Stereophile not the only snakeoil salesmen

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a "Analysis Pro Plus
Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar cable! It even
won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as "Warm, full-bodied,
and liquis smooth," and truely "reference quality."

How do these people live with themselves?

--
Ratt Mahem
www.themourningsickness.com
32 answers Last reply
More about stereophile snakeoil salesmen
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Ratt Mahem wrote:
    > In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a "Analysis Pro Plus
    > Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar cable! It even
    > won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as "Warm, full-bodied,
    > and liquis smooth," and truely "reference quality."
    >
    > How do these people live with themselves?
    >

    LOL! I love how they always try to justify this BS with non-sensical
    "scientific" babble:

    Proprietary Hollow Oval Geometry

    Why the unique conductor geometry of Pro Oval? Mark Markel and Qinwei
    Sun, the chief engineers at Analysis Plus, determined that round cable
    used in conventional speaker cable designs has high levels of current
    bunching, skin effect phenomenon, and other frequency characteristics
    that degrade signal quality. Rectangular conductors were a little
    better, but these suffered high electric field values caused by sharp
    corners which can also cut into and injure the dielectric when the cable
    is flexed.

    After many computer simulations, Analysis Plus found that a hollow oval
    cable was the best design due to its minimal change in resistance with
    frequency, plus other benefits. The company chose a flexible, braided
    conductor rather than the conventional solid conductor, which is
    susceptible to kinks and deformations with resulting signal degradation.
    A unique woven pattern places every wire statistically as close to the
    return current as every other wire for evenly distributed high-current
    density and superior sound.

    LMAO! Excuse me while I go flange my VU meters.

    Jonny Durango
  2. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Ratt Mahem wrote:
    > In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a "Analysis Pro Plus
    > Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar cable! It even
    > won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as "Warm, full-bodied,
    > and liquis smooth," and truely "reference quality."
    >
    > How do these people live with themselves?
    >
    February 2004... obviously.

    --
    Ratt Mahem
    www.themourningsickness.com
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Ratt Mahem" <rattmahem@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:0YmdndDDS7AGdw3fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
    > In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a
    "Analysis Pro Plus
    > Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar
    cable! It even
    > won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as "Warm,
    full-bodied,
    > and liquis smooth," and truely "reference quality."
    >
    > How do these people live with themselves?

    Expectations of great profit.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    There was an article or "shoot out" of various expen$ive guitar cables
    in Vintage Guitar magazine that made me sick... these guys write like
    wanna-bee wine reviewers.

    Al

    On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:25:38 -0600, Ratt Mahem <rattmahem@aol.com>
    wrote:

    >In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a "Analysis Pro Plus
    >Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar cable! It even
    >won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as "Warm, full-bodied,
    >and liquis smooth," and truely "reference quality."
    >
    >How do these people live with themselves?
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Ratt Mahem" <rattmahem@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:0YmdndDDS7AGdw3fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
    > In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a "Analysis Pro Plus
    > Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar cable! It even
    > won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as "Warm, full-bodied,
    > and liquis smooth," and truely "reference quality."
    >
    > How do these people live with themselves?
    >
    > --
    > Ratt Mahem
    > www.themourningsickness.com

    For the guitar player who makes $1,000/song/performance?
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    The real question is...
    How does it look?

    D.S.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Ratt Mahem wrote:

    > In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a "Analysis Pro Plus
    > Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar cable! It even
    > won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as "Warm, full-bodied,
    > and liquis smooth," and truely "reference quality."

    > How do these people live with themselves?

    Cluelessness breeds self content.

    --
    ha
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    I guess it's tile to start production... We'll all clean up.
    http://www.bstock.com/Lirpa1.htm


    On 5/22/05 4:25 PM, in article 0YmdndDDS7AGdw3fRVn-3Q@comcast.com, "Ratt
    Mahem" <rattmahem@aol.com> wrote:

    > In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a "Analysis Pro Plus
    > Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar cable! It even
    > won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as "Warm, full-bodied,
    > and liquis smooth," and truely "reference quality."
    >
    > How do these people live with themselves?
  9. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Using a proprietary and patented rare earth carbon nanotube
    sputtering process and employing exclusive vapor deposited molybdenum
    precipitate occlusions the Lirpa 1 engineering team has achieved the
    elusive and long sought mil spec for multiple rebendables making it
    surprisingly robust -and thermally self approximating!"


    You gotta love it... where can I buy some shares in this outfit?

    Al



    On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:08:30 GMT, SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com>
    wrote:

    >I guess it's tile to start production... We'll all clean up.
    >http://www.bstock.com/Lirpa1.htm
    >
    >
    >
    >On 5/22/05 4:25 PM, in article 0YmdndDDS7AGdw3fRVn-3Q@comcast.com, "Ratt
    >Mahem" <rattmahem@aol.com> wrote:
    >
    >> In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a "Analysis Pro Plus
    >> Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar cable! It even
    >> won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as "Warm, full-bodied,
    >> and liquis smooth," and truely "reference quality."
    >>
    >> How do these people live with themselves?
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Ratt Mahem wrote:
    > In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a "Analysis Pro Plus
    > Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar cable! It
    > even won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as "Warm,
    > full-bodied, and liquis smooth," and truely "reference quality."
    >

    Try a cheap standard TV co-axial cable as a guitar cable. You might well
    be be surprized.

    Kevin Aylward
    informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
    http://www.anasoft.co.uk
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:GEBke.90318$a9.76393@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

    > Ratt Mahem wrote:

    > > In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a
    "Analysis Pro Plus
    > > Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar
    cable! It
    > > even won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as
    "Warm,
    > > full-bodied, and liquis smooth," and truely "reference
    quality."

    > Try a cheap standard TV co-axial cable as a guitar cable.
    You might well
    > be be surprized.

    Guitar cable is an example of an inductive high impedance
    source (the pickup) driving a capacitive load (the cable).
    What would usually be trivial changes in cable capacitance
    could make an audible difference.

    I'm kinda surprised that there aren't more guitar cables
    made up of low-capacitance cable and a switchable variable
    capacitor load.


    It's a completely different situation than line-level
    interconnects.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Anahata wrote:

    >
    > Isn't it about time guitar pickups were wound at a lower impedance, so
    > they'd work with a mic input and be relatively unaffected by cable
    > capacitance and microphony? Mics managed that change years ago!


    Les Paul has been championing low impedance guitar pickups since at
    least the early 1970's. He managed to bend Gibson's ear enough to
    release the Les Paul Recording, the Les Paul Signature, & the
    (original) L-5S models with low impedance pickups.

    Sales for those models all tanked. Gibson even wound up re-releasing
    the L-5S w/ standard high impedance humbuckers.

    Part of the problem is that low impedance guitar pickups DO indeed
    sound different -- so different that guitarists were baffled by the
    sound of those instruments. None of their old tone settings on their
    amps worked anymore. The "flaws" of a traditional high impedance pickup
    have become deeply integrated into the idiomatic sound of electric
    guitar; what makes sense as an "improvement" in theory is often at odds
    with the aim of the musician.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    If you wanted to feed a High Z guitar pickup into a Low Z mic input, I
    bet you could use one of those inline hi to low Z mic transformers with
    1/4" plug on one side and XLR on the other. You would be using it
    "backwards" but it should work fine. You could then even use
    standard mic cable. Only problem is having the somewhat bulky
    transformer stuck on the front of the guitar.

    Mark
  14. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
    >"Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
    >> Ratt Mahem wrote:
    >
    >> > In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a
    >"Analysis Pro Plus
    >> > Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar
    >cable! It
    >> > even won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as
    >"Warm,
    >> > full-bodied, and liquis smooth," and truely "reference
    >quality."
    >
    >> Try a cheap standard TV co-axial cable as a guitar cable.
    >You might well
    >> be be surprized.
    >
    >Guitar cable is an example of an inductive high impedance
    >source (the pickup) driving a capacitive load (the cable).
    >What would usually be trivial changes in cable capacitance
    >could make an audible difference.

    Absolutely. Even connectors can make audible differences in this
    sort of situation.

    But, I am not sure that still justifies charging $30/foot for what is
    probably an off-the-shelf bulk cable.
    --scott


    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  15. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <1117038589.459188.18280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >If you wanted to feed a High Z guitar pickup into a Low Z mic input, I
    >bet you could use one of those inline hi to low Z mic transformers with
    >1/4" plug on one side and XLR on the other. You would be using it
    >"backwards" but it should work fine. You could then even use
    >standard mic cable. Only problem is having the somewhat bulky
    >transformer stuck on the front of the guitar.

    This is called a "passive DI box." It doesn't work all that well since
    you can't make a transformer with a high enough input impedance to
    make a typical pickup happy. For that, you need an active DI like
    the Countryman.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  16. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Arny Krueger wrote:
    > "Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:GEBke.90318$a9.76393@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    >
    >> Ratt Mahem wrote:
    >
    >>> In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a "Analysis Pro
    >>> Plus Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar
    >>> cable! It even won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as
    >>> "Warm, full-bodied, and liquis smooth," and truely "reference
    >>> quality."
    >
    >> Try a cheap standard TV co-axial cable as a guitar cable. You might
    >> well be be surprized.
    >
    > Guitar cable is an example of an inductive high impedance
    > source (the pickup) driving a capacitive load (the cable).
    > What would usually be trivial changes in cable capacitance
    > could make an audible difference.

    Indeed it does, as do the facts.

    >
    > I'm kinda surprised that there aren't more guitar cables
    > made up of low-capacitance cable and a switchable variable
    > capacitor load.

    Yep. The first time I actually tried this, I was quite surprised. Much
    better treble. The numbers actually bare this out. A 2H pickup is some
    inductance.

    I just did a little SuperSpice simulation on an RG-50.

    Pickup model as a 5k resistance with 2H inductance, cable into a 1Mohm
    load, there was a 15db peak at 10Khz, 3db down at 15Khz, then rapid
    rolloff. Doubling the capcitance/length moved the peak to 6.3Khz, 3db at
    10Khz.

    I don't think anyone can deny the audibility differences of such peaks
    and rolloffs.

    Do you have any idea of the inductance and capacitance of mics? I did
    some runs with guesses, but it don't seem to be audible as far as the
    sims go. You need about 100mH to get a decent audible difference, but I
    don't think mics are going to get much past 1mH, if that. Its hard to
    get the data, and I havent investigated much on this before.

    >
    >
    > It's a completely different situation than line-level
    > interconnects.

    Yep.

    Those that keep questioning you and me seem to belive that we are
    denying *all* differences, just because we claim that *some* differences
    are not audible. The err..difference, is that we know when there is a
    difference and when there is not.

    Kevin Aylward
    informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
    http://www.anasoft.co.uk
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Kevin Aylward" wrote ...
    > I just did a little SuperSpice simulation on an RG-50.

    Did you take into account the triboelectric effect of the coax
    dielectric? Those kinds of cables are made for low-impedance
    use where they are fine. OTOH some of them make excelent
    microphones at high impedance.

    And all the ones I've ever seen are way too stiff for any
    e-guitar player I've ever met.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Richard Crowley wrote:
    > "Kevin Aylward" wrote ...
    >> I just did a little SuperSpice simulation on an RG-50.
    >
    > Did you take into account the triboelectric effect of the coax
    > dielectric? Those kinds of cables are made for low-impedance
    > use where they are fine. OTOH some of them make excelent
    > microphones at high impedance.

    Indeed.

    >
    > And all the ones I've ever seen are way too stiff for any
    > e-guitar player I've ever met.

    Well, yes, but that wasn't really the point of the bit of the
    discussion.

    What I was doing was highlighting where cables do actually make a real
    difference to the sound, and where such differences are firmly backed up
    technical considerations such as frequency response. This is to contrast
    the condition where people claim that speaker cables open up a new world
    of realism, rather than just opening up their wallets.

    Kevin Aylward
    informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
    http://www.anasoft.co.uk
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:37:34 -0400, Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
    >
    > "Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:GEBke.90318$a9.76393@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    >
    >> Ratt Mahem wrote:
    >
    >> > In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a
    > "Analysis Pro Plus
    >> > Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar
    > cable! It
    >> > even won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as
    > "Warm,
    >> > full-bodied, and liquis smooth," and truely "reference
    > quality."
    >
    >> Try a cheap standard TV co-axial cable as a guitar cable.
    > You might well
    >> be be surprized.
    >
    > Guitar cable is an example of an inductive high impedance
    > source (the pickup) driving a capacitive load (the cable).
    > What would usually be trivial changes in cable capacitance
    > could make an audible difference.
    >
    > I'm kinda surprised that there aren't more guitar cables
    > made up of low-capacitance cable and a switchable variable
    > capacitor load.
    >

    OTOH, low-capacitance cable is easy to find and spec. The only trick is
    sourcing a neophrene jacketed version.

    PVC jackets don't really hold up for most guitar players.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Arny Krueger wrote:
    >
    > Guitar cable is an example of an inductive high impedance
    > source (the pickup) driving a capacitive load (the cable).
    > What would usually be trivial changes in cable capacitance
    > could make an audible difference.

    I assume the impedance is trdaitional because of tube amplifiers that
    naturally had a high input impedance, and the higher inductance pickup
    had higher output voltage hence lower noise.

    Isn't it about time guitar pickups were wound at a lower impedance, so
    they'd work with a mic input and be relatively unaffected by cable
    capacitance and microphony? Mics managed that change years ago!

    Anahata
  21. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Anahata" wrote...
    > Isn't it about time guitar pickups were wound at a lower impedance, so
    > they'd work with a mic input and be relatively unaffected by cable
    > capacitance and microphony? Mics managed that change years ago!
    >
    > Anahata

    Tradition (read: "inertia"). Musicians.
    Good luck.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Anahata <anahata@treewind.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >Isn't it about time guitar pickups were wound at a lower impedance, so
    >they'd work with a mic input and be relatively unaffected by cable
    >capacitance and microphony? Mics managed that change years ago!

    Folks have tried to do this many times, the most famous being the
    Les Paul Recording pickups. But for the most part, guitarists don't
    like the way they sound.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  23. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Anahata wrote:
    >
    > Arny Krueger wrote:
    > >
    > > Guitar cable is an example of an inductive high impedance
    > > source (the pickup) driving a capacitive load (the cable).
    > > What would usually be trivial changes in cable capacitance
    > > could make an audible difference.
    >
    > I assume the impedance is trdaitional because of tube amplifiers that
    > naturally had a high input impedance, and the higher inductance pickup
    > had higher output voltage hence lower noise.
    >
    > Isn't it about time guitar pickups were wound at a lower impedance, so
    > they'd work with a mic input and be relatively unaffected by cable
    > capacitance and microphony? Mics managed that change years ago!
    >
    It's been done, but they didn't go over that well. Most serious guitar
    amps are tube and a low-z pickup had to be interfaced properly to sound
    normal.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <d721mq$n97$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

    > >Isn't it about time guitar pickups were wound at a lower impedance

    > Folks have tried to do this many times, the most famous being the
    > Les Paul Recording pickups. But for the most part, guitarists don't
    > like the way they sound.

    Not that it has anything to do with impedance, but maybe even high
    impedance pickups would hum less if they were connected with
    two-conductor shielded cable to a differential input on the guitar
    amplifier.

    I recall seeing one model of the Les Paul Recording guitar and
    companion amplifier that had XLR connectors on the guitar and
    amplfier, but that's about the extent of it. I think that most
    low impedance pickups (Ol' Chet had some made at one time, too) were
    connected with an unbalanced. Probably because the guitar players were
    always forgetting their chords. <g>


    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
    However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
    lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
    you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
    and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
  25. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Scott Dorsey wrote:

    > Anahata wrote:

    > >Isn't it about time guitar pickups were wound at a lower impedance, so
    > >they'd work with a mic input and be relatively unaffected by cable
    > >capacitance and microphony? Mics managed that change years ago!

    > Folks have tried to do this many times, the most famous being the
    > Les Paul Recording pickups. But for the most part, guitarists don't
    > like the way they sound.

    When Eric Johnson played the Alembic I have he liked some things about
    it, but not that it wouldn't feed back.

    OTOH, my brother spent about fifteen minutes working with it to mimic an
    acoustic guitar sound and damn near matched my lovely J200 into a good
    mic.

    --
    ha
  26. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Scott Dorsey wrote:
    > Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
    >> "Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
    >>> Ratt Mahem wrote:
    >>
    >>>> In the Feb 2204 Guitar Player, they were hawking a
    >> "Analysis Pro Plus
    >>>> Oval Studio" cable for $299. 300 bucks for a 10' guitar
    >> cable! It
    >>>> even won the "Editor's Pick Award" and was described as
    >> "Warm,
    >>>> full-bodied, and liquis smooth," and truely "reference
    >> quality."
    >>
    >>> Try a cheap standard TV co-axial cable as a guitar cable.
    >> You might well
    >>> be be surprized.
    >>
    >> Guitar cable is an example of an inductive high impedance
    >> source (the pickup) driving a capacitive load (the cable).
    >> What would usually be trivial changes in cable capacitance
    >> could make an audible difference.
    >
    > Absolutely. Even connectors can make audible differences in this
    > sort of situation.
    >

    What do you mean by this? As far as sound goes, if the connectors are
    mechanically sound, then the connecters make no difference to the sound
    whatsoever. Contact resistance is way too low to have any effect. Sure,
    if the contacts are corroded they may be a problem, but any old clean
    contact will do fine.

    Kevin Aylward
    informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
    http://www.anasoft.co.uk
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Kevin Aylward <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
    >Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >>
    >> Absolutely. Even connectors can make audible differences in this
    >> sort of situation.
    >
    >What do you mean by this? As far as sound goes, if the connectors are
    >mechanically sound, then the connecters make no difference to the sound
    >whatsoever. Contact resistance is way too low to have any effect. Sure,
    >if the contacts are corroded they may be a problem, but any old clean
    >contact will do fine.

    Try measuring the shunt capacitance of a 1/4" phone plug. With a 1M
    line, it's not negligible.
    --scott


    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  28. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Scott Dorsey wrote:
    > Kevin Aylward <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
    >> Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Absolutely. Even connectors can make audible differences in this
    >>> sort of situation.
    >>
    >> What do you mean by this? As far as sound goes, if the connectors are
    >> mechanically sound, then the connecters make no difference to the
    >> sound whatsoever. Contact resistance is way too low to have any
    >> effect. Sure, if the contacts are corroded they may be a problem,
    >> but any old clean contact will do fine.
    >
    > Try measuring the shunt capacitance of a 1/4" phone plug.

    I doubt if its more then about 10p, and is totally insignificant
    compared to the cable capacitance. Guitar cable might be around 100p/M.

    > With a 1M
    > line, it's not negligible.
    > --scott

    Oh dear...

    The line isn't 1 Mohm. That's only the input resistance of the amplifier
    input, with should be as high as possible. Its the source impedance that
    matters. A guitar source might be 5k in series with 1H-2H. At 10khz a 2H
    inductance will give a 100k impedance.

    Indeed, one could make the input resistance of the amplifier 100M giving
    a 10p HF corner of 159Hz! This comer is of course completely imaginary.

    Oh dear...this is like taking candy from babies, with their hands tied
    behind their back.

    If you would like, you can download my SuperSpice and actually do some
    simulations with cables and stuff. The advantage, is that you can check
    things out before making comments in NG's and then be sure that they are
    correct first, and so not look a bit silly:-)

    Kevin Aylward
    informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
    http://www.anasoft.co.uk
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Stereophile not the only snakeoil salesmen
  30. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
    > Stereophile not the only snakeoil salesmen

    My software is the cheapest on the market. Secondly, you can build and
    run pretty big circuits all with the demo version.

    Kevin Aylward
    informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
    http://www.anasoft.co.uk
    SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
    Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
    Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:_1ple.136544$Cq2.90320@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

    > > Stereophile not the only snakeoil salesmen
    >
    > My software is the cheapest on the market. Secondly, you can build and
    > run pretty big circuits all with the demo version.

    Sorry Kevin, I was just moving back to the subject,
    which was *not* your software or amp designs.

    ;-)
  32. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Kevin Aylward wrote:

    > I doubt if its more then about 10p, and is totally insignificant
    > compared to the cable capacitance.

    Real engineers measure this stuff instead of stating "I doubt". Then
    they respond on the basis of their observation of measurements.

    --
    ha
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Audio Studio Cable