In article <j5g7fsFhr07U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>On 27/01/2022 8:49 pm, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:52:15 +0000, Ian Jackson
>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <sstlc6$kf7$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>> writes
>>>> On Wed 26/01/2022 21:56, D.M. Procida wrote:
>>>>> If you've used mains cable for speaker interconnects, what size did you
>use?
>>>>> I'd imagine that in general, any decent-quality mains cable of equal
>>>>> or
>>>>> greater diameter than a particular for-purpose speaker cable will
>>>>> work just as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The size of cable you use largely depends upon the length. If, say, the
>>>> amp etc sites between the speakers with maybe 1-1.5m of cable run to
>>>> each speaker then something around 1.5sqmm will suffice. However of you
>>>> have a 3-5m run of cable per speaker then 4sqmm of even 6sqmm would be
>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> In terms of the type of cable, multi-core flex is better than solid
>>>> core. If you don't have access to a store that sells such cable, try a
>>>> car spares retailer as they are likely to have some quite tough/big
>>>> cable for in-car sound systems. It won't be cheap but it will both be
>>>> safer (identification) than using mains cable, and it should overall
>>>> make your system sound better.
>>>>
>>>> OK Phil, time to hammer me......!
>>>>
>>> Sensibly-sized mains cable is probably electrically indistinguishable
>>>from 'proper' speaker cable. A couple of years ago, in
>>> uk.tech.digital-tv, there was an analysis of the characteristics and
>>> performance of the two - but I can't instantly find it.
>>
>> Speaker cables are not that hard. If they are short, use whatever is
>> handy. If they are long use something fairly thick. Losing sleep over
>> inductance etc is utterly pointless.
>>
>> d
>>
>
>**Incorrect. Depending. Very long speaker cable runs and/or using
>speaker which exhibit a 'difficult' HF impedance (typically, that would
>be an ESL) requires the use of low resistance AND low inductance speaker
>cables. In the case of these two speakers (and many others), I used
>RG213/U to obtain an audibly superior result to ROSC (Regular Old
>Speaker Cable), due, in part, to it's nice low inductance. Of course,
>such cable should not be used with poorly designed amplifiers. I will
>not Naim the brand.
>
>http://rageaudio.com.au/index.php?p=1_12

Bugger that! I'd use LDF 5-50A!....

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 31/01/2022 9:48 am, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <j5g7fsFhr07U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>> On 27/01/2022 8:49 pm, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:52:15 +0000, Ian Jackson
>>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <sstlc6$kf7$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>> writes
>>>>> On Wed 26/01/2022 21:56, D.M. Procida wrote:
>>>>>> If you've used mains cable for speaker interconnects, what size did you
>> use?
>>>>>> I'd imagine that in general, any decent-quality mains cable of equal
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> greater diameter than a particular for-purpose speaker cable will
>>>>>> work just as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The size of cable you use largely depends upon the length. If, say, the
>>>>> amp etc sites between the speakers with maybe 1-1.5m of cable run to
>>>>> each speaker then something around 1.5sqmm will suffice. However of you
>>>>> have a 3-5m run of cable per speaker then 4sqmm of even 6sqmm would be
>>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of the type of cable, multi-core flex is better than solid
>>>>> core. If you don't have access to a store that sells such cable, try a
>>>>> car spares retailer as they are likely to have some quite tough/big
>>>>> cable for in-car sound systems. It won't be cheap but it will both be
>>>>> safer (identification) than using mains cable, and it should overall
>>>>> make your system sound better.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK Phil, time to hammer me......!
>>>>>
>>>> Sensibly-sized mains cable is probably electrically indistinguishable
>>> >from 'proper' speaker cable. A couple of years ago, in
>>>> uk.tech.digital-tv, there was an analysis of the characteristics and
>>>> performance of the two - but I can't instantly find it.
>>>
>>> Speaker cables are not that hard. If they are short, use whatever is
>>> handy. If they are long use something fairly thick. Losing sleep over
>>> inductance etc is utterly pointless.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>
>> **Incorrect. Depending. Very long speaker cable runs and/or using
>> speaker which exhibit a 'difficult' HF impedance (typically, that would
>> be an ESL) requires the use of low resistance AND low inductance speaker
>> cables. In the case of these two speakers (and many others), I used
>> RG213/U to obtain an audibly superior result to ROSC (Regular Old
>> Speaker Cable), due, in part, to it's nice low inductance. Of course,
>> such cable should not be used with poorly designed amplifiers. I will
>> not Naim the brand.
>>
>> http://rageaudio.com.au/index.php?p=1_12
>
>
> Bugger that! I'd use LDF 5-50A!....
>

**Nice, but:

* More difficult to terminate than RG213/U
* Inductance is higher than RG213/U.

Jim Leshithead wrote:
=================
>
> > Naim and Phase Linear amps notoriously reacted to high capacitance
> > cables like " Tocord" ( 5nF /m) by oscillating in the MHz range. But
> > the total C per run needed to be at least 20nF, which is not possible
> > with RF co-ax.
> >
> > Fix #1. Add a coil of enameled copper with say 25 turns and 1cm dia to
> > the hot speaker output.
>
> That's the key. Because some (cough) designs omit this without being able
> to ensure stability.
>
** Drivel.

> > Fix #2. Add a zobel to the speaker end using 8ohms and 47nF cap in
> > series.
>
> Or to do a better job,

** Nonsense.

> ensure a Zobel between the amp output and the added
> inductor. Like most designs that are stable.

** Anyone can add a simple RC series pair at the speaker's terminals.

Tinkering inside an amp is fraught with dangers.

...... Phil

On Sun 30/01/2022 22:48, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <j5g7fsFhr07U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>> On 27/01/2022 8:49 pm, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:52:15 +0000, Ian Jackson
>>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <sstlc6$kf7$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>> writes
>>>>> On Wed 26/01/2022 21:56, D.M. Procida wrote:
>>>>>> If you've used mains cable for speaker interconnects, what size did you
>> use?
>>>>>> I'd imagine that in general, any decent-quality mains cable of equal
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> greater diameter than a particular for-purpose speaker cable will
>>>>>> work just as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The size of cable you use largely depends upon the length. If, say, the
>>>>> amp etc sites between the speakers with maybe 1-1.5m of cable run to
>>>>> each speaker then something around 1.5sqmm will suffice. However of you
>>>>> have a 3-5m run of cable per speaker then 4sqmm of even 6sqmm would be
>>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of the type of cable, multi-core flex is better than solid
>>>>> core. If you don't have access to a store that sells such cable, try a
>>>>> car spares retailer as they are likely to have some quite tough/big
>>>>> cable for in-car sound systems. It won't be cheap but it will both be
>>>>> safer (identification) than using mains cable, and it should overall
>>>>> make your system sound better.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK Phil, time to hammer me......!
>>>>>
>>>> Sensibly-sized mains cable is probably electrically indistinguishable
>>> >from 'proper' speaker cable. A couple of years ago, in
>>>> uk.tech.digital-tv, there was an analysis of the characteristics and
>>>> performance of the two - but I can't instantly find it.
>>>
>>> Speaker cables are not that hard. If they are short, use whatever is
>>> handy. If they are long use something fairly thick. Losing sleep over
>>> inductance etc is utterly pointless.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>
>> **Incorrect. Depending. Very long speaker cable runs and/or using
>> speaker which exhibit a 'difficult' HF impedance (typically, that would
>> be an ESL) requires the use of low resistance AND low inductance speaker
>> cables. In the case of these two speakers (and many others), I used
>> RG213/U to obtain an audibly superior result to ROSC (Regular Old
>> Speaker Cable), due, in part, to it's nice low inductance. Of course,
>> such cable should not be used with poorly designed amplifiers. I will
>> not Naim the brand.
>>
>> http://rageaudio.com.au/index.php?p=1_12
>
>
> Bugger that! I'd use LDF 5-50A!....
>

Oh, you mean the small stuff?

In article <j5lht2Fig36U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> Frankly, the model that concerned me the most was the ESL63. I sold a
> few ME850 amps that were to be used with that Quad speaker. Knowing that
> it employed a crowbar protection system, I was concerned about damage
> to the Quad protection system and then, after it was destroyed, then
> the speaker.

I had a conversation in the corridor at a show with PJW about that. he
agreed at the time that the 700 series amp would blow away the protection
in early '63s if the wick were too high. Despight that, I've used the amps
happily with the 63s and their 'children' because you simply don't need
that kind of level anyway, so are OK if you use the system sensibly.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <867fde15-2be8-4503-8b4b-a49591cd12d8n@googlegroups.com>,
Phil
Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

> ** Anyone can add a simple RC series pair at the speaker's terminals.

Yes. But that isn't a reliable substitute for a Thiel arrangement on the
amp output.

Whatever loading you present at the speaker end of a cable will be
'transformed' by the cable length acting as a mismatched transmission
line. So whatever the speaker + added RC presents at the speaker end
will be converted in a frequency-dependent way into something else
as seen by the amp. So will gove different results for different
cables, or different lengths of the same kind of cable.

Hence and RC at the speaker may in some cases still enable instability.
Depends on the speaker, choice *and length* of the cable, etc.

>
> Tinkering inside an amp is fraught with dangers.

Yes. Fortunately, anyone capable of adding an RC to the speaker terminals
should also be able to add L and R to amp output terminals. Correctly
chosen values can then ensure unconditional stability. You can then
choose the cable you fancy, and its length, without provoking instability
for an amp that isn't unconditionally stable. Just a matter of determining
what LC values the amp needs to deal with the amp's loop gain behaviour.

Hence the tendency to use a an LC parallel pair in series at the amp
output. Many sensible designs include this in the amp as it avoids
amps being returned as a result of instability. But the designer needs
to have the relevant clue.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Le - shithead wrote:
======================
>
> > ** Anyone can add a simple RC series pair at the speaker's terminals.
>
> Yes. But that isn't a reliable substitute for a Thiel arrangement on the
> amp output.

** It absolutely IS you stinking * context snipping * LIAR .

> Naim and Phase Linear amps notoriously reacted to high capacitance cables like " Tocord" ( 5nF /m) by oscillating in the MHz range.
> But the total C per run needed to be at least 20nF, which is not possible with RF co-ax.
> Fix #1. Add a coil of enameled copper with say 25 turns and 1cm dia to the hot speaker output.
> Fix #2. Add a zobel to the speaker end using 8ohms and 47nF cap in series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Whatever loading you present at the speaker end of a cable will be
> 'transformed' by the cable length acting as a mismatched transmission
> line.

** FFS you dumb idiot "Tocord " is an 8 ohm transmission line.

So 0.047 plus 8 ohms TERMINATES it at HF !!!!!!!
Parallel C disappears.
==================

( snip more absurd fallacies)

>
> > Tinkering inside an amp is fraught with dangers.
>
> Yes. Fortunately, anyone capable of adding an RC to the speaker terminals
> should also be able to add L and R to amp output terminals.

** Repeats what I already posted - days ago.

> Correctly chosen values can then ensure unconditional stability.

** Fake, audiophool DRIVEL !!

So called UC was a * marketing tactic* used by fakes to blind dumb audiophools.

Stinking fakes like YOU !!
====================

> You can then
> choose the cable you fancy, and its length, without provoking instability
> for an amp that isn't unconditionally stable. Just a matter of determining
> what LC values the amp needs to deal with the amp's loop gain behaviour.

** FAKE, made up total nonsense.

> Hence the tendency to use a an LC parallel pair in series at the amp
> output.

** No amp sold has that circuit - not even yours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Many sensible designs include this in the amp as it avoids
> amps being returned as a result of instability.

** Total FUCKING CRAP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> But the designer needs to have the relevant clue.

** Leaves lying fuckwits like YOU out of the game by 100% .

FYI to all;

Such output networks simply ISOLATE the load ( cable and/ or speaker ) from the amp at way supersonic frequencies.

Something a simple *twin lead* speaker cable does all by itself.
=====================================================

...... Phil

In article <j5o5t7F3c5dU1@mid.individual.net>,
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> I know Arni carked it awhile back, but what happened to Stew?
> Anyone know?

IIRC, he simply moved on from Usenet to a more convenient type of forum -
same as so many.

--
*Starfishes have no brains *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <4d1590ca-db3f-4669-b40c-ddc8fce8d448n@googlegroups.com>, Phil
Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim Le - shithead wrote: ======================
> >
> > > ** Anyone can add a simple RC series pair at the speaker's terminals.
> >
> > Yes. But that isn't a reliable substitute for a Thiel arrangement on
> > the amp output.

>
> > Whatever loading you present at the speaker end of a cable will be
> > 'transformed' by the cable length acting as a mismatched transmission
> > line.

> ** FFS you dumb idiot "Tocord " is an 8 ohm transmission line.

Erm, most loudspeakers aren't actually an 8 Ohm resistive load across the
band from near DC up into the RF.

> So 0.047 plus 8 ohms TERMINATES it at HF !!!!!!! Parallel C
> disappears.

Putting in place an extra 8 Ohm shunt at RF would match an 8 Ohm line at
RF *IF* the speaker you also connect also presents infinite impedance.
But I can't recall many (indeed any) that are from DC up to RF.

If they were, it would also make getting any power into the speaker a bit
of a challenge as it wouldn't draw any current.

Any load you shunt across the speaker terminals will be in parallel
with the speaker's impedance. Adding such a simple cap + 8 Ohm shunt
would just stir the pot of the mismatch vs frequency, not cure it!

This is all standard transmission-line theory. But maybe many audio-
only people simply aren't aware of it.(?)

Anyone else puzzled by this?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <59b36d0bd2dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <j5o5t7F3c5dU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > I know Arni carked it awhile back, but what happened to Stew? Anyone
> > know?

> IIRC, he simply moved on from Usenet to a more convenient type of forum
> - same as so many.

Web forum/fora? I've been using one for a while. It seems quite good. But I
doubt the person who runs it would let Phil post for very long. If anyone
else is interested I can recommend it, though.

Pink Fish Media.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Le- shithead wrote:
======================
>
> > > > ** Anyone can add a simple RC series pair at the speaker's terminals.
> > >
> > > Yes. But that isn't a reliable substitute for a Thiel arrangement on
> > > the amp output.
> >
> > > Whatever loading you present at the speaker end of a cable will be
> > > 'transformed' by the cable length acting as a mismatched transmission
> > > line.
>
> > ** FFS you dumb idiot "Tocord " is an 8 ohm transmission line.
> > So 0.047 plus 8 ohms TERMINATES it at HF !!!!!!! Parallel C
> > disappears.
>
> Putting in place an extra 8 Ohm shunt at RF would match an 8 Ohm line at
> RF *IF* the speaker you also connect also presents infinite impedance.

** INSANE crap !! No need to be "infinite" exits.

> Any load you shunt across the speaker terminals will be in parallel
> with the speaker's impedance.

** Which is going to be hundreds of ohms at MHz frequencies.

> Adding such a simple cap + 8 Ohm shunt
> would just stir the pot of the mismatch vs frequency, not cure it!

** You don't know what *terminating* a line even means.

> This is all standard transmission-line theory.

** FFS you dumb idiot, "Tocord " is an 8 ohm transmission line.
So 0.047 plus 8 ohms TERMINATES it at HF !!!!!!!
The troublesome parallel C disappears.

This **IS** standard transmission-line theory !!!
An un-terminated line presents pure C to the source.

That is WHY low L cables can cause oscillation.
======================================

You demented MORON.

...... Phil

Jim Le-shithead wrote:
===================
>
> > > I know Arni carked it awhile back, but what happened to Stew? Anyone
> > > know?
>
> > IIRC, he simply moved on from Usenet to a more convenient type of forum
> > - same as so many.
>

** Pinko would be much happier in a an environment which *protects* audiophool wankers like him.
Like a sheltered workshop for fakes ....

> Web forum/fora? I've been using one for a while. It seems quite good.

** ROTFLMAO

...... Phil

In article <j5ojvrF60p7U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>On 31/01/2022 9:48 am, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <j5g7fsFhr07U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>>> On 27/01/2022 8:49 pm, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:52:15 +0000, Ian Jackson
>>>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <sstlc6$kf7$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>>> writes
>>>>>> On Wed 26/01/2022 21:56, D.M. Procida wrote:
>>>>>>> If you've used mains cable for speaker interconnects, what size did you
>>> use?
>>>>>>> I'd imagine that in general, any decent-quality mains cable of equal
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> greater diameter than a particular for-purpose speaker cable will
>>>>>>> work just as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The size of cable you use largely depends upon the length. If, say, the
>>>>>> amp etc sites between the speakers with maybe 1-1.5m of cable run to
>>>>>> each speaker then something around 1.5sqmm will suffice. However of you
>>>>>> have a 3-5m run of cable per speaker then 4sqmm of even 6sqmm would be
>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In terms of the type of cable, multi-core flex is better than solid
>>>>>> core. If you don't have access to a store that sells such cable, try a
>>>>>> car spares retailer as they are likely to have some quite tough/big
>>>>>> cable for in-car sound systems. It won't be cheap but it will both be
>>>>>> safer (identification) than using mains cable, and it should overall
>>>>>> make your system sound better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK Phil, time to hammer me......!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sensibly-sized mains cable is probably electrically indistinguishable
>>>> >from 'proper' speaker cable. A couple of years ago, in
>>>>> uk.tech.digital-tv, there was an analysis of the characteristics and
>>>>> performance of the two - but I can't instantly find it.
>>>>
>>>> Speaker cables are not that hard. If they are short, use whatever is
>>>> handy. If they are long use something fairly thick. Losing sleep over
>>>> inductance etc is utterly pointless.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Incorrect. Depending. Very long speaker cable runs and/or using
>>> speaker which exhibit a 'difficult' HF impedance (typically, that would
>>> be an ESL) requires the use of low resistance AND low inductance speaker
>>> cables. In the case of these two speakers (and many others), I used
>>> RG213/U to obtain an audibly superior result to ROSC (Regular Old
>>> Speaker Cable), due, in part, to it's nice low inductance. Of course,
>>> such cable should not be used with poorly designed amplifiers. I will
>>> not Naim the brand.
>>>
>>> http://rageaudio.com.au/index.php?p=1_12
>>
>>
>> Bugger that! I'd use LDF 5-50A!....
>>
>
>**Nice, but:
>
>* More difficult to terminate than RG213/U
>* Inductance is higher than RG213/U.
>
>

Nah!, thats for the Phono interconnects, bit of a bugger getting the
phone plugs to fit and no one not even Russ Andrews makes the
interseries adapters;!..

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <st89og$utg$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
scribeth thus
>On Sun 30/01/2022 22:48, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <j5g7fsFhr07U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>>> On 27/01/2022 8:49 pm, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:52:15 +0000, Ian Jackson
>>>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <sstlc6$kf7$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>>> writes
>>>>>> On Wed 26/01/2022 21:56, D.M. Procida wrote:
>>>>>>> If you've used mains cable for speaker interconnects, what size did you
>>> use?
>>>>>>> I'd imagine that in general, any decent-quality mains cable of equal
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> greater diameter than a particular for-purpose speaker cable will
>>>>>>> work just as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The size of cable you use largely depends upon the length. If, say, the
>>>>>> amp etc sites between the speakers with maybe 1-1.5m of cable run to
>>>>>> each speaker then something around 1.5sqmm will suffice. However of you
>>>>>> have a 3-5m run of cable per speaker then 4sqmm of even 6sqmm would be
>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In terms of the type of cable, multi-core flex is better than solid
>>>>>> core. If you don't have access to a store that sells such cable, try a
>>>>>> car spares retailer as they are likely to have some quite tough/big
>>>>>> cable for in-car sound systems. It won't be cheap but it will both be
>>>>>> safer (identification) than using mains cable, and it should overall
>>>>>> make your system sound better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK Phil, time to hammer me......!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sensibly-sized mains cable is probably electrically indistinguishable
>>>> >from 'proper' speaker cable. A couple of years ago, in
>>>>> uk.tech.digital-tv, there was an analysis of the characteristics and
>>>>> performance of the two - but I can't instantly find it.
>>>>
>>>> Speaker cables are not that hard. If they are short, use whatever is
>>>> handy. If they are long use something fairly thick. Losing sleep over
>>>> inductance etc is utterly pointless.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Incorrect. Depending. Very long speaker cable runs and/or using
>>> speaker which exhibit a 'difficult' HF impedance (typically, that would
>>> be an ESL) requires the use of low resistance AND low inductance speaker
>>> cables. In the case of these two speakers (and many others), I used
>>> RG213/U to obtain an audibly superior result to ROSC (Regular Old
>>> Speaker Cable), due, in part, to it's nice low inductance. Of course,
>>> such cable should not be used with poorly designed amplifiers. I will
>>> not Naim the brand.
>>>
>>> http://rageaudio.com.au/index.php?p=1_12
>>
>>
>> Bugger that! I'd use LDF 5-50A!....
>>
>
>Oh, you mean the small stuff?

Yep 6 and a eight is a tad unwieldy;(..

Seriously tho I'm revising the room layout and the speakers, ESL63's
will have the power amp right next to them, one per speaker, and the
amps will be driven by Belden Foil Twin screened from a balanced amp
line driver, so no speaker leads of any real significance to fuss
about:)..

Same with the new LS58/A's in the other room, these will have the amps
built under them same principle balanced line drives:) ...

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 30/01/2022 10:07 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j5lht2Fig36U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> Frankly, the model that concerned me the most was the ESL63. I sold a
>> few ME850 amps that were to be used with that Quad speaker. Knowing that
>> it employed a crowbar protection system, I was concerned about damage
>> to the Quad protection system and then, after it was destroyed, then
>> the speaker.
>
> I had a conversation in the corridor at a show with PJW about that. he
> agreed at the time that the 700 series amp would blow away the protection
> in early '63s if the wick were too high. Despight that, I've used the amps
> happily with the 63s and their 'children' because you simply don't need
> that kind of level anyway, so are OK if you use the system sensibly.
>
> Jim
>

**Yeah. Them's my thoughts too. ESLs are not usually the first choice
for a headbanger anyway.

Trevor Wilson wrote:
=================
>
> >> Frankly, the model that concerned me the most was the ESL63. I sold a
> >> few ME850 amps that were to be used with that Quad speaker. Knowing that
> >> it employed a crowbar protection system, I was concerned about damage
> >> to the Quad protection system and then, after it was destroyed, then
> >> the speaker.
> >
> > I had a conversation in the corridor at a show with PJW about that. he
> > agreed at the time that the 700 series amp would blow away the protection
> > in early '63s if the wick were too high. Despight that, I've used the amps
> > happily with the 63s and their 'children' because you simply don't need
> > that kind of level anyway, so are OK if you use the system sensibly.
> >
> >
> **Yeah. Them's my thoughts too. ESLs are not usually the first choice
> for a headbanger anyway.
>
>

** Totally irrational drivel.

You both need to study Murphy's Law and it's real life implications.

Also remember the Forrest Gump dictum.

BTW

What happens when an ESL63 is over driven and the triac acts ?
A 5W input resistor fails.

....... Phil

In article <59b37e871enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <59b36d0bd2dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <j5o5t7F3c5dU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> > <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > I know Arni carked it awhile back, but what happened to Stew? Anyone
> > > know?

> > IIRC, he simply moved on from Usenet to a more convenient type of forum
> > - same as so many.

> Web forum/fora?

Dunno, Jim. I've not got the same interest in 'Hi-Fi' as once. So it was
more a general common based on my other interests.

Pukka forums are also not so popular as once. Many prefer a FB group
specific to their interests - as easy to post pics etc too. And FB groups
can be closed and moderated to keep out the potty mouthed too...

> I've been using one for a while. It seems quite good. But I
> doubt the person who runs it would let Phil post for very long. If anyone
> else is interested I can recommend it, though.

> Pink Fish Media.

> Jim

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <x5nvwGBcfH+hFwad@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> Yep 6 and a eight is a tad unwieldy;(..

> Seriously tho I'm revising the room layout and the speakers, ESL63's
> will have the power amp right next to them, one per speaker, and the
> amps will be driven by Belden Foil Twin screened from a balanced amp
> line driver, so no speaker leads of any real significance to fuss
> about:)..

> Same with the new LS58/A's in the other room, these will have the amps
> built under them same principle balanced line drives:) ...

I've got 5 stereo pairs running to every room. Fed balanced. Ordinary
unscreened telephone multicore I scrounged from a mate who worked for BT.
Not a hint of interference or crosstalk on any. Obviously when running
them in. I kept them clear of mains cables - where possible.

--
*I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <035e6f78-594f-42e1-b623-44cfc26d39dan@googlegroups.com>, Phil
Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Any load you shunt across the speaker terminals will be in parallel
> > with the speaker's impedance.

> ** Which is going to be hundreds of ohms at MHz frequencies.

Perhaps you [1] can present a set of measurements on that show the RF
impedance vs frequency of, say, half a dozen different examples of domestic
audio speakers that have been widely used?

I've only measured one, so it isn't statistically relevant to other models,
or indeed, other 'versions' of the same model. But it made quite clear that
a speaker declared to be 'X Ohms' input impedance has a very different
behaviour at RF.

[1] Or someone else reading this? I'd be interested to see reliable
results.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j5rp61Fof43U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> On 30/01/2022 10:07 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <j5lht2Fig36U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> > <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >> Frankly, the model that concerned me the most was the ESL63. I sold a
> >> few ME850 amps that were to be used with that Quad speaker. Knowing
> >> that it employed a crowbar protection system, I was concerned about
> >> damage to the Quad protection system and then, after it was
> >> destroyed, then the speaker.
> >
> > I had a conversation in the corridor at a show with PJW about that. he
> > agreed at the time that the 700 series amp would blow away the
> > protection in early '63s if the wick were too high. Despight that,
> > I've used the amps happily with the 63s and their 'children' because
> > you simply don't need that kind of level anyway, so are OK if you use
> > the system sensibly.
> >
> > Jim
> >

> **Yeah. Them's my thoughts too. ESLs are not usually the first choice
> for a headbanger anyway.

Indeed. :-) But within their power limits they do give good LF if you
'lift' the bass a tad. I do that via a modifled bass lift circuit in the
old 34 preamps. These are really good as a basis for mods.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 1/02/2022 9:44 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j5rp61Fof43U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> On 30/01/2022 10:07 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article <j5lht2Fig36U1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Frankly, the model that concerned me the most was the ESL63. I sold a
>>>> few ME850 amps that were to be used with that Quad speaker. Knowing
>>>> that it employed a crowbar protection system, I was concerned about
>>>> damage to the Quad protection system and then, after it was
>>>> destroyed, then the speaker.
>>>
>>> I had a conversation in the corridor at a show with PJW about that. he
>>> agreed at the time that the 700 series amp would blow away the
>>> protection in early '63s if the wick were too high. Despight that,
>>> I've used the amps happily with the 63s and their 'children' because
>>> you simply don't need that kind of level anyway, so are OK if you use
>>> the system sensibly.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>
>> **Yeah. Them's my thoughts too. ESLs are not usually the first choice
>> for a headbanger anyway.
>
> Indeed. :-) But within their power limits they do give good LF if you
> 'lift' the bass a tad. I do that via a modifled bass lift circuit in the
> old 34 preamps. These are really good as a basis for mods.
>
> Jim
>

**Don't get me started on the evils of those horrible, phase shifting
analogue tone controls, which are typically used in an ad hoc fashion,
with no method of controlling the result in comparison to the original
material. Then, of course, is the impossibility (well, virtual
impossibility) of that tone control curve precisely matching the
roll-off of the item/room problem to be solved.

Much better to dispense with tone controls altogether. I did so, back in
1975. Never looked back. Not once. I MIGHT consider a digital, zero
phase shift device, provided I can obtain/generate suitable references
to enable precise corrections.

In article <59b3f962b2dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> Dunno, Jim. I've not got the same interest in 'Hi-Fi' as once. So it was
> more a general common based on my other interests.

> Pukka forums are also not so popular as once. Many prefer a FB group
> specific to their interests - as easy to post pics etc too. And FB
> groups can be closed and moderated to keep out the potty mouthed too...

PFM is well moderated and a number of experienced repair techs, etc,
contribute. Run by a UKHHSoc member. Potty-mouthed or abusive people get
bounced off and blocked.

Also some dealers who are pretty helpful. eg when I wan investigating 'MQA'
one dealer mailed me - without charge - an MQA DAC *from Australia*! so I
could use it to do some tests by measuring the output it generates.[1]
Someone else contributed to compiling an index of the contents of all the
past issues of HFN.

You can also post images and links to YT videos, etc.

Jim

[1] It is a USB DAC made by Meridian specifically for MQA replay. So any
'flaws' it may show in MQA can't easily be dismissed by Bob Stuart as due
to a 'poor DAC'. 8-]

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j5tg77F458mU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **Don't get me started on the evils of those horrible, phase shifting
> analogue tone controls, which are typically used in an ad hoc fashion,
> with no method of controlling the result in comparison to the original
> material. Then, of course, is the impossibility (well, virtual
> impossibility) of that tone control curve precisely matching the
> roll-off of the item/room problem to be solved.

I agree that simply using something like Baxandall as a cure-all isn't
ideal. But tweaked to suit, a control can be very useful. And the realty is
that no all source material has a decent response, so can sound better if
tactfully tweaked.

> Much better to dispense with tone controls altogether. I did so, back in
> 1975. Never looked back. Not once. I MIGHT consider a digital, zero
> phase shift device, provided I can obtain/generate suitable references
> to enable precise corrections.

The problem is that in general non-uniform amplitude responses of devices
and rooms also mean the phase response is varying. Hence having a
zero-phase-shift amplitude adjustment tries to fix one side of the coin
whist leaving the other side defaced. In many cases the relationship ios
far from a (mathematically) 'minimal' one as well!

I've always engineers some tonal control *into* the systems I use. The
reality is that speakers and rooms don't have a flat response. And that
many example of source material benefit from a tweak. I don't live in an
ideal worth where none of that is ever true. easy enough to bypass the
controls when not needed.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 2/02/2022 2:55 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <59b3f962b2dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dunno, Jim. I've not got the same interest in 'Hi-Fi' as once. So it was
>> more a general common based on my other interests.
>
>> Pukka forums are also not so popular as once. Many prefer a FB group
>> specific to their interests - as easy to post pics etc too. And FB
>> groups can be closed and moderated to keep out the potty mouthed too...
>
> PFM is well moderated and a number of experienced repair techs, etc,
> contribute. Run by a UKHHSoc member. Potty-mouthed or abusive people get
> bounced off and blocked.
>
> Also some dealers who are pretty helpful. eg when I wan investigating 'MQA'
> one dealer mailed me - without charge - an MQA DAC *from Australia*! so I
> could use it to do some tests by measuring the output it generates.[1]
> Someone else contributed to compiling an index of the contents of all the
> past issues of HFN.
>
> You can also post images and links to YT videos, etc.
>
> Jim
>
> [1] It is a USB DAC made by Meridian specifically for MQA replay. So any
> 'flaws' it may show in MQA can't easily be dismissed by Bob Stuart as due
> to a 'poor DAC'. 8-]
>

**PFM? Expand please.

FWIW: I was a member of an Australian audio enthusiast group for several
years. SNA - Stereo.net.au Discussions often become 'robust', as you can
imagine. I was given a couple of time-outs for various infractions (most
were fair enough). It happens. However, the site is now heavily infected
with large advertisers. I've been permanently banned for an infraction
(unstated). It coincided with a discussion surrounding mains power
cables. I was explaining to an advertiser that his product could not,
possibly, improve or alter the sound of a product in any way, shape or
form. I did not call the advertiser a con-man, or disparage them in any
way. I simply explained, in careful technical language, why mains power
cables (provided they are not faulty) are irrelevant to the listening
experience. For that I was banned.

That's why I like the USENET. It may be primitive, but it is free and fair.

NB: I should have seen the writing on the wall, re. SNA, back when the
owner of the site began bragging about his new high end Mercedes. Money
rules. The truth doesn't factor in.

In article <59b3f9d217dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <x5nvwGBcfH+hFwad@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> Yep 6 and a eight is a tad unwieldy;(..
>
>> Seriously tho I'm revising the room layout and the speakers, ESL63's
>> will have the power amp right next to them, one per speaker, and the
>> amps will be driven by Belden Foil Twin screened from a balanced amp
>> line driver, so no speaker leads of any real significance to fuss
>> about:)..
>
>> Same with the new LS58/A's in the other room, these will have the amps
>> built under them same principle balanced line drives:) ...
>
>I've got 5 stereo pairs running to every room. Fed balanced. Ordinary
>unscreened telephone multicore I scrounged from a mate who worked for BT.
>Not a hint of interference or crosstalk on any. Obviously when running
>them in. I kept them clear of mains cables - where possible.
>

Some years ago there was a local community radio project with Two
studios around a mile apart. We were on good terms with the new cable TV
co who also did phones and asked them if they had a couple of pairs of
wires they could spare which they did provide FOC. As said around a mile
or so flat response and quiet as if it were just a few feet long!....
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.