RE: [Harp-L] Re: Cable Differences

["Joel B. Chappell" <joel.b.chappell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yikes!

Ok gang, I would much rather be asking why the #6-blow on my Super 64 sounds
raspy than getting into this cable discussion, but when I see the Ouija
boards and divining rods coming out, I must speak up. I won't bore you with
my credentials other than to say I am retired, spent 45 year as an
electrical design engineer in both Military and Commercial markets, equally
qualified in vacuum-tube and solid-state circuitry, and heavy into analog
design though I spent my later career in DSP mostly designing anti-aliasing
filters in A/D applications and recovery circuitry [filters and amplifiers]
for D/A applications]. Let me lead with my groin and say that anyone who
says he can differentiate audio quality vs. signal flow direction on a
symmetrical cable is playing with your and his own imagination, wire grain
or no. As I stated in an earlier post, if there is a PERCEIVED difference in
audio quality, then there is some other overlooked reactance in the signal
path where there is an impedance mis-match in the driving signal source, the
cable, or the recovery circuitry on the receiving end... or all three
simultaneously. Single-ended shielded cable has a characteristic impedance
of anywhere from 47-110 Ohms and for flat response needs to be driven with a
source impedance that matches and the receiving [recovery] amplifier should
also terminate at the cable characteristic in order to swamp-out the
reactance of the cable. Shielded twisted-pair wire should be driven
differentially following the same impedance requirements. High quality
instrumentation cable is typically 200-600 Ohm impedance. There is just so
much snake-oil marketing out there promoting pseudo-technology like giant
single-ended vacuum tube amplifiers, granite-slab turntables,
auto-jumper-wire sized speaker cables along with discussions about the
superiority of vacuum-tube audio over solid-state [not guitar amps, I
understand the desired clipping and distortion issue]...Again if there is a
PERCEIVED difference audio quality, then there is a scientific explanation
and not some critics super sensitive ears...most of which, blasted theirs
out back in the '60s...I didn't and at age 72 mine still work great. I'll
refrain from commenting on the use of microphones that are 80-year old
technology for another time. :-)

Regards,
Joel

Joel B. Chappell
21 Billings Street
Milford, NH 03055

Reminds me of the great comb debate!  ...all in good fun of course.

patpowers@xxxxxxxxxxx

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Re: Cables: Are there really any sonic differences? (Garry)
2. Lee Oskar w/ War on TV (Robert Paparozzi)
3. Re: Re: Cables: Are there really any sonic differences?
(MARK BURNESS)
4. Re: Re: Cables: Are there really any sonic differences?
(Rick Davis)
5. Re: Lee Oskar w/ War on TV (Cljdm@xxxxxxx)
6. Re: Re: Cables: Are there really any sonic differences?
(Garry Hodgson)
7. RE: Re: Cables: Are there really any sonic differences?
(Joel B. Chappell)
8. Re: Re: Cables: Are there really any sonic differences?
(MARK BURNESS)
9. Re: octave down (Mike Fugazzi)
10. Admin question is it okay to send an mp3 file of a new song?
(michael rubin)