Quote:
If Ethan Winer is still not banned from these forums after this, I think there needs to be a serious explanation and discussion from John or Stephen, as to why he can continue to violate very clearly worded policies concerning discrediting (let alone commenting) on the validity of the products of other manufacturers, and continuing to violate the ample warnings he has been given concerning his affiliation. As we know all too well, these are policies Ethan is extremely well aware of, from warning after repeated warning.

I don't think a serious explanation and discussion is needed. I see that Ethan and Steve are posting their company affiliations, so I think everything is okay. We ask that all high end audio manufacturers invariably post their company affiliation within their signature, and we appreciate their cooperation.

Quote:

Quote:
If Ethan Winer is still not banned from these forums after this, I think there needs to be a serious explanation and discussion from John or Stephen, as to why he can continue to violate very clearly worded policies concerning discrediting (let alone commenting) on the validity of the products of other manufacturers, and continuing to violate the ample warnings he has been given concerning his affiliation. As we know all too well, these are policies Ethan is extremely well aware of, from warning after repeated warning.

I don't think a serious explanation and discussion is needed. I see that Ethan and Steve are posting their company affiliations, so I think everything is okay. We ask that all high end audio manufacturers invariably post their company affiliation within their signature, and we appreciate their cooperation.

What we see Frog doing here is feigning offense, and then accusing someone of doing something that they are not, in an attempt to simply exhaust the moderators' patience and get Frog's intended victims banned out of sheer exhaustion.

I thought that a policy of "calling for banning" gets somebody banned was established a while ago.

Hence, I will simply raise that issue, and not call for the banning of anyone.

Quote:

I seriously doubt there is going to be some abnormally high capacitance due to an ultra-thin dielectric as leakage or rupture (short) is not an option.

Well, I haven't seen these cables, as I said, but I've seen another attempt at this, that used some rather thin tubing for the interior conductor, resulting in a surprisingly small b/a ratio,and thence small log(b/a) leading to a lot of capacitance, in the case I did see (which, I repeat, is not the cable under discussion here, and which I have no intention of identifying) resulting in very near 1 nF/meter. Which is a touch startling, I dare say.

A statement from the designer would clear this up, but appears not to be forthcoming.

The capacitance has already been stated as being notably (exceedingly, even) low, when measured via a proper dissipation method, as opposed to a 'bog standard' LCR meter, which makes assumptions according to internal models and mathematical transforms. I have used the SP model (three singles) of RCA cables to run a startlingly clean 1080P component signal. This is the model that Art Dudley Reviewed. Analog 1080P video done to near perfection does not sound is if it rolls off high frequencies by much(!). RCA connectivity pulling off that stunt is a bit ludicrous, to add. Art noted that the cable sounded a bit darker than his reference, ... and if you read the Manufacturer's comments by us in the same issue, you might get the odd clue.

Buddha had a design proto-unit (one of the more interesting results of some long runs of single cause analysis/executions) that I sent along to the show if an extra was needed - we lent it to him for the fun of it, for his room.

The reason that most manufacturers of premium audio gear are silent on specific details that they realize that there are many smart guys out there who need next to nothing to go on, when it comes to figuring things out, for if the original builder/designer says even one or two words the wrong way...and then that smart guy can and might beat the original designer and builder of said gear or DUT to the next commercial developmental or patentable 'moment'. I'm sure JJ, that you are familiar with that point. Keeping one's trap shut is basic common sense, is all. The problem shows up, sometimes, when the person who knows nothing keeps his mouth shut for that very reason, and then the two people, or models (of behaviour-smart vs smart ass), are compared by the public..and the two can appear to be the same, to the uninformed eye.

Quote:

Quote:

I seriously doubt there is going to be some abnormally high capacitance due to an ultra-thin dielectric as leakage or rupture (short) is not an option.

Well, I haven't seen these cables, as I said, but I've seen another attempt at this, that used some rather thin tubing for the interior conductor, resulting in a surprisingly small b/a ratio,and thence small log(b/a) leading to a lot of capacitance, in the case I did see (which, I repeat, is not the cable under discussion here, and which I have no intention of identifying) resulting in very near 1 nF/meter. Which is a touch startling, I dare say.

A statement from the designer would clear this up, but appears not to be forthcoming.

Mapleshade's Omega Mikro ICs employ a 56 gauge conductor. (In case not everyone knows how thin that is, it's thinner than a human hair.) What do you think the Omega Mikro ICs would measure and would it be a show-stopper?

Quote:

Quote:
If Ethan Winer is still not banned from these forums after this, I think there needs to be a serious explanation and discussion from John or Stephen, as to why he can continue to violate very clearly worded policies concerning discrediting (let alone commenting) on the validity of the products of other manufacturers, and continuing to violate the ample warnings he has been given concerning his affiliation. As we know all too well, these are policies Ethan is extremely well aware of, from warning after repeated warning.

I don't think a serious explanation and discussion is needed. I see that Ethan and Steve are posting their company affiliations, so I think everything is okay. We ask that all high end audio manufacturers invariably post their company affiliation within their signature, and we appreciate their cooperation.

Stephen, your reply does not address the bolded passages in your post under Forum Announcements, titled "Note to manufacturers", which I submit Mr. Winer has flagrantly disregarded on numerous occasions:

Quote:
The Stereophile forum is not to be used by manufacturers as a pulpit to promote their products or discredit the products of others.

Manufacturers should reveal themselves as manufacturers with every post made

Quote:

Mapleshade's Omega Mikro ICs employ a 56 gauge conductor. (In case not everyone knows how thin that is, it's thinner than a human hair.) What do you think the Omega Mikro ICs would measure and would it be a show-stopper?

As usual, you pick something contrary to the discussion at hand, and choose to debate a different issue. This is nothing more or less than the old republican tactic of "define your opponent".

It would be good of you, or any other physicist out there in this discussion, to realize why THIN wires are not the issue of contention here.

I thought manufacturers were not suppose to attack other's products?

Quote:
Furthermore, manufacturers should refrain from commenting on the effectiveness or validity of the products of any other manufacturer.

J_J:

Quote:
It would be good of you, or any other physicist out there in this discussion, to realize why THIN wires are not the issue of contention here.

I am not taking sides concerning products as I know neither manufacturer. But ethan, if you are complaining about lack of specs of both Teo and Synergistic Research, (page 29, post #82220)

Quote:
LOL, and why do we have to wait for the truth to come out? This is exactly like the ridiculous thread about the ART magic saki cups "acoustic treatment" where Ted Denney promised data, then a year later finally posted it, but the data was faked and/or incompetent (take your pick, not that it matters).

Legitimate products come with legitimate data,

we have requested and been waiting for over 1 1/2 years for you to produce the frequency response spec (or any spec) or any comparison for your neumann modified microphone preamplifier using the FET. You know the mic preamplifier that others copy from you and you claim great results. When are you going to present the FR specs, or some comparison?

Actually J_J, the size of the wire or liquid conductor is important as the smaller the conductor's diameter (inner when using coax design), the less the capacitance. This is part of what we have been discussing. The resistance does not rise that much, so there will be an optimum size that has the least effects at high frequencies.

Cheers.

Quote:
we have requested and been waiting for over 1 1/2 years for you to produce the frequency response spec (or any spec) or any comparison for your neumann modified microphone preamplifier using the FET.

Please show where anyone asked for that. If anyone had asked for specs I would have explained I left that microphone behind at my studio in the early 1980s when I started a new career as a software developer.

Of course, that mic mod article was never a product, so I'm under no obligation to prove it works anyway.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
we have requested and been waiting for over 1 1/2 years for you to produce the frequency response spec (or any spec) or any comparison for your neumann modified microphone preamplifier using the FET.

Please show where anyone asked for that. If anyone had asked for specs I would have explained I left that microphone behind at my studio in the early 1980s when I started a new career as a software developer.

Of course, that mic mod article was never a product, so I'm under no obligation to prove it works anyway.

--Ethan

I asked for it July of 2008, you know the Neumann mic preamplifier you modified by installing the FET.

http://www.ethanwiner.com/U47-FET.html

I specifically asked what the frequency response was and you could not answer the question but stated it sounded great and others have performed the modification. You have supplied a circuit to the public/recording engineers without any specifications or even a comparison? You even give instructions on what to change and to what (tube to solid state device). But where are the specs or comparison even now? So how does the modder/recording engineer know what he is getting?

Quote:
Actually J_J, the size of the wire or liquid conductor is important as the smaller the conductor's diameter (inner when using coax design), the less the capacitance.

Of course, but when you have a liquid conductor, you have to have more area, most likely, in order to avoid voids, etc. Now Galintin wets (*(&* near anything (shame you couldn't make the cable out of glass), which means that if you had some kind of coaxial arragement (again, we don't know yet what the cable in the OP used), that wet both sides of the insulator, you'd have the minimum b/a ratio, because of the conductivity of the liquid and the wetting of both sides of the insulator.

But we don't know what size these things correspond to. Obviously the alleged #56 cable, in any normal setting, is going to have a much smaller conductor diameter, and at least the capacitance won't be an issue by itself.

One does wonder about the resistance into anything smaller than an FET or tube.

Goddamn,ethan and sammet are at it again.... it felt so good to have some peace and quiet round here... Walsh, sas doesnt need any cheerleaders.

Sammet, . Youve been biting at Ethan's ankles for a couple of years now..grow up, eh?

Quote:

Quote:
Actually J_J, the size of the wire or liquid conductor is important as the smaller the conductor's diameter (inner when using coax design), the less the capacitance.

Of course, but when you have a liquid conductor, you have to have more area, most likely, in order to avoid voids, etc. Now Galintin wets (*(&* near anything (shame you couldn't make the cable out of glass), which means that if you had some kind of coaxial arragement (again, we don't know yet what the cable in the OP used), that wet both sides of the insulator, you'd have the minimum b/a ratio, because of the conductivity of the liquid and the wetting of both sides of the insulator.

But we don't know what size these things correspond to. Obviously the alleged #56 cable, in any normal setting, is going to have a much smaller conductor diameter, and at least the capacitance won't be an issue by itself.

With the size of the Teo cable I find it hard to contemplate much over a few hundred PF at most. Resistance can't be much if any factor either.

Cheers.

Quote:
Goddamn,ethan and sammet are at it again.... it felt so good to have some peace and quiet round here... Walsh, sas doesnt need any cheerleaders.

Sammet, . Youve been biting at Ethan's ankles for a couple of years now..grow up, eh?

Ethan is scientific, right? He requires others to provide specs, right? I simply asked for the FR or some FR comparison of his modded microphone preamplifier which he should be easily able to provide. He requires this of others. All he has to do is edit his webpage and post here. After all it has been a year and a half NCdrawal.

Cheers.

I'm not jumping into the fray, but I have not seen many specs provided by modifiers of equipment, either for home audio or pro use.

I just had Michael Jolly modify some small diaphragm condenser microphones for me. Others rave about his work, I have heard recordings, but no specs. The modified mics sound great.

On the high-end audio front I don't think Steve McCormack's SMc Audio offers specs for his mods on his amps.

These are just a couple of examples.

Quote:
I'm not jumping into the fray, but I have not seen many specs provided by modifiers of equipment, either for home audio or pro use.

I just had Michael Jolly modify some small diaphragm condenser microphones for me. Others rave about his work, I have heard recordings, but no specs. The modified mics sound great.

On the high-end audio front I don't think Steve McCormack's SMc Audio offers specs for his mods on his amps.

These are just a couple of examples.

Ethan's mod is quite major with spec change, not just simply changing brands of caps or resistors, but tube to solid state. The mod is also for those who use mics in a professional capacity such as recording studios, less often the private sector. I am also asking for just one spec, providing the frequency response or a comparison, which is quite easy, even a cave man can do it. If he designed it, shouldn't he have it on his finger tips with little effort required?

Cheers.

Stephen M.:

I brought up the issue of the sig because on Nov 1, after 5 months of Ethan being cagey about his sig, JA very specifically said Ethan needed to sign FULL name, TITLE and company affiliation. He gave Ethan two choices:

JA:

"So from now on, please use "Ethan Winer, proprietor, Real Traps"
or "Ethan Winer, owner, Real Traps" as a tag to every posting you make."

Ethan never actually complied with that directive, but did post his company name. However, less than a week later, Ethan was back to playing "You're not the boss of me", and once again took out his company affiliation, took out his last name, and just signed his posts "--Ethan", to continue hiding his industry affiliations. This was in clear violation once more of Stereophile's manufacturer's policy. Yet Ethan was never banned, despite JA's stern warning that he would be if he once again didn't comply with this very clear directive, and despite Ethan having flaunted the manufacturer's policy since it was instated 5 months prior. Now we're two months after JA's warning, and Ethan is still not posting what John asked him to. He's signing his company name at least, but he is not signging with his FULL name, or TITLE, making it clear who he is and how he represents his company. As Steve and other IM's here do in every post, without playing games.

But there is the more serious issue of Ethan again violating the Manufacturer's policy here, in continuing to discredit other manufacturers. Where he again accuses Ted, an industry member here, of "fraud" and/or "incompetence". If other industry members like Steve and Brian are pointing out in this thread that Ethan has repeatedly and continues to violate this serious rule, it seems that an explanation is necessary, if Ethan is going to be allowed to continue being given free reign to discredit other manufacturers and violate the board's policy. I can certainly see how this is unfair to other manufacturer members here. This makes it appear to others that no matter how many times Ethan is warned about violating the board's very simple one and only official policy, no matter how many times he violates this policy, he will be exempted from any of the board's rules because he either advertises or is reviewed in Stereophile. I hope you can understand the feelings of injustice and resentment this causes for other members here.

I have a couple of comments to make before I give up. First, why doesn't someone MEASURE the capacitance of the cable with a cheap cap meter? Is this so difficult?
Second, I don't know who Ethan is, but discussing THAT schematic is like discussing hopping up a YUGO. A waste of time.

Quote:
I have a couple of comments to make before I give up. First, why doesn't someone MEASURE the capacitance of the cable with a cheap cap meter? Is this so difficult?
Second, I don't know who Ethan is, but discussing THAT schematic is like discussing hopping up a YUGO. A waste of time.

Ethan Winer is an acoustics treatment business owner.

www.realtraps.com

www.ethanwiner.com

Mr. Curl, so are you saying the u47 schematic as presented is a waste of time, or that the mic itself is a waste of time??

If the former, id hope that a person of your reknown would avoid bashing other people's products(schematics, etc) if the latter, id have to say that pretty much everyone in the recording industry would disagree with you. the u47 is legendary.

I don't usually criticize schematics, but why is this schematic on this thread? Also, why the changes to the schematics, if they are so optimum for their task? Third, does anyone here actually know how to design microphone electronics? If you did, you would come to understand what I am saying.

Quote:
Michigan, I've been meaning to ask you about your last cable tweak. I forgot what it was you did.

I guess so did I, because I'm not sure what you're referring to. Power cable tweak, IC cable tweak or speaker cable tweak? I think I have some cable tweaks on my site, but I don't remember posting any here.

Quote:
(The slipknot thing never amounted to anything, for me.)

I take it you mean reef knot? I have in the past used that to good effect but.. I'm very methodical about how I do that, and what I do that with. And I do many at once, not just one. Plus, I know exactly what effect it has, so I have the advantage of knowing what to listen for. I obviously do not tie reef knots into cables that are too "good", only cheap thin ones, or headphone cables, that will not be damaged by a knot. Believe it or not, some people have been surprised by the 5-pinhole paper tweak that I listed on my site. The device is usually applied to the back of wooden speakers, but can be taped to the centre of any cable. There's really a million things I could do to tweak cables of any sort (slightly less if its really to be an improvement...). Often, the first thing I do when I get a new cable is chuck it in the freezer, and put it thru May's freezing process (described on her site and mine).

That last time I got anywhere near tweaking cables ('bout two months ago), I was at a friend's house, trying to find ways to tweak their system. Doing what I could in the limited time I had. The problem was, I came with no audio tweaks whatsoever, on my person. (Call it an "impromptu tweak session"). So I had to "McGuyver" my way around every tweak I installed. e.g. One of the things I noticed was there were unused input/output jacks on the back of the amp. Every unused cable jack is an opportunity to improve the sound to me. The first goal is to block the opening of the jack. The results are dictated by how you do that, and in this case, what's available. If there were any extra garden-variety RCA cables lying around, I might have cut them in half, tied a reef knot in the wire, and inserted them into the jacks. But I couldn't even find that much. I didn't even have any McGuyver chewing gum on me. But I did find a very small piece of Blue-tak (fun-tak). Which I cut into smaller pieces, and closed up the unused jacks. When I had no more fun-tak left, I used rolled up bits of tissue paper. It wasn't ideal, but at least it really helped the system sound better than it was meant to.

In brainstorming this "zero-cent" tweak session, I thought of another related interesting thing I had read someone else talk about. Which was how we use the inputs themselves. Meaning, the argument being that CD's sound better on another input than AUX. AUX could then become CD, and theoretically, better. Have you ever tested that? I won't go into the logical hypothesis behind the idea here.... But suffice to say, for my ears, he turned out to be right. I actually kind of knew this like... I don't know, 15 years ago. I just didn't know there was a theory behind it! I thought it was that particular amp I was testing, that sounded better on another input.

In my "Newtonian dayz", ie. 20 years ago, I used to add Stabilant-22 to the cable connections. It was a kind of contact enhancer. I really liked it and I may even still have the bottle somewhere, but I do not know if that stuff is available anymore. I'm not sure if there is any alternatives quite like it.

Keeping the wires away from each other, away from power cords, keeping speaker wire uncoiled, off the ground if posible, having connectors that mate tightly to the jacks.... all good practices, well recommended as the basics of cable tweaking/management.

If I am back at my friend's house, playing McGuyver, and I'm really determined to do something to the cables(?)... and I see that they have something like an x-acto knife, I would probably set about cutting a shallow single notch groove in one of the centre pins on an RCA IC, on each and every channel. Then see what gives. (Can't say I've tried it before, though. But I'm guessing it will help).

Quote:
Michigan, I've been meaning to ask you about your last cable tweak. I forgot what it was you did.

Maybe it would be a whole new thread, but I'd be interested in people's cable tweaks.

A new member who you might not have met yet, Freako, was talking about cable 'dressing' recently.

If Michigan mentioned something he's done, on the simple side, perhaps at this point people would be interested in comparing notes and seeing who might have heard what.

I try to keep interconnects away from each other, away from power cords, etc...

I also try to leave them be, shapewise, and I try not to bend them around alot - this may be pure superstition on my part, I admit!

(The slipknot thing never amounted to anything, for me.)

Also on my list are keeping the connections fresh, but not adding stuff to the interface between cable and gear.

Maybe you'd be interested in a sort of general take on your cable routines?

FYI: The cable dressing is btw the by far most audible tweak I've done, being a great improvement of the soundstage.

QUOTE from Buddha:

"(The slipknot thing never amounted to anything, for me.)"

I'm sure. He sounds sooo sincere, too. If someone is lying is it true that his pants really are on fire?

Quote:
Ethan's mod is quite major with spec change, not just simply changing brands of caps or resistors, but tube to solid state. The mod is also for those who use mics in a professional capacity such as recording studios, less often the private sector.

Fully understood. This is why I provided an example from the pro audio sector. I can provide many more that do not provide specs.

My point is that those that provide modding services rarely provide specs. Those that provide a mod suggestion, as did Ethan, probably even less so.

Again, I am not going to get sucked up in your battle with Ethan. This is clearly a personal issue.

Quote:

Quote:
QUOTE from Buddha:

"(The slipknot thing never amounted to anything, for me.)"

I'm sure. He sounds sooo sincere, too. If someone is lying is it true that his pants really are on fire?

Man, what a bitch.

So, I'm lying about that?

Time for a personal inventory, Geoff.

You've devolved to being only a griefer.

Of course you're lying. What else is new?

Have you ever thought about, you, know, drying out?

Quote:
I have a couple of comments to make before I give up. First, why doesn't someone MEASURE the capacitance of the cable with a cheap cap meter? Is this so difficult?

It can easily be done, John. But the numbers don't make any sense. Please read all my posts in this thread and it will maybe be a bit more clear.

6 inches of 28g 6 9's copper, suspended in air, soldered to a low energy storage board/support.

Use a proper dissipative measurement methodology to get the true capacitance, not the numerical transforms and mathematical/electrical considerations used in a bog standard LCR meter, ie anything up and into the multi-kilobuck range. Go to lab bench, go directly to lab bench -and do not pass go. Measure and calculate by hand, and/or by appropriately utilized hardware. But no LCR meter. Measure and calculate via proper dissipation methodology and get the capacitance of that 6 inches of 28g copper wire.

Do the same with thee cable at hand...and it measures less. Notably less, almost a decade, or magnitude -- less.

I've only said that exact thing now, in this thread, at least three times.

Quote:
Thanks for proving my point.

I grieve for your liver.

With apologies to the OP and all forum members who have been respectfully and maturely taking part in this conversation, we are now closing this thread. John Atkinson and I have been discussing it, and we feel that it's gone on long enough; all that needs to be said has been said, and too often the discussion has turned to flames. Ultimately, we do not want to ban anyone, and we are not going to ban anyone at this time. But let it be known that we have become especially sensitive to the flame wars between Ethan Winer, SAS Audio, and Michigan J. Frog.