steve_1979
Well-known member
CnoEvil said:
A megaton is 1,000,000 tons so I'd assume that a megabee must be the size of 1,000,000 bees. :?
A megaton is 1,000,000 tons so I'd assume that a megabee must be the size of 1,000,000 bees. :?
steve_1979
Well-known member
shropshire lad said:
Russ Andrews recomends that it should burnt in for upto 100 hours and to leave it on while I go to work!
Native_bon
Well-known member
Native_bon
Well-known member
CnoEvil said:
Oh well, u guys are reacting to cable burn the same way people reacted to the earth being round.
steve_1979
Well-known member
Native_bon said:
It's not the same thing at all. When it was first discovered that the world is spherical most of the population were uneducated and the word of the church ruled over science. We now know better and are willing to use science to help us explain the world that we live in.
There is no scientific reason why a copper cable would change its conducting properties by being run in.
Covenanter
Well-known member
andyjm said:Covenanter said:RobinKidderminster said:Covenanter said:I was using "active" in the sense that they change their characteristics when a voltage is applied. Resistors, inductors etc don't do that in any material way. That might not be the textbook definition but it is what I meant.
Chris
PS I get my knowledge from my first degreee which was in electronics.
Using knowledge from my first degree and Google:
[*]Active components rely on a source of energy (usually from the DC circuit, which we have chosen to ignore) and usually can inject power into a circuit, though this is not part of the definition.[1]. Active components include amplifying components such as transistors, triode vacuum tubes (valves), and tunnel diodes.[*]Passive components can't introduce net energy into the circuit. They also can't rely on a source of power, except for what is available from the (AC) circuit they are connected to. As a consequence they can't amplify (increase the power of a signal), although they may increase a voltage or current (such as is done by a transformer or resonant circuit). Passive components include two-terminal components such as resistors, capacitors, inductors, and transformers.
If you want to be pedantic about the definition of a word that's fine. :hand: However, the point is that as some capacitors change their characteristics when a voltage is applied to them it is conceivable that they might have a "burn in" as that change of characteristics might itself be modified by use. Cables no, capacitors maybe.
Chris
Chris,
I should probably let it drop, but this is how internet 'whispers' begin and soon everyone thinks they have active capacitors.
'Active' and 'Passive' have very specific meanings in electronics (as you would know from your degree???). Transisitors are active, capacitors are passive. Calling a capacitor active is just plain wrong.
A device whose characteristics change with applied voltage is 'nonlinear', not 'active'.
Which characteristics of the capacitor did you think change with applied voltage?
Don't get hung up on one word! I wish I hadn't mentioned it now!!! All I said was that because electrolytic type capacitors effectively build their capacitance when the voltage is applied I could conceive that the process could change over time. I didn't say they did, just that they might.
Chris
Covenanter
Well-known member
Native_bon said:
No I don't think so! Nobody who had any education back then actually thought the world was flat. And nobody who lived near the sea and could watch a ship disappear over the horizon did either.
As for cable burn-in, there is no objective evidence that I can see that it occurs. The only evidence is that some people say they can hear it. Some people believe in vampires and ghosts too and I don't believe them either.
I'd be willing to bet that nobody could hear any difference in a scientific double-blind test and I'd also be willing to bet that nobody who makes money out of selling hifi snake-oil would be willing to take part in such a test either because they would be exposed.
Chris
20 odd years ago I had a capacitor the size of a bog roll on a commercial single phase washing machine no (inverter) that was supposed to switch out of circuit that whent from inactive to very active the bang was like a hand grenade going off the smell + the smoke + what a mess the look on the laundry ladies face made me :rofl: : which didn't go down very well
Andrew17321
Well-known member
Native_bon
Well-known member
Covenanter said:
The same was said about russ andrews mains cable, that they are just a con. But it was proven that they do actually work. Always going to be spetics like urself no matter what the case. Again dn't know what planet u live on, but people did laugh at the idea that is earth is round.
Native_bon said:
Hya
I would be interested in this proof. Can you direct us to it please.
Cheers
BenLaw
Well-known member
Native_bon said:
A bit like cable burn in, another myth: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
Alec
Well-known member
Electro
Well-known member
RobinKidderminster said:
I not posting this as proof of anything as I sit firmly on the fence on all things cable, but here is the document requested .
http://www.russandrews.com/images/articles/OriginalResearchPaperVersion16Feb09.pdf
Make of it what you will
Sorry if I have butted in or stepped on anybody's toes :shifty:
Electro said:Make of it what you will
I make it that Ben Duncan research really needs to stop using so many awful fonts colours and blub - it looks like that bit was done by a kid.
Covenanter
Well-known member
Well I've no idea of the guy's credentials but it's a lengthy albeit largely irrelevant piece of research. (I skim read it but I think I got the gist.) Even if the cable does reject more rf interference any that is picked up will be dumped straight to earth through the capacitor in your equiment's power supply. That's there to remove any residual 50Hz hum so removing rf signals will be complete (the higher the frequency the more the capacitor passes the signal).
Now having interconnect cable that rejects rf is interesting and useful because that feeds directly into the signal path and could in theory at least affect reproduction. (In the early days of solid state radio signals were indeed sometimes picked up and amplified. You don't hear about it nowadays - well I haven't.) However as interconnect cable is short (usually) it will act as less of an aerial. Still it would be worth having and I expect interconnect cable is shielded.
Anyway all of this is irrelevant! Can anybody actually hear the difference? You can reject as much or as little Rf as you like but if I can't hear any effect it doesn't matter does it? As I've repeatedly said a double blind test conducted by independent scientists would convince me. The absence of such tests convinces me that nobody in the hifi industry is willing to submit to one because they know it would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Chris
PS You don't have to have watched QI to know about "flat earth" although, as it happens, I did see that episode. What you need is an "education" - that's where you go to school and college and learn things. :rofl:
PPS My son-in-law is a materials scientist, he has a MSc, and he works for a company that makes devices for amongst others Logitech. I showed him some of the debates on this forum, quantum bullets, cables, cryo valves, etc and he was most impressed. In fact I think I can still hear him laughing although he live in Cardiff and I live in Birmingham and it was two weeks ago.
Now having interconnect cable that rejects rf is interesting and useful because that feeds directly into the signal path and could in theory at least affect reproduction. (In the early days of solid state radio signals were indeed sometimes picked up and amplified. You don't hear about it nowadays - well I haven't.) However as interconnect cable is short (usually) it will act as less of an aerial. Still it would be worth having and I expect interconnect cable is shielded.
Anyway all of this is irrelevant! Can anybody actually hear the difference? You can reject as much or as little Rf as you like but if I can't hear any effect it doesn't matter does it? As I've repeatedly said a double blind test conducted by independent scientists would convince me. The absence of such tests convinces me that nobody in the hifi industry is willing to submit to one because they know it would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Chris
PS You don't have to have watched QI to know about "flat earth" although, as it happens, I did see that episode. What you need is an "education" - that's where you go to school and college and learn things. :rofl:
PPS My son-in-law is a materials scientist, he has a MSc, and he works for a company that makes devices for amongst others Logitech. I showed him some of the debates on this forum, quantum bullets, cables, cryo valves, etc and he was most impressed. In fact I think I can still hear him laughing although he live in Cardiff and I live in Birmingham and it was two weeks ago.
I keep my opinion of the test report to myself until an 'expert' is able to comment. I find it strangely interesting!
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link.
Covenanter said:
Indeed it is irrelevant! The only test that matters is how stuff sounds in your own system.
I have a midrange system, nothing too fancy. I once wired it completely with hi-end cabling (mains, digital, i/c, s/c), costing as much as the sum of the components, and then compared that to basic no-frills cabling costing pennies, and to some midrange cabling as well.
The hi-end cabling was very obviously better all round. For example, the soundstage filled the room instead of being stuck between the speakers, I heard stuff on my favourite recordings I didn't know was there and I no longer got fatigued on extended listening.
That said, other times when I've just, say, tried a £120 interconnect instead of a £60 one and still with basic speaker cable—there was very little difference.
So the results you get depend—there's no universal truth to argue the tosh about.
Native_bon
Well-known member
RobinKidderminster said:
There you go
http://www.whathifi.com/forum/accessories/russ-andrews-research-papers
steve_1979
Well-known member
Q. What do audiophiles have in common with the 'Flat Earth Society'?
A. They're both willing to believe something dispite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
A. They're both willing to believe something dispite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
I bet Brian Cox could settle this for sure, or one of his mates from the LHC.
They'd probably have a view on this year's wasp population, too.
They'd probably have a view on this year's wasp population, too.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram