russ andrews or clearer audio main cable......

[ElectroMan]

trevor79:

PS .....How many 3VA mains transformers do you have to sell me for £100 apiece?

Would appreciate posters putting up a list of there system, gives weight to their opinion!

None, but these sell them at £45.99 (although they're probably not wired with Kimber Kable)!

I've just added system details to my signature (I think), although of course there's no way of knowing if people are telling the truth!

 

[Anonymous]

trevor79:Greatly reduces hums, buzzes and all other kinds of externally induced noise introduced from the AC mains supply. RF and many major kinds of EMI are also rejected.

PS .....How many 3VA mains transformers do you have to sell me for £100 apiece?

Would appreciate posters putting up a list of there system, gives weight to their opinion!

Your stuff must be poor quality if it hummed and buzzed before. Mine has no trace of interference even on vinyl and didn't before I bought a Tacima.

BTW in my experience most RF noise picked up on record decks is through direct radiation, so your lumps of Ebay junk or fancy wires won't fix it anyhow.

 

[Anonymous]

Related to this topic, I had great fun reading Russ Andrew's latest brochure, where he says re: the ASA ruling against his claims...

" Our defence was that these were explanations rather than claims was rejected."

Hmh - can't see why, Russ?

He goes on to say... "Although the ASA's expert witness believed our explanation had no valid basis whatsoever, the ASA itself ruled only that we didn't have any evidence, not that there was anything shady about our claims." ÿ

I must confess the distinction here between having no evidence and a claim being "shady" has somehow escaped me, but I'm sure it makes sense to Russ! ÿ

ÿ

It's even more strange the he tried to put forward this argument given he seems to have now produced evidence of how his leads do reduce RFI interference. ÿHowever, I don't understand why it was thought that woven cable reduces RFI if it has never previously been measured to do so?ÿ

ÿ

Any ideas?ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

lexread:
Related to this topic, I had great fun reading Russ Andrew's latest brochure, where he says re: the ASA ruling against his claims...

" Our defence was that these were explanations rather than claims was rejected."

Hmh - can't see why, Russ?

He goes on to say... "Although the ASA's expert witness believed our explanation had no valid basis whatsoever, the ASA itself ruled only that we didn't have any evidence, not that there was anything shady about our claims."

I must confess the distinction here between having no evidence and a claim being "shady" has somehow escaped me, but I'm sure it makes sense to Russ!

It's even more strange the he tried to put forward this argument given he seems to have now produced evidence of how his leads do reduce RFI interference. However, I don't understand why it was thought that woven cable reduces RFI if it has never previously been measured to do so?

Any ideas?

He should have stuck to the vague meaningless stuff like wider soundstage, crisper highs etc.

 

[ElectroMan]

I don't want to bash RA, but to be honest, looking through his latest magazine, some of the stuff in there seems almost to be straying into Peter Belt terrritory, even if there is more actual science behind it.

An example of this is the speaker upgrade page - not just spikes, but also replacement damping, anti-resonance pads, earth leads, replacement wiring, replacement binding posts, and 'focus rings' on the tweeters to stop hf reflection! Er, after most of that you'd almost be better off building your own speakers!

I'm sure speaker designers just throw in damping foam willynilly. Reminds me of advice Hi-Fi Answers used to give, in that case it was to remove all internal damping foam/wool and leave it out. (Hmmm, I wonder whether the speakers RA sells need these enhancements?)

My point really is that you could end up spending a lot more on accessories than on the main components, and there must come a time when that doesn't make sense.