidence I presented, let alone refute such evidence.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
"(original copied for evidence)"

Good lord!

That pecular form of BS trash verbiage crops up on Internet forums from time to time. Let me help you - that is the most singularly ineffectual phrase ever posted, anywhere.

If you're gonna roll like that, go get teacher and tell on SAS right now.

I know Buddha. J_J attempts every trick in the book to get himself off the hook. Notice he is again calling me a stalker for presenting evidence/facts.

You have falsified evidence and presented your allegations as fact. This is not the action of a reasonable man.

I have presented evidence/facts. If you had any evidence to present to prove your above allegations against me, you would have surely presented it on the spot to embarrass me, no? Of course you cannot because you knew the results when you posted the extreme D/d ratio to begin with.

As mentioned earlier I present the evidence/facts.

Quote:

Quote:
Actually, Randi and I have a lot in common. His Educational Foundation attracts pseudo skeptics like flies on horse manure. So do my products.

Your pigasus found?
If so, you might have a point.
Otherwise, same-o

Adendum

I couldn't help noticing that Brenda Dunne received a pigasus while she was with PEAR. Odd that Randi hasn't leveled a Swift Report at her for the mind lamp, developed by scientists and associates from PEAR. He must be sleeping on the job.

Psyleron, Inc. Mind Lamp

JJ I learned a lot more about audio quality from Gerry Garcia than I ever have from you. You might look like he did, but you don't have his hearing discrimination.

jj where did you get that opinion of me? You, sir, as I told you, years ago, are in the business of reducing audio info, and I am in the business of increasing it. That is the difference between us.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
"(original copied for evidence)"

Good lord!

That pecular form of BS trash verbiage crops up on Internet forums from time to time. Let me help you - that is the most singularly ineffectual phrase ever posted, anywhere.

If you're gonna roll like that, go get teacher and tell on SAS right now.

I know Buddha. J_J attempts every trick in the book to get himself off the hook. Notice he is again calling me a stalker for presenting evidence/facts.

You have falsified evidence and presented your allegations as fact. This is not the action of a reasonable man.

And if you had any evidence to present to prove your above allegations against me, you would have surely presented it to embarrass me on the spot. I see nothing but a vague generalized PR statement. Noted.

Your failure to retract is noted. Do so immediately.

We all see once again you could not reply, let alone refute the evidence I presented but did the two step evade. So you cannot refute even first year, even high school material (1.1/1 ratio calculations). Well of course not when the evidence I presented is honest and factual.

And what does your "noted" suppose to mean? I gotta see this explanation.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
"(original copied for evidence)"

Good lord!

That pecular form of BS trash verbiage crops up on Internet forums from time to time. Let me help you - that is the most singularly ineffectual phrase ever posted, anywhere.

If you're gonna roll like that, go get teacher and tell on SAS right now.

I know Buddha. J_J attempts every trick in the book to get himself off the hook. Notice he is again calling me a stalker for presenting evidence/facts.

You have falsified evidence and presented your allegations as fact. This is not the action of a reasonable man.

And if you had any evidence to present to prove your above allegations against me, you would have surely presented it to embarrass me on the spot. I see nothing but a vague generalized PR statement. Noted.

Your failure to retract is noted. Do so immediately.

We all see once again you could not reply, let alone refute the evidence I presented but did the two step evade. So you cannot refute even first year, even high school material (1.1/1 ratio calculations). Well of course not when the evidence I presented is honest and factual.

And what does your "noted" suppose to mean? I gotta see this explanation.

14 Try to bluff your opponent.
If he or she has answered several of your question without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow.
If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed

http://www.indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/

Your failure to retract your defamation is again noted. Retract your defamation forthwith.

What is really sad is the tarnish you have put on two manufacturers by going directly against basic electronics and using extremist example, and now attempting to cover it up. The fact is that if I had made mistakes you should easily have correct those mistakes by providing evidence. Of course we all see you can not; but instead misdirection and other assorted tatics like we just read in your last post.

1. J_J posts an extreme example of 1.1/1 ratio in the Teo string. Of course this would result in extremist ultra high capacitance due to paper or less thickness of the dielectric insulation (insulation between the inner and outer conductors). As one can see above, J_J does not refute he said it, and cannot refute the evidence. He resorts to weird tatics, PR, to cover up and limit damage.

Using J_J's 1.1/1 ratio example:

10 gauge wire as an inner conductor, the dielectric thickness would be slightly greater than 1 sheet of paper thick.

16 gauge wire as the center conductor, the thickness is about 1/2 the thickness of a sheet of paper. Notice how extreme the J_J example leads us.

20 gauge wire as center conductor, the thickness of the dielectric insulation is only slightly more than 1/4 the thickness of a sheet of paper.

As one can see, the weird ratio J_J posted gives Teo the appearance of ultra high capacitance. Again J_J cannot refute the facts so he attempts to use PR, cover up, and make weird comments as seen above in his last post.

Niteshade and Teo companies deserve an apology from you, J_J. That is the least you can do after sleezily tarnishing their reputations.

You lot pretend to be audiophiles and experts yet all I have seen on here lately are pissing contests, egos swelled beyond the "norm", name calling, and the SAME type of BS that got Frog and Ethan banned. It seems while the cat is away the mice will play.(Mejias and Atkinson being the cats) Keep it up children, I'm sure the cats will be returning one day and will be VERY hungry.

Quote:
You lot pretend to be audiophiles and experts yet all I have seen on here lately are pissing contests, egos swelled beyond the "norm", name calling, and the SAME type of BS that got Frog and Ethan banned. It seems while the cat is away the mice will play.(Mejias and Atkinson being the cats) Keep it up children, I'm sure the cats will be returning one day and will be VERY hungry.

The ratio J_J himself posted as an extreme example and the results/evidence are fact my friend. Basic math, find the diameter of the inner conductor and use J_Js ratio of 1.1/1 to figure the dielectric insulation thickness. Very simple DavidL. It is interesting that you claim to believe in science, yet follow someone who was just caught twice using poor tatics to say the least.

You can try all you want to cause confusion, but the evidence presented is accurate.

And the attack on Niteshade by going against basic 1st year electronic theory to attack him is also fact DavidL. So you can play all the games you want, and be known for such.

The fact is J_J got caught.

Cheers.

Sasaudio I've read what you have to say here and in other posts and I'm not impressed Here's a link for you all to watch that sums up most of what has been posted here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo

Quote:
Sasaudio I've read what you have to say here and in other posts and I'm not impressed Here's a link for you all to watch that sums up most of what has been posted here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo

Unfortunately, as seen in my last post you
claim science but then refute scientific evidence/fact when presented to you. Case in point.

You dodged the evidence I presented using J_Js 1.1/1 ratio. That is a scientific fact DavidL. Kinda shows your true colors to everyone; that science if just a cover, not something you really believe. As such it is not surprising you are not impressed since you side with someone caught in the act.

I think this demonstrates to the public that some claim science, but through slight manipulations can change conclusions that favor them, whether for selling or other agenda. The 1.1/1 ratio is an example of such.

Quote:

Quote:
Sasaudio I've read what you have to say here and in other posts and I'm not impressed Here's a link for you all to watch that sums up most of what has been posted here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo

Unfortunately, as seen in my last post you
claim science but then refute scientific evidence/fact when presented to you. Case in point.

You dodged the evidence I presented using J_Js 1.1/1 ratio. That is a scientific fact DavidL. Kinda shows your true colors to everyone; that science if just a cover, not something you really believe. As such it is not surprising you are not impressed since you side with someone caught in the act.

I think this demonstrates to the public that some claim science, but through slight manipulations can change conclusions that favor them, whether for selling or other agenda. The 1.1/1 ratio is an example of such.

Blah blah blah blah blah the same old shit from you. All I did was point out in two posts how you ALL just have pissing contests and discuss NOTHING worthwhile and that how such behavior was the reason Frog and Ethan were banned. Keep it up and see where it gets you and please stop trying to turn things around and making it all about YOU being so honorable.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Sasaudio I've read what you have to say here and in other posts and I'm not impressed Here's a link for you all to watch that sums up most of what has been posted here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U4Ha9HQvMo

Unfortunately, as seen in my last post you
claim science but then refute scientific evidence/fact when presented to you. Case in point.

You dodged the evidence I presented using J_Js 1.1/1 ratio. That is a scientific fact DavidL. Kinda shows your true colors to everyone; that science if just a cover, not something you really believe. As such it is not surprising you are not impressed since you side with someone caught in the act.

I think this demonstrates to the public that some claim science, but through slight manipulations can change conclusions that favor them, whether for selling or other agenda. The 1.1/1 ratio is an example of such.

Blah blah blah blah blah the same old shit from you. All I did was point out in two posts how you ALL just have pissing contests and discuss NOTHING worthwhile and that how such behavior was the reason Frog and Ethan were banned. Keep it up and see where it gets you and please stop trying to turn things around and making it all about YOU being so honorable.

Sorry but it all has to do with two companies' reputation being tarnished, attacks on John Curl, high end audio, and others credibility, claiming science and then misusing it for your own advantage, and then using other manipulating tatics attempting to cover up when caught. I don't see you posting "blah, blah" when J_J is attacking others. How hypocritical of you. And will he be honest when he attacks another in the future (and what about the past), or use manipulating tatics then as well.

So it is a big deal as seen by others who post questioning J_J etc in this string.

Cheers.

For any coaxial structure, if one maintains the same diametric ratio, the capacitance per foot, the inductance per foot, and the characteristic impedance will remain the same.

For a ratio of 1.1, a coax with a dielectric coefficient of 2.7 will have:

479 picofarads per foot
5.81 nanohenries per foot.
Characteristic impedance of 3.48 ohms.

This is invarient on the scale of the coax, and dependent only on the ratio of the inner core diameter to the outer shield inner diameter.

This will cause problems with hot amplifiers if the amp gain is sufficient in the higher frequencies where the speaker load climbs. In this realm, the cable will appear to be capacitive. When the load equals the cable Z, the amp will not see the capacitance.

It is not difficult to make a coaxial cable using film insulation in a 50% overlap wrap. I use kapton wrapped wire everyday, half mil with 50% over-wrap for a total insulation thickness of 1 mil.

A 10 guage wire would require 5 mils, an 18 guage, 2.

Cheers, John

Quote:
For any coaxial structure, if one maintains the same diametric ratio, the capacitance per foot, the inductance per foot, and the characteristic impedance will remain the same.

For a ratio of 1.1, a coax with a dielectric coefficient of 2.7 will have:

479 picofarads per foot
5.81 nanohenries per foot.
Characteristic impedance of 3.48 ohms.

This is invarient on the scale of the coax, and dependent only on the ratio of the inner core diameter to the outer shield inner diameter.

This will cause problems with hot amplifiers if the amp gain is sufficient in the higher frequencies where the speaker load climbs. In this realm, the cable will appear to be capacitive. When the load equals the cable Z, the amp will not see the capacitance.

It is not difficult to make a coaxial cable using film insulation in a 50% overlap wrap. I use kapton wrapped wire everyday, half mil with 50% over-wrap for a total insulation thickness of 1 mil.

A 10 guage wire would require 5 mils, an 18 guage, 2.

Cheers, John

Hi John,

Thanks for the input data. As you point out, if the ratio remains constant for given conditions, the capacitance remains constant. I mentioned smaller wire John to demonstrate that with smaller dia center wire, the dielectric thickness is unbelieveably thin. Even very small coax such as RG-174 uses a much higher ratio than 1.1/1.

Raising the ratio reduces the capacitance. For those interested, simply search the internet for the formula.
(Yes I also calculated 5 mills thickness from 10 gauge wire, which is approximately .100 mills dia.)

As one can see the capacitance in John's example is approximately 1570pf/meter (= 0.0015uf cap). Changing the D coefficient, dielectric insulation thickness etc will change the capacitance as well.

Raising the D/d ratio to only 2 brings down the capacitance from 1570pf/meter to approx 218pf/meter. We have lowered the capacitance by over 7 times vs using the 1.1/1 ratio.

Using a D/d ratio of 3 brings down the capacitance further to approx 41.7pf/foot, or 137pf/meter. This is approximately
10 times less than 1.1/1 ratio.

Using a D/d of 4 and approx 109pf/meter.

D/d of 5 and approx 93.6pf/meter. Nearly 17 times less than the 1.1/1 ratio.

D/d of 8 and approx 72.8pf/meter.

In virtually all applications, the IC sees higher impedance from preamplifier and amplifier, although some preamplifiers may have extraordinarily low output impedance, 50 ohms or less.

I, personally, always strive for the IC capacitance between source to preamp, to amp to be as low as possible.

Notice the photo attached from
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/coax.htm

Notice the dielectric insulation thickness between the center conductor and outer braid of a typical coax design. Check your own ICs if possible. D/d is much much higher than 1.1/1 ratio. If I remember correctly, RG-184, RG-8 etc is approximately 27pf/foot or approx 80pf/meter. Can't remember RG-9 and others.

Thanks John.
Steve

I'm closing this thread now as it seems poised to become another one of those really weird, endless, pointless pissing matches between audio designers. You guys should be at SSI in Montreal.