Trevor Wilson wrote:
=================
>
> 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.
>

** Being a *dealer* on a public forum is hazardous.
Unless the forum is infested, like aus.hi-fi was.

> However, the site is now heavily infected with large advertisers.
> I've been permanently banned for an infraction
> (unstated).

** Conflict of "business interests" ??

> 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.

** For exposing a hi-fi scam - how unfair.

BTW :

Mains power cables must be * type approved * by a registered lab before going on sale.
Each component of the lead must be approved too, cable and connectors.

IME the scam ones never are.

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

** In what way is it fair?
None that I have ever noticed.

> 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.

** Always gets in the way of good stories.

....... Phil

On 3/02/2022 7:28 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> =================
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> ** Being a *dealer* on a public forum is hazardous.
> Unless the forum is infested, like aus.hi-fi was.

**Since I was a non-advertiser, I accepted that I was disallowed from
promoting any products I dealt with. That's fine.

>
>> However, the site is now heavily infected with large advertisers.
>> I've been permanently banned for an infraction
>> (unstated).
>
> ** Conflict of "business interests" ??

**No. I did not promote products I sold, nor did I promote my business.

>
>> 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.
>
> ** For exposing a hi-fi scam - how unfair.

**Yep.

>
> BTW :
>
> Mains power cables must be * type approved * by a registered lab before going on sale.
> Each component of the lead must be approved too, cable and connectors.
>
> IME the scam ones never are.

**I pointed that out several years ago, when cables began appearing.
Each time a cable was promoted, I requested that the approval number/s
be provided. Eventually, the owner of the site demanded that any mains
cable advertised on the site, should have an appropriate approval
number, or else the ad will be removed. So, that was a good result.
Finally.

>
>
>> That's why I like the USENET. It may be primitive, but it is free and fair.
>
> ** In what way is it fair?
> None that I have ever noticed.

**It's fair in the sense that there is no censorship. I can tell those
who flog dodgy mains cables that they are con-men.

>
>
>> 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.
>
> ** Always gets in the way of good stories.

**Sure does.

Trevor Wilson wrote:
=================
>
> > ** Being a *dealer* on a public forum is hazardous.
> > Unless the forum is infested, like aus.hi-fi was.
>
> **Since I was a non-advertiser, I accepted that I was disallowed from
> promoting any products I dealt with. That's fine.

** So this is a forum actually FOR dealers and fans to meet ??
How bizarre.

Well run forums ( a tiny few) ban dealers completely and insist on real names being used.

>
> > BTW :
> >
> > Mains power cables must be * type approved * by a registered lab before going on sale.
> > Each component of the lead must be approved too, cable and connectors.
> >
> > IME the scam ones never are.
>
> **I pointed that out several years ago, when cables began appearing.
> Each time a cable was promoted, I requested that the approval number/s
> be provided. Eventually, the owner of the site demanded that any mains
> cable advertised on the site, should have an appropriate approval
> number, or else the ad will be removed. So, that was a good result.
>

** Were any left after that ?

....... Phil

On 3/02/2022 8:54 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> =================
>>
>>> ** Being a *dealer* on a public forum is hazardous.
>>> Unless the forum is infested, like aus.hi-fi was.
>>
>> **Since I was a non-advertiser, I accepted that I was disallowed from
>> promoting any products I dealt with. That's fine.
>
> ** So this is a forum actually FOR dealers and fans to meet ??
> How bizarre.
>
> Well run forums ( a tiny few) ban dealers completely and insist on real names being used.

**Dealers are required to be upfront with their interests (as was I).

>
>
>>
>>> BTW :
>>>
>>> Mains power cables must be * type approved * by a registered lab before going on sale.
>>> Each component of the lead must be approved too, cable and connectors.
>>>
>>> IME the scam ones never are.
>>
>> **I pointed that out several years ago, when cables began appearing.
>> Each time a cable was promoted, I requested that the approval number/s
>> be provided. Eventually, the owner of the site demanded that any mains
>> cable advertised on the site, should have an appropriate approval
>> number, or else the ad will be removed. So, that was a good result.
>>
>
> ** Were any left after that ?

**Yeah, there were a few. They're still snake oil though.

Trevor Wilson wrote:
================
>>>
> >>> Mains power cables must be * type approved * by a registered lab before going on sale.
> >>> Each component of the lead must be approved too, cable and connectors.
> >>>
> >>> IME the scam ones never are.
> >>
> >> **I pointed that out several years ago, when cables began appearing.
> >> Each time a cable was promoted, I requested that the approval number/s
> >> be provided. Eventually, the owner of the site demanded that any mains
> >> cable advertised on the site, should have an appropriate approval
> >> number, or else the ad will be removed. So, that was a good result.
> >>
> >
> > ** Were any left after that ?
>
> **Yeah, there were a few. They're still snake oil though.
>

** Did you checkout any of the quoted numbers ?

I tried once to get the identity of a product that carried an Aussie approval number.
Just to find out who had made it.
Contacted the Energy Authority and spoke to a man there.
The data base was not accessible to regular folk.
You had to apply in writing and needed a reason they will accept.

Perfectly easy to fake the numbers.

...... Phil

On 3/02/2022 9:44 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> ================
> >>>
>>>>> Mains power cables must be * type approved * by a registered lab before going on sale.
>>>>> Each component of the lead must be approved too, cable and connectors.
>>>>>
>>>>> IME the scam ones never are.
>>>>
>>>> **I pointed that out several years ago, when cables began appearing.
>>>> Each time a cable was promoted, I requested that the approval number/s
>>>> be provided. Eventually, the owner of the site demanded that any mains
>>>> cable advertised on the site, should have an appropriate approval
>>>> number, or else the ad will be removed. So, that was a good result.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Were any left after that ?
>>
>> **Yeah, there were a few. They're still snake oil though.
>>
>
> ** Did you checkout any of the quoted numbers ?

**No. Shit, now I am concerned.

>
> I tried once to get the identity of a product that carried an Aussie approval number.
> Just to find out who had made it.
> Contacted the Energy Authority and spoke to a man there.
> The data base was not accessible to regular folk.
> You had to apply in writing and needed a reason they will accept.
>
> Perfectly easy to fake the numbers.

**Now that you pointed it out, it makes sense.

On 1 Feb 2022 at 19:32:54 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

> 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.

Really? I much prefer some control over 'tone'.

I find some material benefits from a slight treble uplift. And I'd often put
the bass up a notch or two at low levels.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article <RCjX+DDNes+hFwNm@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> 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!....

Yes. TV studio complexes are more in my experience. And of course have
lines running everywhere. Generally for what we called zero level (line)
they would be unscreened. Mic level, screened. And for difficult locations
at mic level, star quad.

So for domestic, unscreened should be more than adequate. But then
screened won't do any harm either.
>

--
*England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool.*

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

On 3/02/2022 8:04 pm, RJH wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2022 at 19:32:54 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Really?

**Yes, really.

I much prefer some control over 'tone'.

**Good for you. I prefer my sound to be phase accurate. Or at least as
accurate as possible. ALL analogue tone controls shift the phase
response of a system.

>
> I find some material benefits from a slight treble uplift. And I'd often put
> the bass up a notch or two at low levels.

**Good for you. When I listen to my system with Quad ESLs or my present
speakers (Duntech Crown Prince), I am VERY aware that any phase shift is
instantly and annoyingly audible. Now I accept that lesser speakers and
poor quality listening rooms (and poor quality music sources/software),
may disguise the detrimental effects of analogue tone controls, so, in
that sense, YMMV. Digital, linear phase tone controls are a different
matter entirely.

On 3 Feb 2022 at 18:35:33 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

> On 3/02/2022 8:04 pm, RJH wrote:
>> On 1 Feb 2022 at 19:32:54 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Really?
>
> **Yes, really.
>
> I much prefer some control over 'tone'.
>
> **Good for you. I prefer my sound to be phase accurate. Or at least as
> accurate as possible. ALL analogue tone controls shift the phase
> response of a system.
>

It can be phase accurate (although I'm not sure what that means) by simply
defeating the tone controls. And then maybe lose a little accuracy for the
sake of a bit of listening pleasure by tweaking the tone controls.

>>
>> I find some material benefits from a slight treble uplift. And I'd often put
>> the bass up a notch or two at low levels.
>
> **Good for you. When I listen to my system with Quad ESLs or my present
> speakers (Duntech Crown Prince), I am VERY aware that any phase shift is
> instantly and annoyingly audible. Now I accept that lesser speakers and
> poor quality listening rooms (and poor quality music sources/software),
> may disguise the detrimental effects of analogue tone controls, so, in
> that sense, YMMV. Digital, linear phase tone controls are a different
> matter entirely.

I'd imagine my speakers are OK - the problem is likely with my room. Time was
I might have made more of an effort to sort it out, but nowadays I'm happy
enough with things as they are. Maybe not as good as it could be, but easily
good enough.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 4/02/2022 7:09 am, RJH wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2022 at 18:35:33 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/02/2022 8:04 pm, RJH wrote:
>>> On 1 Feb 2022 at 19:32:54 GMT, "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> **Yes, really.
>>
>> I much prefer some control over 'tone'.
>>
>> **Good for you. I prefer my sound to be phase accurate. Or at least as
>> accurate as possible. ALL analogue tone controls shift the phase
>> response of a system.
>>
>
> It can be phase accurate (although I'm not sure what that means) by simply
> defeating the tone controls.

**There you go. When I bypassed the tone controls in my Dynaco Pas3 back
in the 1970s, I never looked back. I've tried them since and determined
that there can not be a nett benefit from their use. For a variety of
reasons. I don't even bother using them in my car (which is fitted with
a pretty average, factory, sound system).

And then maybe lose a little accuracy for the
> sake of a bit of listening pleasure by tweaking the tone controls.

**Fair enough. I gain no pleasure from buggering around with frequency
tailoring. At best, it just sounds different. At worst, it buggers
things up.

>
>>>
>>> I find some material benefits from a slight treble uplift. And I'd often put
>>> the bass up a notch or two at low levels.
>>
>> **Good for you. When I listen to my system with Quad ESLs or my present
>> speakers (Duntech Crown Prince), I am VERY aware that any phase shift is
>> instantly and annoyingly audible. Now I accept that lesser speakers and
>> poor quality listening rooms (and poor quality music sources/software),
>> may disguise the detrimental effects of analogue tone controls, so, in
>> that sense, YMMV. Digital, linear phase tone controls are a different
>> matter entirely.
>
> I'd imagine my speakers are OK - the problem is likely with my room. Time was
> I might have made more of an effort to sort it out, but nowadays I'm happy
> enough with things as they are. Maybe not as good as it could be, but easily
> good enough.
>

**Clearly, if you need tone controls, you still have problems.

In article <59b50364ffdave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <RCjX+DDNes+hFwNm@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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!....
>
>Yes. TV studio complexes are more in my experience. And of course have
>lines running everywhere. Generally for what we called zero level (line)
>they would be unscreened. Mic level, screened. And for difficult locations
>at mic level, star quad.
>
>So for domestic, unscreened should be more than adequate. But then
>screened won't do any harm either.
>>
>

Suppose not! it ought to be Oxygen free Copper of course;!

It seems that it ought to have caught on in Hi-fi circles?, someone, old
Russ, could have make a real fortune with that sort of interconnect! for
everyone else in Pro applications a roll of the usual FST from RS or
Canford works just fine;!.

Come to that you'd have thought a good design of plug like the Cannon
XLR would be in general use by now;?....

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <j5vrhuF1npbU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> 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.

> >

> **PFM? Expand please.

Pink Fish Media https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/

> 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.

Although it irritates the person who runs PFM, I browse it with a light
browswer, scripting set 'off'. This means I don't see the ads. :-) However
they don't seem very invasive. The content has a distinct area for dealers,
etc, to use for their interests. The other areas are for various topic
areas and members are expected NOT to use them for commercial purposes.
Have a look and see, decide for yourself.

> 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.

People routinely make such points on PFM and all that is expected is that
the disagreements should be polite and not abusive.

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:
===================
>
> > **PFM? Expand please.
>
> Pink Fish Media https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/
>
>
> Although it irritates the person who runs PFM, I browse it with a light
> browswer, scripting set 'off'. This means I don't see the ads. :-) However
> they don't seem very invasive. The content has a distinct area for dealers,
> etc, to use for their interests. The other areas are for various topic
> areas and members are expected NOT to use them for commercial purposes.
>
> > 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.
>
> People routinely make such points on PFM and all that is expected is that
> the disagreements should be polite and not abusive.
>

** How absolutely wonderful.

So they kindly * protect * nut case, LYING charlatans ( like you and TW ) from the shellacking they so richly deserve.

Tell me, is there a similar area for pedophiles too ?
Where courtesy is the golden rule.

....... Phil

In article <j62ljlFi9dtU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> **Yes, really.

> I much prefer some control over 'tone'.

> **Good for you. I prefer my sound to be phase accurate. Or at least as
> accurate as possible. ALL analogue tone controls shift the phase
> response of a system.

Pretty much all the reasons why the frequency response of material isn't
flat-to-source alsp change the phase response. In a simple minimal system a
sutable 'tone control' can reverse that along with the amplitude changes.

Most loudspeakers have a phase response that is all over the place. As do
most rooms.

The ESLs - at least the 63 and decendents - have essentially a minimal
response, so the correction works well with them within their
power/amplitude limits.

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 <j62ljlFi9dtU1@mid.individual.net>,
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **Good for you. I prefer my sound to be phase accurate. Or at least as
> accurate as possible. ALL analogue tone controls shift the phase
> response of a system.

Hope everything you listen to was recorded on a single omni mic, then. ;-)

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

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

On 6/02/2022 1:14 am, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <j62ljlFi9dtU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> **Good for you. I prefer my sound to be phase accurate. Or at least as
>> accurate as possible. ALL analogue tone controls shift the phase
>> response of a system.
>
> Hope everything you listen to was recorded on a single omni mic, then. ;-)
>

**It doesn't matter. Without references, a simple tone control system
can not ever hope to correct any defects to restore the faults back to
what the composer intended. Tone controls are, at best, hit and miss.
Mostly miss.

In article <j680ldFj2laU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> **It doesn't matter. Without references, a simple tone control system
> can not ever hope to correct any defects to restore the faults back to
> what the composer intended. Tone controls are, at best, hit and miss.
> Mostly miss.

But sometimes can audibly improve results. So it makes sense to have them
available, and use a suits the case.

The point is to enjoy the result. I don't have a good audio system so I can
tell others its amp has a wonderfully flat response. I have it to enjoy the
output and adjust that where I judge that doing so gives me an improved
result. Which at times, some for of tone control does.

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 <j680ldFj2laU1@mid.individual.net>,
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> On 6/02/2022 1:14 am, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <j62ljlFi9dtU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >> **Good for you. I prefer my sound to be phase accurate. Or at least as
> >> accurate as possible. ALL analogue tone controls shift the phase
> >> response of a system.
> >
> > Hope everything you listen to was recorded on a single omni mic, then. ;-)
> >

> **It doesn't matter. Without references, a simple tone control system
> can not ever hope to correct any defects to restore the faults back to
> what the composer intended. Tone controls are, at best, hit and miss.
> Mostly miss.

I very much doubt we hear much as the composer intended. Except with
electronic stuff he recorded himself. And we use the same chain and room
to listen in that he did.

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

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

In article <59b674d4e9noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <j680ldFj2laU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> > **It doesn't matter. Without references, a simple tone control system
> > can not ever hope to correct any defects to restore the faults back to
> > what the composer intended. Tone controls are, at best, hit and miss.
> > Mostly miss.

> But sometimes can audibly improve results. So it makes sense to have
> them available, and use a suits the case.

> The point is to enjoy the result. I don't have a good audio system so I
> can tell others its amp has a wonderfully flat response. I have it to
> enjoy the output and adjust that where I judge that doing so gives me an
> improved result. Which at times, some for of tone control does.

> Jim

Quite. I have a decent parametric equaliser in the system. Powered down,
it goes to bypass. With sadly rather too many TV dramas these days I find
I can improve the clarity of the dialogue by adding 'presence' lift. Not
what the 'composer' in this respect intended.

--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *

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

On 6/02/2022 9:26 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j680ldFj2laU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> **It doesn't matter. Without references, a simple tone control system
>> can not ever hope to correct any defects to restore the faults back to
>> what the composer intended. Tone controls are, at best, hit and miss.
>> Mostly miss.
>
> But sometimes can audibly improve results. So it makes sense to have them
> available, and use a suits the case.
>
> The point is to enjoy the result. I don't have a good audio system so I can
> tell others its amp has a wonderfully flat response. I have it to enjoy the
> output and adjust that where I judge that doing so gives me an improved
> result. Which at times, some for of tone control does.

**Whatever floats YOUR boat. I crave a closer approach to the original
musical event. Analogue tone controls move me further away from that.

On 7/02/2022 12:14 am, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <j680ldFj2laU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> On 6/02/2022 1:14 am, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <j62ljlFi9dtU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> **Good for you. I prefer my sound to be phase accurate. Or at least as
>>>> accurate as possible. ALL analogue tone controls shift the phase
>>>> response of a system.
>>>
>>> Hope everything you listen to was recorded on a single omni mic, then. ;-)
>>>
>
>> **It doesn't matter. Without references, a simple tone control system
>> can not ever hope to correct any defects to restore the faults back to
>> what the composer intended. Tone controls are, at best, hit and miss.
>> Mostly miss.
>
> I very much doubt we hear much as the composer intended.

**Well, quite possibly. However, analogue tone controls cannot hope to
improve things. All they can manage is to make the result more pleasing
to SOME listeners.

Except with
> electronic stuff he recorded himself. And we use the same chain and room
> to listen in that he did.

**True enough. However, I as I stated, analogue tone controls do not help.

In article <j6arl7F56vnU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> **Whatever floats YOUR boat. I crave a closer approach to the original
> musical event. Analogue tone controls move me further away from that.

I also like the "closest approach to the orginal sound". That's one of the
main reasons I *use* 'tone controls' to try and correct for the failings in
mic placements and responses, speaker responses, etc.

Where 'tone controls move' you relative to the actual 'original sound'
depends upon what the mics, - speaker+room chain did to that along the way.
That varies and isn't likely to be a flat perfect response.

You only have to try to investigate the behaviours of many real mics or
speakers to show how far from ideal they are. To the point where many mic
makers shy away from giving reliable data.

And having 'tone controls' available doesn't mean you always *have* to
employ them. Whereas if you lack them, you get no chance to hear if
their judicious use can make the sound more like the original. Assuming,
of course, you can tell anyway. :-)

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 Lesurf Geriatric troll wrote:
=========================
te:
>
> > **Whatever floats YOUR boat. I crave a closer approach to the original
> > musical event. Analogue tone controls move me further away from that.
>
> I also like the "closest approach to the orginal sound". That's one of the
> main reasons I *use* 'tone controls' to try and correct for the failings in
> mic placements and responses, speaker responses, etc.
>
> Where 'tone controls move' you relative to the actual 'original sound'
> depends upon what the mics, - speaker+room chain did to that along the way.
> That varies and isn't likely to be a flat perfect response.
>
> You only have to try to investigate the behaviours of many real mics or
> speakers to show how far from ideal they are. To the point where many mic
> makers shy away from giving reliable data.
>
> And having 'tone controls' available doesn't mean you always *have* to
> employ them. Whereas if you lack them, you get no chance to hear if
> their judicious use can make the sound more like the original. Assuming,
> of course, you can tell anyway. :-)

FYI:

TW made his living *selling* pre - amps that lacked tone controls.
Basically a pretentious wank that suited the snobby notions of "high end" audiophools ONLY.

To quote General Ripper "' .... purity of essence ".

....... Phil