Russ Andrews research papers

[Anonymous]

aliEnRIK:

If were going to be THAT pedantic about it ~ its actually Empirical RESEARCH and you spelt EVIDENCE wrong.

At the end of the day Ben put an extremely well presented test together and his findings MEASURABLY showed in HIS experiment that RFI gave a higher reading of 'distortion' in the amplifier he used to test upon

Its true that it might effect OTHER amplifiers in different ways (or even not at all). But unless im mistaken, his evidence shows that it can (at least in SOME cases) effect amplifiers.

I think you're being a bit pot and kettle-ish with the English..

The test failed to show any connection between RFI and audible sound quality and it wasn't truly independent. As far as I'm concerned it's meaningless.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Cyril Mason:
aliEnRIK:

If were going to be THAT pedantic about it ~ its actually Empirical RESEARCH and you spelt EVIDENCE wrong.

At the end of the day Ben put an extremely well presented test together and his findings MEASURABLY showed in HIS experiment that RFI gave a higher reading of 'distortion' in the amplifier he used to test upon

Its true that it might effect OTHER amplifiers in different ways (or even not at all). But unless im mistaken, his evidence shows that it can (at least in SOME cases) effect amplifiers.

I think you're being a bit pot and kettle-ish with the English..

The test failed to show any connection between RFI and audible sound quality and it wasn't truly independent. As far as I'm concerned it's meaningless.

Seems to me like your all backing into a corner, but hey ~ you carry on with your dull 'SOUNDING' systems 😉

 

[Tear Drop]

RainMeister:It's also pointless - believers will never need proof, whilst no amount of proof will ever sway non-believers

Wise words indeed...

 

[idc]

Cyril Mason: The test failed to show any connection between RFI and audible sound quality and it wasn't truly independent. As far as I'm concerned it's meaningless.

The tests show that background mains and RFI noise can be reduced and I do not think it is too much of a leap to state that the hiss removed will improve the sound. Very few tests are truely independent as they all have to be paid for. That is why scientific papers are sent for verification, which is the case here and I can guarantee that the verifier will be independent. It is wrong to dismiss such a paper on anything other than the science, especially as there has been no attempt to cover up who it is who paid for the testing to take place.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Mud-slinging, people picking each other up on spelling and grammar, denial and attack - yup, it's another proper cable thread now.

This heated argument about bits of wire must seem so odd to level-headed outsiders...

 

[aliEnRIK]

Andrew Everard:
Mud-slinging, people picking each other up on spelling and grammar, denial and attack - yup, it's another proper cable thread now.

This heated argument about bits of wire must seem so odd to level-headed outsiders...

Whats your take on this 'level headed' Andrew?

 

[Anonymous]

Hey ho.

The more I understand the less I know.

Not only is equipment built to a price point, but it is only built well enough to just try and pip the relevant competition!

It would only cost a manufacturer less than a fiver to build in a couple of items to dramatically reduce the noise floor and improve on the typical mains supply.

Just spent a lovely evening (so far) listening to a selection of music from Will Young, U2, Led Zep 'stairway to heaven', Opera, on (if you believe some people) an AV system that is supposed to be not as good as a stereo amp at a 1/4 of the price.

It's a good job I have some Ears to tell me different, along with some well matched cables, mains conditioners, mains spur, tweaked crossovers etc.

 

[basshound]

I wouldn`t have owned up to the Will Young Trev! 🙂

 

[idc]

Andrew Everard: This heated argument about bits of wire must seem so odd to level-headed outsiders...

Outsiders, outsiders, there will be no outsiders here, this is a local debate for local forum members.............................

 

[Big Chris]

Picture deleted - please repost max 400 pixels wide

"But I'm telling you! you CAN tell the difference!!!"

 

[John Duncan]

Big Chris:"But I'm telling you! you CAN tell the difference!!!"

Especially after burn-in.

 

[aliEnRIK]

JohnDuncan:Big Chris:"But I'm telling you! you CAN tell the difference!!!"

Especially after burn-in.

I dont think the poor Sergeant Howie is going to have time for running in his cables im afraid

 

[John Duncan]

aliEnRIK:
JohnDuncan:Big Chris:"But I'm telling you! you CAN tell the difference!!!"

Especially after burn-in.

I dont think the poor Sergeant Howie is going to have time for running in his cables im afraid

These look like Chord to me:

 

[aliEnRIK]

haha

Very good

 

[Anonymous]

I wanted to pass a commment on the research papers as I myself happen to be a research scientist in high energy physics. I do not wish to criticise the group that carried out the work too heavily however I must point out their/his work looks more like a home attempt. It is not of the quality I expect of an undregraduate student but maybe that's more personal preference.

My main concern is that all their data seems to be on frequencies outside that of human hearing. The upper limit of human hearing is usually quoted as being 20,000 Hz but the group's data begins at 0.1 MHz or 100,000 Hz. I fail to see how attenuation of modes outside human hearing helps audio quality.

Perhaps someone else has found an explanation to this; if not I see it as a major failing.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Fluctuation:
I wanted to pass a commment on the research papers as I myself happen to be a research scientist in high energy physics. I do not wish to criticise the group that carried out the work too heavily however I must point out their/his work looks more like a home attempt. It is not of the quality I expect of an undregraduate student but maybe that's more personal preference.

My main concern is that all their data seems to be on frequencies outside that of human hearing. The upper limit of human hearing is usually quoted as being 20,000 Hz but the group's data begins at 0.1 MHz or 100,000 Hz. I fail to see how attenuation of modes outside human hearing helps audio quality.

Perhaps someone else has found an explanation to this; if not I see it as a major failing.

A fair question but what your pointing to is RFI that 'measurably' effects amps. Not that we can HEAR the RFI as such but that the RFI does indeed measureably effect amps.

The question now remains does the RFI present effect what we DO hear (Theres measurable distortion in the amp, will that effect the amp to such an extent that we can hear it)

Fig 1.2 also starts at 1000 Hz (Well within our range, but again its not anything to do with our hearing but how it effects the equipment)

 

[Anonymous]

aliEnRIK:Fluctuation:
I wanted to pass a commment on the research papers as I myself happen to be a research scientist in high energy physics. I do not wish to criticise the group that carried out the work too heavily however I must point out their/his work looks more like a home attempt. It is not of the quality I expect of an undregraduate student but maybe that's more personal preference.

My main concern is that all their data seems to be on frequencies outside that of human hearing. The upper limit of human hearing is usually quoted as being 20,000 Hz but the group's data begins at 0.1 MHz or 100,000 Hz. I fail to see how attenuation of modes outside human hearing helps audio quality.

Perhaps someone else has found an explanation to this; if not I see it as a major failing.

A fair question but what your pointing to is RFI that 'measurably' effects amps. Not that we can HEAR the RFI as such but that the RFI does indeed measureably effect amps.

The question now remains does the RFI present effect what we DO hear (Theres measurable distortion in the amp, will that effect the amp to such an extent that we can hear it)

Fig 1.2 also starts at 1000 Hz (Well within our range, but again its not anything to do with our hearing but how it effects the equipment)

The sort of levels used in the test aren't ever going to be encountered in practice so the test is worthless, except to Mr Andrews in his ASA spat.

 

[aliEnRIK]

The levels of RFI in the amp test were based on basic radio frequencies.

Your a JOKE Cyril...........

 

[Anonymous]

I could give you the answers on this, but quite frankly I can't be bothered.

I enjoy the benefits of music more for having this understanding and applying it to my system, so it is not my loss.

 

[PJPro]

Messiah:
[snip]....you could see that most were quite bemused but noone wanted to speak up about not hearing a difference....[snip]

Emperor and his new suit of clothes?

 

[PJPro]

JohnDuncan:Big Chris:"But I'm telling you! you CAN tell the difference!!!"

Especially after burn-in.
Lol.

 

[True Blue]

Cyril Mason:aliEnRIK:Fluctuation:
I wanted to pass a commment on the research papers as I myself happen to be a research scientist in high energy physics. I do not wish to criticise the group that carried out the work too heavily however I must point out their/his work looks more like a home attempt. It is not of the quality I expect of an undregraduate student but maybe that's more personal preference.

My main concern is that all their data seems to be on frequencies outside that of human hearing. The upper limit of human hearing is usually quoted as being 20,000 Hz but the group's data begins at 0.1 MHz or 100,000 Hz. I fail to see how attenuation of modes outside human hearing helps audio quality.

Perhaps someone else has found an explanation to this; if not I see it as a major failing.

A fair question but what your pointing to is RFI that 'measurably' effects amps. Not that we can HEAR the RFI as such but that the RFI does indeed measureably effect amps.

The question now remains does the RFI present effect what we DO hear (Theres measurable distortion in the amp, will that effect the amp to such an extent that we can hear it)

Fig 1.2 also starts at 1000 Hz (Well within our range, but again its not anything to do with our hearing but how it effects the equipment)

The sort of levels used in the test aren't ever going to be encountered in practice so the test is worthless, except to Mr Andrews in his ASA spat.

Mr Mason, In one of your other valuably insightful posts you stated that you were a manufacturer. In another post you asked what we would like to know. So to remain credible please provide the exact response to two very simple questions.

1. What manufacturing company?

2. What position do you hold?

 

[True Blue]

The following is the reason that I believe in the benefits mains conditioning:-

A few years ago I was serving on a Diesel Electric Petrol Tanker. The main propulsion of which was provided by two 7Mw synchronous motors. The main distribution was 6.6Kv. This was applied to the drive motors (long story very short) in pulses, the speed of these pulses controlled the speed of the shaft. Now to do this we required high current switching devices (Thyristors). The effect of these on the main 6.6KV distribution was to cause incredible distortion in the generated sine waves. This voltage was stepped down inside two seperate transformers from 6.6Kv to 440v and then again to 230v for domestic distribution.

Electronic equipment that was supposed to have been fed off the 230v distribution such as radar, rafio, transmitters and recievers all would not function correctly to specification due to the fact that some of the interference from the drive thyristors on the 6.6Kv distribution had fed onto the 230v distribution system.

To fix this large inductive loads were connected to the main 6.6Kv switchboard in an attempt to bring the power factor closer to the ideal of unity and seperate motor generator sets were provided to recieve "rough" 440v and output "smooth, interference free" 440v which could then be fed into a 440 to 230 v transformer. AKA Conditioning!!

All of the equipment mentioned above now started operating to specification, not above, but to spec.

The same can be said for interference found on domestic circuits, when fed with a "rough" supply the equipment will not operate to full spec. This rough supply can be caused by switching of high loads, lawn mowers, kettles, tumble driers etc. Therefore it is within reason to accept that if this supply is conditioned then all equipment connected will perform to specification.

 

[Anonymous]

True Blue:
The following is the reason that I believe in the benefits mains conditioning:-

A few years ago I was serving on a Diesel Electric Petrol Tanker. The main propulsion of which was provided by two 7Mw synchronous motors. The main distribution was 6.6Kv. This was applied to the drive motors (long story very short) in pulses, the speed of these pulses controlled the speed of the shaft. Now to do this we required high current switching devices (Thyristors). The effect of these on the main 6.6KV distribution was to cause incredible distortion in the generated sine waves. This voltage was stepped down inside two seperate transformers from 6.6Kv to 440v and then again to 230v for domestic distribution.

Electronic equipment that was supposed to have been fed off the 230v distribution such as radar, rafio, transmitters and recievers all would not function correctly to specification due to the fact that some of the interference from the drive thyristors on the 6.6Kv distribution had fed onto the 230v distribution system.

To fix this large inductive loads were connected to the main 6.6Kv switchboard in an attempt to bring the power factor closer to the ideal of unity and seperate motor generator sets were provided to recieve "rough" 440v and output "smooth, interference free" 440v which could then be fed into a 440 to 230 v transformer. AKA Conditioning!!

All of the equipment mentioned above now started operating to specification, not above, but to spec.

The same can be said for interference found on domestic circuits, when fed with a "rough" supply the equipment will not operate to full spec. This rough supply can be caused by switching of high loads, lawn mowers, kettles, tumble driers etc. Therefore it is within reason to accept that if this supply is conditioned then all equipment connected will perform to specification.

So if you have a nice quiet system free of the above you don't need to bother.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

Cyril Mason:True Blue:
The following is the reason that I believe in the benefits mains conditioning:-

A few years ago I was serving on a Diesel Electric Petrol Tanker. The main propulsion of which was provided by two 7Mw synchronous motors. The main distribution was 6.6Kv. This was applied to the drive motors (long story very short) in pulses, the speed of these pulses controlled the speed of the shaft. Now to do this we required high current switching devices (Thyristors). The effect of these on the main 6.6KV distribution was to cause incredible distortion in the generated sine waves. This voltage was stepped down inside two seperate transformers from 6.6Kv to 440v and then again to 230v for domestic distribution.

Electronic equipment that was supposed to have been fed off the 230v distribution such as radar, rafio, transmitters and recievers all would not function correctly to specification due to the fact that some of the interference from the drive thyristors on the 6.6Kv distribution had fed onto the 230v distribution system.

To fix this large inductive loads were connected to the main 6.6Kv switchboard in an attempt to bring the power factor closer to the ideal of unity and seperate motor generator sets were provided to recieve "rough" 440v and output "smooth, interference free" 440v which could then be fed into a 440 to 230 v transformer. AKA Conditioning!!

All of the equipment mentioned above now started operating to specification, not above, but to spec.

The same can be said for interference found on domestic circuits, when fed with a "rough" supply the equipment will not operate to full spec. This rough supply can be caused by switching of high loads, lawn mowers, kettles, tumble driers etc. Therefore it is within reason to accept that if this supply is conditioned then all equipment connected will perform to specification.

So if you have a nice quiet system free of the above you don't need to bother.

What about his two questions that you just dodged?