RE: [Harp-L] Re: Cable Differences

[PINTO DIGITAL <pintodigital@xxxxxxx>]

that was insane Joel, thank you
and I also agree that there is a lot
of marketing misleading people lots
of products especially evil foods.

Joe Pinto
Little Joe & the Werewolves 


 

> From: joel.b.chappell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Harp-L] Re: Cable Differences
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 15:32:42 -0500
> 
> 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)
> 
>