Any recommendations internal speaker wire?

[BillWojo]

Jeff, I hardly think I should be ashamed of myself. I have asked you repeatedly for an explanation of your "skewing" of capacitor statement and you keep skirting around the issue. Now you are telling Matt that he should take his MC60 amps and redesign them based on? I hope Matt has enough sense not to listen to this nonsense. I think that the engineers at McIntosh Laboratories have a bit more knowledge than some hacker.

Jeff, I'm trying to figure out if your just a misguided soul that actually believes the nonsense that you spew or if your just a prankster that likes to rile up forums. I do know you have been kicked off of forums for your behavior.

Matt, it sounds like you have an ass kicking system, Model 19's on MC60's! I'm using HeathKit AS101's, basically Altec Valencias in a much nicer cabinet powered by my MC40's. We share much of the same hardware and I'm using a set of Model 19 crossovers that I built. My latest addition is a VTA SP9 preamp so now I'm all tubes. That really made a nice difference in the separation of instruments, I'm hearing a lot of stuff I never knew existed before on recordings I am very familiar with.
Maybe someday I'll come across a deal on some 19's, I'd like to hear what the additional cabinet volume does. It was Altecs premier consumer speaker and to this day still ranks right up with the best that is out there.

BillWojo

[LowOhms]

Bill Wojo,

You are getting old and long in the tooth here. I don't say anything personal about you, why all the negitve innuendos you can muster on every post you do ??

Let me briefly address your last post..

You state " Jeff, I hardly think I should be ashamed of myself. I have asked you repeatedly for an explanation of your "skewing" of capacitor statement and you keep skirting around the issue.

I did not skirt the issue, I gave you a detailed explanation of the effect of unequal paralleled resistors, referred you to three other EEs, who use the technique, and explained it was common sense ( Thorsten Loesch, Moore and Franklin ). You are whistling in the dark Bill.


Now you are telling Matt that he should take his MC60 amps and redesign them based on?

Based ion the fact that all McIntosh amps are middle-of-the-road devices, and as such, they all can easily be improved and bettered. I already explained this in a prior article, when you started to brag about owning MC 40 monos.

Do I need to repeat it, it applies to all those vintage Mc Intosh designs, but the MC 60 IS probably the best sounding of the group.

Remember the prior post I wrote, trying to shed light on the design?? It has FIVE tube stages, and it has THREE cap couples. So its far too complex to have a superb transfer function. A capacitor couple, as I pointed out, is the WORST sonic way to connect two stages.

It also has the added complexity of needing phase inversion, which is NOT the same as having NO Phase inverter what so ever. " All the Kings Horses, and ALL the King's men ".

I have to look, but it likely has a negative feedback loop in the thing, which can never sound as good as a no-negative-feedback-amplifier, well executed, on our ALTEC speakers.

A no negative feedback amplifier plays back the music, ON TIME, in the time of the music and the musicians, and NOT in the time of the amplifiers out-of-time ( EE misguided ) correction circuit.

So Mr. Wojo, in the above paragraphs, I have given you at least four things wrong - with the Mc Intosh tube design topology. Common sense things, common sense things like skewed signals offa differing value resistors.......NO measurements needed.

If you want to use the amp, and it pleases YOU....fine !! AS long as you are happy, thats all that matters.

The Jelasi and Marzio amp article, ( two triode stages, directly coupled ) with a few updates, which I have already denoted up here this month, would, in my experience, be a vast sonic improvement to any McIntosh tube amp. Its not impossible to build. And it could be done reasonably in cost. I am willing to help anyone who is serious and asks me, on doing a DIY build.


I hope Matt has enough sense not to listen to this nonsense. I think that the engineers at McIntosh Laboratories have a bit more knowledge than some hacker.

I object to the word hacker. That is not true. Simplifiing the complexity of an audio circuit, and eliminating a CAPACITOR input filter after the rectifier tubes, are generally accepted as the best possible design choices. Its basic knowledge, one in audio should be aware of, and one should TRY to employ such things.


Jeff Medwin

[mah]

Jeff, I am still waiting for a credible explanation re;

RESIDUALS

TRANSFER EFFICIENCY

SKEWED SIGNAL

Wire multiples of 57 1/8 inches.

REAL explanations, PLEASE. Not hearsay, PROOF. Old man's hearing does not cut-it without verification.

Your Mentors significance/credibility other than what they TOLD you.


After saying that you have no commercial interest in audio and berating my posting of your Audio Asylum profile details refuting this, as outdated, you haven't updated that profile. It still includes the terms, Design, Marketing and Direct Sales related to audio. After 'drlowmu' there is (M) for Manufacturer shown in your posts. The date on that profile, by the way, was not the date you posted it, but your joining date. I have an eye for detail. You seem to, not.

[LowOhms]

Jeff,I am still waiting for a credible explanation re;

RESIDUALS

TRANSFER EFFICIENCY

SKEWED SIGNAL

Wire multiples of 57 1/8 inches.

REAL explanations, PLEASE. Not hearsay. PROOF. Old man's hearing does not cut-it without credible verification.


Your Mentors significance/ credibility other than what they TOLD you.


After saying that you have no commercial interest in audio and berating my posting of your Audio Asylum profile refuting this as outdated, you haven't updated that profile. It still includes the terms, Design, Marketing and Direct Sales related to audio. After drlowmu there is (M) for Manufacturer shown in your posts. the date on that profile, by the way, was not the date posted but you joining date. I have an eye for detail. You seem to, not.

Mah,

LOL, "eye for detail" ??

RESULTANTS, not "Residuals" as you have posted....don't edit it..

Embarrassing ( to me - for you ) and sad, that you wrote this on a public Forum.

Stop the baloney. Get a life, its not this Forum - or posting on audio Forums.. Todd will NOT stand for this.

You need to be censored, re: posting where ever I post. Its very simple !!

Jeff Medwin .... Low Ohms.

[mah]

And more:

* The amazing qualities of 'Wonder Solder' other than having a lower melt-point that makes life easier for amateur solderers?

* How minor wire changes can get ' fabulous dynamical, contrasting speed and tone and detail'. I would agree with the dictionary description of fabulous = imaginary.

* 99.9 percent of amps flunk out. You must have listened to 99.9 percent of ALL different amps to come to that conclusion, being as you base your opinions on personal hearing auditions.

There is more of your comment out there, just as ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

Jeff, Still no relevant answers.


By all means add RESULTANTS to the list.

[mah]

Jeff, In order to avoid backing up your claims you are playing your 'victim' and 'censor' cards yet again & .......... Slippery stuff but not credible.

[LowOhms]

The word " resultant " seems to have peaked in its usage in the mid - 1900s.

It occurs, all the time in audio events, and is common in music reproduction.



See it here:

resultants definition - Google Search



"Resultants" is related, conceptually, to heterodynes :


heterodynes definition - Google Search



Get a life mah.


Jeff Medwin.....Low Ohms

[BillWojo]

Jeff, you continuously make bizarre statements and present them as facts. Facts can be proven, scientific research papers are written by people far smarter than us to provide the proof that support the facts. That is how it works in the real world, not the fantasy world.

mah has asked you for a long list of things that need to be backed up and I'm interested in all of them. In the interest in saving space on this forum, I'm only going to ask, once again for the proof of existance of "skewing" of parallel resistors. Tell me things like who made this monumental discovery, where are the research papers and the mathematical models to support this theory?

Telling me that such and such uses it in his gear does nothing to support your view.

You do realize that many electronic devices have serious design flaws if what your saying is true. NASA, the entire telecommunications and computer industry plus all the medical devices that use electronics may have serious design flaws in there circuitry. Not to mention the cars we drive today.

I would think that such a major shift in the basic understanding of electron flow through a resistive structure would have made world wide news.

I think it's time to present your facts or admit that it is utter nonsense. I'm getting tired of arguing over basic Electricity 101 concepts.

I'm not picking on you Jeff, I'm just tired of some of the nonsense that is written as Gospel truth on the forums and is spread like a virus.

The existence of "skewing" through parallel resistors could be proven or disproven by any first year EE student.

Either start supplying the supporting evidence for your claims or retract your statements.

Thank you

BillWojo

[LowOhms]

Bill,

LOL. You are beating a dead horse.

I have already explained it, twice, very plainly.

See if you can wrap your mind around it !!

Others must understand it. :-)




Jeff Medwin

[Old Guy]

Bill,

LOL. You are beating a dead horse.

I have already explained it, twice, very plainly.

See if you can wrap your mind around it !!

Others must understand it. :-)




Jeff Medwin

Jeff it would help a great deal if you quit presenting your opinions as facts. I understand what you say, and choose not to believe you.
You are your own worst enemy because of how you word and present things. You accepting that others don't take what you say as fact is as important as others tolerating you.

Edit- we are stuck in a loop here. Jeff is being challenged to present facts, which he can not, because his methods are entirely subjective.

Jeff needs to work on how he words things, and most of all just accept that many, maybe even the vast majority, are never going to accept what he says is fact. Quit arguing that it is when someone else disagrees, Jeff. Those who disagree with Jeff say so and move on. Yes I get tired of Jeff claiming to be a genius regurgitating the work of another genius. But I get just as tired of the disagreements going on and on.