Optimum Gauge for Networks

[Richard C.]

Hi all,

I believe this is the key! If 300 people that SHOULD know what to listen for can't hear the difference, IS there really a difference? Ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? Every good sound related (listening experience) article that I have ever read states that the listening room has the greatest effect on "what you hear". Bottom line "what you hear", true to the original. Some rooms are SO bad (dimensions, floor & wall treatment, etc.) that they can't be used without a lot of prep work. Speaker placement is very often overlooked - software can fix this very complex problem. I would only guess that we all have perfect listening rooms, our speaker placement is optimum, best speakers, best electronics, etc, etc.

If this particular subject was being discussed around April 1st - Whew!!!

Is the word Engineer a bad thing, now?

Richard C.

[marcuswilson]

Roland,

You may need to be an engineer to understand that the prof's article is a joke. He is parodying the whole subject. It is a collection of intelligent technobabble with small pointed comments to various people in the community. If you read any other of his papers or articles you will find they are not written in anything like the style of this one.

[AllanCT]

I was going to point out that the "Professor" was far more cynical and demeaning in that article than most of us here.

Many are also missing the point that he mostly refers to "fat" interconnect coax. and not speaker wire in the article.

Even if totally true equation wise you still need to generate that loss field.

[RClark]

roland----------perhaps the professor has forgotten about the ABX listening tests done at the 97 or 98 AES in Los Angeles where over 300 volunteers (most were audio professionals) attending the show were tested for their ability to distinguish the difference in household 12 ga THHN and a highly regarded very expensive brand of speaker wire------the tests were conducted by the AES along with some of the "morons" from the Absolute Sound magazine------everyone was so confident before the tests that it would be easy-------the final results showed that no one could hear any perceptable difference--------after the results were tabulated a paper was circulated and the "golden ears" chose to discount the tests instead of accept the results---------the bottom line is that while theory may explain differences and measurements may even support those differences, IF THE DIFFERENCES ARE BELOW THE THRESHOLD OF HUMAN PERCEPTION IT DOESN'T MATTER...............RC

[marcuswilson]

The equations are also fabrications. Nothing in that article should be taken notice of. There are many true statements, but they are used in the wrong contexts, so if you read the thing, you get a lot of false concepts. If you are not an engineer, best you don't read it at all, it will be very confusing when you are faced with the real application of the same statements.

[[email protected]]

OK Boys - Here it is,
I wrote to the good Professor about all this - my interrogatory and his response are below. Bottom line: He's serious.

At 08:22 PM 2/5/03 -0600, you wrote:
>Mr Hawksford:
>
>As you may be aware, a paper attributed to you has caused no end of
>consternation on the Altec Users Message Board, ref:
>(http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ult...b=forum&f=3729).
>The attached paper seems to assert that a 50 Hz wave can will
>propagate down the length of a large conductor at approximately 3
>meters per second.
>
>Many see this as rubbish, others think the 1 April notation and
>general tone are intended to telegraph your intent. Still others think
>that you're deadly serious (and are apparently willing to go to their
>deaths defending your thesis).
>
>If it's not too much to ask, which is it?
>
>With eternal gratitude for settling this once and for all,
>
>Charlie DeLuca
>Mandeville, LA

To: DeLuca <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: A Question Please, Sir?
From: "M.J. Hawksford" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:08:40 +0000

dear charlie

i am sorry people find this rubbish and if it was as you said i quite agree
it would be rubbish. this is not what i said. there is no question about
the transverse wave not propagating at a very high speed, a little below c
in practice.

what is referred to is the propagation of a radial field within the
conductors that gives rise to the well know skin depth phenomena. if you
solve em equations in good conductors what i state is reasonable and correct.

the normal high speed transverse wave propagates in the space between the
conductors with the conductors acting as guiding rails. if the conductors
had infinite conductivity then there would be no internal em
fields. however, they do have a finite conductivity which leads to a
component of electric field in the longitudinal direction.(the normal IR
voltage drop if you like). combine this with a magnetic field that curls
around the conductors then you have an em field that propagates along the
radius and penetrates the conductor. it is this radial wave that travels
slowly, this wave does not travel along the length of the cable. if it
did not travel slowly then you would never experience skin depth!

however, because this radial wave is propagating within a conductor it
rapidly attenuates which explains why the current in the conductor (which
is aligned to the internal longitudinal E field) decays and is greatest at
the surface.

so the model i described is of a transverse wave propagating between the
conductors, but due to finite conductivity, an em field is formed (ie
energy leaks away into the conductors warming them up) which flows into
the conductor at very low speed that is frequency dependent. this
establishes the internal longitudinal currents and accounts for the skin
depth phenomena that decays inwards with approximately an exponential decay.

please reread again, this work has been widely misunderstood as indicated
by your statement below, which i think if you study again you will see is
not what i said!

in a world **** bent on killing innocent people, i would hate to think an
article on cables could drive anyone to such limits....

hope the above comments help to clarify any misinterpretation, although i
expect this topic is set to run for a very long time!

kind regards

malcolm hawksford

[AllanCT]

I did read it correctly, I am an engineer not that that would matter at all anyway, and I did understand that if the conductors are not lossy between a preamp. and amplifier there is no loss field generated.

I stand by my original statements.

I believe he is trying to use RF equations to explain an audio pheonmena that doesn't exist.

Just my .02 on the radial field.