Audio Interconnect cable Performance - is Return Wire Diameter a Factor?

I was mucking around with interconnects and built a cable with an increased sized return wire. And i thought that this sounded better not worse than a similar cable without such a return wire. What do i mean by better: the sound seemed fuller and had
more weight. This affect could be just an increased noise dimension, a genuine improvement or technically no different but just sounds different. Not wishing to accept this on it’s own i searched to find what might be behind the effect and i came
across the Eichmann Ratio™ this specifies that the return pin of an RCA plug should be of a larger cross section than the signal pin.

Eichmann states that "The Ratio forces the return conductor to respond rapidly to signals being transmitted through the signal conductor, at the same time providing a balance of reactance between signal and return. This ensures that all frequencies and
their harmonics are transmitted in a more perfect state. The result is cleaner signal transfer. Which translates to better sound quality."

The Eichmann explanation might sound at first a bit doublespeak though this in itself does not invalidate the overall idea and of an impact. Eichmann limited their patent to just the interconnect plug connector. But the ideas’ effect on sound, if true,
is likely to be so for the interconnect wire architecture as well. That is having a larger diameter return wire compared to the signal wire results in a so called better sound. one commentator on an interconnect cable that implemented a larger diameter
return wire design also noted a better performance saying that “... the return signal is critical to the lower frequencies and he entrusts that to his special cable design” (http://6moons.com/audioreviews/johnblue6/jb4_4.html) - and if i’m reading
this correctly the special feature design is a three wire return to a single wire signal.

Why? I suppose we need to consider the whole circuit. That is the signal starting from the source travels to the preamp then the power amp then the speakers then starts a return journey back to the source. any discontinuities to the electrical flow; like
changes in wire, RCA termination and connections will have an impedance effect and create opportunities for reflections and noise. Reflections happen because of impedance mismatches and will result in noise and are an insertion loss. This is perhaps not
so important in the case of the signal wire as the low output resistance dovetails to a higher input resistance on it’s journey between units. however this is not true of the return “back to the source” wire. and as anything that impedes the
current loop, including the return, will impact on the whole circuit including the signal. So the return wire, i’m thinking, is more susceptible to reflections. How large these reflection are? i don’t know, but having a larger diameter return wire
and larger contacts will lower impedance and hence result in a so called better sound.

Lots of people and manufacturers use coaxial cable as an interconnect cable wire and swear by the lower noise floor of these cables compared to similar grade/length twisted or untwisted versions. The coaxial cable return with it’s greater area compared
to the signal wire will have less resistance. And maybe this has an impact on coaxial interconnect performance. The same argument is true for multi braided interconnects as these usually employ a greater number of strands for the return than for the
signal.

this is only a hypothesis - or less: a drift in imagination... sandcastles - and i’m not so sure that the arguments stack up. there are other explanations. That is for the signal wire in an interconnect cable you might want to minimise capacitance
while for the return wire you might want to minimise resistance or maximise a velocity factor hence a larger diameter of the return wire.

I suppose my real interest here is should having an interconnect return wire with a larger diameter than the signal wire have theoretically a “better” sound, i.e. less noise, than an interconnect cable with wires of equal diameter - all other things
being equal? And why?

Further would there be a “theoretical” benefit in having a separate return wire from just one point on each unit fanning out to a central contact point?

Another thought should there be a continuity between interconnect cables and within units with regard to wire material and fabrication between the source, pre and power amps? Would that reduce reflections?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

First of all, let's make sure that we agree on terms:

With the mention of signal wires and RCA plugs, am I correct in assuming that you mean what are commonly known as "patch cords" - those typically coaxial cables between one component and another carrying low-level audio information - that is *not*
speaker wires? If that is the case, then the condition of the "return" wire being some multiple of the "signal" wire is already accomplished. Typically, the "shield" (return) wire is multi-strand surrounding the signal wire with a significantly larger
cross-sectional area in the aggregate. That is the point of departure.

Wire material: Things to consider:
Silver is a better conductor than copper, and its oxides and sulphates are also typically conductive.
Copper is a better conductor than gold, and its oxides and sulphates are also typically conductive.
Gold is a relatively poor conductor of electricity as compared to the above. Its few virtues are heat resistance and resistance to oxidation.
At audio frequencies and at typical distances between components - say 4hz -40khz and 2 meters - the brute fact of the matter is that all other things being equal - connector quality, build quality, adequate gauge - mild steel and/or aluminum would
behave indistinguishably from any of the above.

What really matters: Things to consider:
It is current that matters. The typical patch-cord from an active pre-amp of modern design may carry as much as twenty (20) Volts at some small fraction of an amp, and unless something is very wrong, always AC. So, not many electrons (amps), but those
few are moving REALLY fast at higher frequencies. BUT!! Consider water in a pipe. When one adds water at the one end, it is not the same water that comes out at the other end. And if that water is changing directions 20,000 times a second, those
electrons involved are not really going anywhere, but they are doing it really quickly. So, the limiting factor *must* be the size of the conductor (pipe). So why "conductor" and "return"? Here is where the weasel enters to confuse the gullible. On a
patch cord, it ain't nohow a "return". It is a SHIELD. Its purpose is to avoid/protect against/shield from extraneous rF & aF signals as may be floating around that may cause distortion if induced into the signal via the patch-cord. Remember - SHIELD.
This is most often stray AC voltages from unshielded components and 'hash' on AC lines from such things as dimmer switches and so forth. And by convention, the shield becomes the common/ground within the entire system. Much as the NEUTRAL becomes the
common/ground (eventually). But all of this is convention that flies in the face of physics. Because, if one thinks about it, current always flows from the Negative (more electrons) to the Positive (fewer electrons). We think of the Brits as backward as (
some of) their vehicles were based on a + Ground. Which for DC current, is actually the true way of it in terms of current flow. There are peripheral considerations that are both real and important. Cable capacitance will affect very-low-voltage sources
such as phono cartridges, tape-head leads and so forth.

Bottom Line:
The proper function of any interconnect will be based primarily on purpose, current requirements, length and materials used. Secondarily, on build-quality. Cutting to the chase, rather crudely, standard coat-hanger wire would be more than adequate for
speaker wire over a short distance and if properly terminated. Silver plated Oxygen-free copper wire rolled on the thighs of virgins on Walpurgis Night might be nice, but there will be no improvements attached thereto other than a lightening of the
wallet and the spirits of the vendor.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/12/2020 10:03 pm, oben...@gmail.com wrote:

Audio Interconnect cable Performance - is Return Wire Diameter a Factor?

**Not in the slightest. Impedance levels at line levels are such that resistance is not an issue.

I was mucking around with interconnects and built a cable with an increased sized return wire. And i thought that this sounded better not worse than a similar cable without such a return wire.

**Humans are VERY easily fooled. You need to perform a proper double
blind test to verify. When you do, you will find that there is no
difference. Assuming, of course, that connectors are clean and tight.


What do i mean by better: the sound seemed fuller and had more weight.
This affect could be just an increased noise dimension, a genuine
improvement or technically no different but just sounds different. Not
wishing to accept this on it’s own i searched to find what might be
behind the effect and i came across the Eichmann Ratio™ this specifies
that the return pin of an RCA plug should be of a larger cross section
than the signal pin.

Eichmann states that "The Ratio forces the return conductor to respond rapidly to signals being transmitted through the signal conductor, at the same time providing a balance of reactance between signal and return. This ensures that all frequencies and

their harmonics are transmitted in a more perfect state. The result is cleaner signal transfer. Which translates to better sound quality."

**Yeah, that's complete gobbledegook. Ignore it.

The Eichmann explanation might sound at first a bit doublespeak though this in itself does not invalidate the overall idea and of an impact. Eichmann limited their patent to just the interconnect plug connector. But the ideas’ effect on sound, if

true, is likely to be so for the interconnect wire architecture as well. That is having a larger diameter return wire compared to the signal wire results in a so called better sound. one commentator on an interconnect cable that implemented a larger
diameter return wire design also noted a better performance saying that “... the return signal is critical to the lower frequencies and he entrusts that to his special cable design” (http://6moons.com/audioreviews/johnblue6/jb4_4.html) - and if i’m
reading this correctly the special feature design is a three wire return to a single wire signal.

Why? I suppose we need to consider the whole circuit. That is the signal starting from the source travels to the preamp then the power amp then the speakers then starts a return journey back to the source.

**BZZZTTT! Nope. That is not how an ALTERNATING signal works. Plus, the
whole thing operates at close to c (the speed of light).


any discontinuities to the electrical flow; like changes in wire, RCA termination and connections will have an impedance effect and create opportunities for reflections and noise.

**Well, yes, noise can be a problem with poor quality terminations.

Reflections happen because of impedance mismatches and will result in
noise and are an insertion loss.

**No. For all practical length audio cables (say: <1km) reflections are
simply not an issue. Impedance mismatches are not an issue in practical systems, where source output Z < 100 Ohms.


This is perhaps not so important in the case of the signal wire as the
low output resistance dovetails to a higher input resistance on it’s
journey between units.

**Which is the case with all sensibly designed systems. It is a trivial exercise to design a source impedance of <10 Ohms.

however this is not true of the return “back to the source” wire. and
as anything that impedes the current loop, including the return, will
impact on the whole circuit including the signal. So the return wire,
i’m thinking, is more susceptible to reflections. How large these
reflection are? i don’t know, but having a larger diameter return wire
and larger contacts will lower impedance and hence result in a so called
better sound.

**There are no reflections. It is an AC signal.

Lots of people and manufacturers use coaxial cable as an interconnect cable wire and swear by the lower noise floor of these cables compared to similar grade/length twisted or untwisted versions. The coaxial cable return with it’s greater area

compared to the signal wire will have less resistance. And maybe this has an impact on coaxial interconnect performance. The same argument is true for multi braided interconnects as these usually employ a greater number of strands for the return than for
the signal.

this is only a hypothesis - or less: a drift in imagination... sandcastles - and i’m not so sure that the arguments stack up. there are other explanations. That is for the signal wire in an interconnect cable you might want to minimise capacitance

while for the return wire you might want to minimise resistance or maximise a velocity factor hence a larger diameter of the return wire.

**Velocity factor is largely determined by the insulation material, not
the size of the conductors.

I suppose my real interest here is should having an interconnect return wire with a larger diameter than the signal wire have theoretically a “better” sound, i.e. less noise, than an interconnect cable with wires of equal diameter - all other

things being equal? And why?

Further would there be a “theoretical” benefit in having a separate return wire from just one point on each unit fanning out to a central contact point?

**No.

Another thought should there be a continuity between interconnect cables and within units with regard to wire material and fabrication between the source, pre and power amps? Would that reduce reflections?

**What reflections? There are none to start with. Most cables are less
than 3 Metres. Even with cables of 1,000 Metres or so, there will be no reflections of significance.

Audio is really easy. You need to worry about these sorts of things at
very high radio frequencies.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2020-12-06, Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

Electricity in a wire, AC or DC, moves much faster than the "speed of light" - which is defined by its speed in a vacuum. Pop an electron into the system at one end, and that instant, one pops out at the other. The water that one puts in a pipe is not

the same water that comes out the other end (unless the pipe was empty initially - not possible with electrons in a wire). With AC current, it is entirely possible that no individual electron makes it down the entire length of the wire.


I'm sorry, the first two statements are not true.

'c', the speed of light in a vacuum, is the speed limit for this universe,
and is only reached by massless particles such as photons. No signalling happens faster than that.

Electrons have mass.

The signal velocity of photons in vacuum is 1.0 (* c).

The signal velocity of photons in most fiber optic cables is around 0.67.

The signal velocity of electricity in cables varies by the composition of
the cable and how it is made, but is typically between 0.58 and 0.78.

Peter is correct that the electrons or water you get out of one end of a pipe are not the same electrons or water you put in. In a conductive metal, the electrons are freely shared between neighboring atoms, and applying a voltage at one end of a wire causes the electrons to jostle each other right on down the line.

Wikipedia's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
is pretty well written.

-dsr-

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Electricity in a wire, AC or DC, moves much faster than the "speed of light" - which is defined by its speed in a vacuum. Pop an electron into the system at one end, and that instant, one pops out at the other. The water that one puts in a pipe is not
the same water that comes out the other end (unless the pipe was empty initially - not possible with electrons in a wire). With AC current, it is entirely possible that no individual electron makes it down the entire length of the wire.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/12/2020 11:59 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:

Electricity in a wire, AC or DC, moves much faster than the "speed of light" - which is defined by its speed in a vacuum. Pop an electron into the system at one end, and that instant, one pops out at the other. The water that one puts in a pipe is not

the same water that comes out the other end (unless the pipe was empty initially - not possible with electrons in a wire). With AC current, it is entirely possible that no individual electron makes it down the entire length of the wire.


**Nothing (in this universe) can move faster than 'c'. Not light, not electrons, not gravity.

Here's a thought experiment for you:

If our Sun winked out of existence tomorrow, how long would it take for
our planet to cease circling where our Sun once was?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

If our Sun winked out of existence tomorrow, how long would it take for
our planet to cease circling where our Sun once was?

That would be as soon as the gravity wave ceased - which would also be largely instantaneous. Objects in orbit are not truly "in orbit", but in Free Fall. The earth would travel in that direction on the arc that it was on when the sun went away - with
minor perturbations from the other objects in the former solar system.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2020-12-07, Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

If our Sun winked out of existence tomorrow, how long would it take for
our planet to cease circling where our Sun once was?

That would be as soon as the gravity wave ceased - which would also be largely instantaneous. Objects in orbit are not truly "in orbit", but in Free Fall. The earth would travel in that direction on the arc that it was on when the sun went away - with

minor perturbations from the other objects in the former solar system.

Your first sentence is, again, wrong. All experiments in gravity propagation show that
it moves at 'c', which is to say, about 8 minutes between the Sun suddenly failing
to exist and the planet no longer falling towards it.

-dsr-

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

**Nothing (in this universe) can move faster than 'c'. Not light, not electrons, not gravity.

Never stated nor implied that. What I stated is that as with water in a pipe, when water goes in at one end, water instantaneously comes out at the other end. But, IT IS NOT THE SAME WATER.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

p.s.: I would remind you of Clarke's Three Laws. But....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2020-12-07, Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

**Nothing (in this universe) can move faster than 'c'. Not light, not
electrons, not gravity.

Never stated nor implied that. What I stated is that as with water in a pipe, when water goes in at one end, water instantaneously comes out at the other end. But, IT IS NOT THE SAME WATER.

The first and second sentences here are wrong.

The speed of water signal propagation is the speed of sound in water, which is around 1400-1600m/s depending on temperature, salinity, etc. That is literally the speed at which water molecules can push each other around; it is not "instantaneous".

Applicability of this argument to audio:

1. The speed of sound in water is about 4x the speed of sound in air. Therefore,
there is a major impedance mismatch at air/water boundaries, leading to
sound reflection.

2. The speed of an electrical signal is finite (but very fast), so we can measure
and discover that it doesn't matter whether your speaker wires are the same
length because you can't hear the timing difference for any reasonable
difference in length. (Say, 1 meter vs 1000 meters -- you'll get differences
in signal level before you get audible timing differences.)

-dsr-

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 8:08:05 AM UTC-5, -dsr- wrote:

On 2020-12-07, Peter Wieck <peterw...@gmail.com> wrote:

**Nothing (in this universe) can move faster than 'c'. Not light, not
electrons, not gravity.

Never stated nor implied that. What I stated is that as with water in a pipe, when water goes in at one end, water instantaneously comes out at the other end. But, IT IS NOT THE SAME WATER.

The first and second sentences here are wrong.

The speed of water signal propagation is the speed of sound in water, which is
around 1400-1600m/s depending on temperature, salinity, etc. That is literally
the speed at which water molecules can push each other around; it is not "instantaneous".

Applicability of this argument to audio:

1. The speed of sound in water is about 4x the speed of sound in air. Therefore,
there is a major impedance mismatch at air/water boundaries, leading to sound reflection.

2. The speed of an electrical signal is finite (but very fast), so we can measure
and discover that it doesn't matter whether your speaker wires are the same length because you can't hear the timing difference for any reasonable difference in length. (Say, 1 meter vs 1000 meters -- you'll get differences in signal level before you get audible timing differences.)

-dsr-

Before I get snarky: I was making an analogy. Water in a pipe to electrons in a wire. What goes in is not what comes out, even though what comes out is very nearly instantaneous to what goes in. Nowhere was I suggesting sound in water, signals in water,
and/or so forth.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2020-12-07, Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

Before I get snarky: I was making an analogy. Water in a pipe to electrons in a wire. What goes in is not what comes out, even though what comes out is very nearly instantaneous to what goes in. Nowhere was I suggesting sound in water, signals in

water, and/or so forth.


No need to get snarky. There's a big difference between "instantaneous", a word which you kept using, and "nearly instantaneous", which is a measurable quantity
in all cited cases. As long as you keep using the qualifier, we're all happy.

You are correct: the electrons pushing at one end of the wire are rarely the "same" electrons that come out, because the signal has both positive and negative
components which we expect, over time, to balance out*. When you hit a diaphragm
on a full water pipe, the shock/signal/wavefront is transmitted to the other side
without carrying the water itself from one end to the other.

*interesting case: there are situations where it would be bad to have a signal which unbalanced the overall electric charge of the two end points. One solution,
used in analog audio, is the balanced signal pipe, in which one conductor carries
the inverted signal of the other, guaranteeing continuous balance. A solution found
in digital transmission is a balanced coding, where extra bits are used to encode
each payload bit so that different amounts of charge can be selected on-the-fly.

-dsr-

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/12/2020 11:55 pm, -dsr- wrote:

On 2020-12-07, Peter Wieck <peterwieck33@gmail.com> wrote:

If our Sun winked out of existence tomorrow, how long would it take for
our planet to cease circling where our Sun once was?

That would be as soon as the gravity wave ceased - which would also be largely instantaneous. Objects in orbit are not truly "in orbit", but in Free Fall. The earth would travel in that direction on the arc that it was on when the sun went away - with

minor perturbations from the other objects in the former solar system.

Your first sentence is, again, wrong. All experiments in gravity propagation show that
it moves at 'c', which is to say, about 8 minutes between the Sun suddenly failing
to exist and the planet no longer falling towards it.

-dsr-

**Correct.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 9:47:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Wieck wrote:

The typical patch-cord from an active pre-amp of modern design may carry as much as
twenty (20) Volts at some small fraction of an amp, and unless something is very wrong,
always AC. So, not many electrons (amps), but those few are moving REALLY fast at higher
frequencies.

Uh, no, they are not. The movement of the electrons themselves are described by their
"drift velocity", which is dependent upon the conductor material, the cross-section of
the conductor, and the current it is being asked to carry. Frequency plays no role.

Let's take an example: consider a small signal wire, say 24 AWG with a diameter of about
0.5 mm. Let's say it's being asked to carry 0.001 amp (one milliamp, which is HUGE for
a preamp interconnect: your unrealistic example of 20 volts into, say, a 100 k load would
be on the order of 0.0002 amps., but let's go with 1 mA).

The resulting electron drift velocity would be, what?

1000m/s? Nope.

100m/s? No way.

10m/s? Way too much.

Try 0.13 cm/hour. 0.00000082 miles per hour.

Independent of frequency.

Dick Pierce

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 7:45:52 AM UTC-5, Peter Wieck wrote:

If our Sun winked out of existence tomorrow, how long would it take for
our planet to cease circling where our Sun once was?

That would be as soon as the gravity wave ceased - which would also be largely instantaneous.

Well, you're statement is imprecise, but largely wrong. Yes, the effect would be felt when
gravity ceased at the earth, but if the sun were to cease to exist, it would take about 8
minutes for the lack of garvity to propogate to 150 million kilometers to the Earth.

It would absolutely NOT be "largely instantaneous" with the cessation of the sun's existence
Indeed, the arrival the "dark" would be simultaneous with the departure of the earth into
interstellar space.

Dick Pierce

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 8:49:56 AM UTC-5, Dave Harrison wrote:

Nope, 100% wrong. It does not and CANNOT happen, in your words, "at that instant."

If you had a large supply of entangled particles, then you could have instantaneous
information transfer, what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance".

If I had a large supply of entangled particles, I'd be picking up my Nobel Prize and having dinner with the King of Sweden

Dick Pierce

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nope, 100% wrong. It does not and CANNOT happen, in your words, "at that instant."

Dick Pierce

If you had a large supply of entangled particles, then you could have instantaneous information transfer, what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". Unfortunately there are no practical means of getting entangled particles. Then you would also
need a quantum computer to deal with it and, these days, a sub-liquid helium refrigerator to keep the particles from decaying. It would probably need audio-blessed power cords with poky electricity to run it.

Dave Harrison - Hi Dick, glad to see you are still yourself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 9:47:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Wieck wrote:

First of all, let's make sure that we agree on terms:

And, just fo laughs, physical reality...

It is current that matters.

Well, it is the signal that matters...

The typical patch-cord from an active pre-amp of modern design may carry
as much as twenty (20) Volts

really?

REALLY?

Given that the vast majority of power amps have their gain set so that something
like 2 volts result in full power, a voltage of 20 volts would result in the amplifier
attempting (but failing rather miserably) at outputting 100 times its rated power.

So, let's consider the 20 volt numberf to be possibly true but completely irrelevant,
to paraphrase the lawyers.

at some small fraction of an amp,

Okay, so assume the amp has a 50 kOhm input impedance, and assuming our true AND relevant voltage of 2 volts, that works out to:

I = E/R

I = 2.0 volts / 50kOhms

I = 0.00004 amperes

or 40 micro amps (a more realistic figure than I cam up with elsewhere.

So, not many electrons (amps),

Well, since we're piling on, let's, just for entertainment, see how many electrons
that is.

One Ampere is the same as one Coulomb per second.

An electron has a charge of 1.602 x 10^-17 Coulombs.

Thus, a continuous flowing current of 1 Ampere means there are 1.602 x 00^17 electrons (or, more precisely, the equivalent of 1.602 x 10^17) passing a point each second. That's 6.4 x 10^12 electrons pass a point each second. But, to be fair, the current is not continuous. So let's assume that we're looking at a small
interval of time, say 1 millisecond. We're down to 6.4 x 10^9 electrons in that brief interval of time.

Yeah, 6,408,000,000, not a "lot" of electrons. And, in fact, all of them that (virtually)
got sent that way (or ones that are indistiguishable), they's comin' back son anyway.

The poont of this reductio ad absurdum is to show that for the domain of our problem set (sending audio down a wire), moving electrons is, again as the lawyers
are wont to say, true but irrelevant: it's the aggregate movement of lots of charges,
jiggling about in a not-entirely-random fashion that results in the actual audio
"signal" being sent down the wire.

And when it comes to making our preamp drive our power amp and thence the speakers, it's not them true but irrelevant electrons that we care about, it's the signal.
Consider, for example, making your cables out of paladium, raise the temperature
to about 300C, and embed it in a hyrdowen atmosphere. At that point, those wires
would work just as well, but instead of electrons being the mobile charges wondering
around a metallic crystal lattice, it would be protons the protons as the mobile
charges wandering around a mettalic crystal lattice.

As to the assertions suggested in the original post of this thread, one of the more
laughable and entertaining collection of pseudo-techno gobbledygook seen in quite some time.

Dick Pierce

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Dynaco PAT-5 biFet makes 15V @ 50MA +/- 5%
There is an Aktika (sp?) pre-amp that makes 20V @ 50MA +/- 5%
And there is a mod for the PAT-5 to get it to 42V @ 20MA +/- 5%

The reasoning for those superficially absurd voltages is headroom. And that is a long, difficult, and very nearly futile discussion mostly based on revealed religion.

And, that is AC voltage. Not DC - so those electrons are flying back and forth at whatever the audio frequency might be. Not departing for parts-unknown and in only one direction.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/12/2020 11:29 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:

The Dynaco PAT-5 biFet makes 15V @ 50MA +/- 5%

**Umm, not quite. The specs for the LF357 indicates significantly lower
numbers than that. At 25 degrees C:

* Maximum output Voltage (god, I forgot just how primitive that old
things was - zener regulation!?), with a +/- 15 Volt supply - 25 Volts
p-p = 8.8 Volts RMS (theoretically).
* Maximum output current @ 25 V p-p (dunno what the value of the output
series resistor is, as that will change the final figure somewhat) - +ve
20ma and (wait for it) -ve 5ma.

There is an Aktika (sp?) pre-amp that makes 20V @ 50MA +/- 5%
And there is a mod for the PAT-5 to get it to 42V @ 20MA +/- 5%

The reasoning for those superficially absurd voltages is headroom. And that is a long, difficult, and very nearly futile discussion mostly based on revealed religion.

**Well, once the input Voltage limits of the power amp are exceeded,
it's all over red rover.

And, that is AC voltage. Not DC - so those electrons are flying back and forth at whatever the audio frequency might be. Not departing for parts-unknown and in only one direction.

**Of course.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 10:19:54 AM UTC-5, Peter Wieck wrote:

The Dynaco PAT-5 biFet makes 15V @ 50MA +/- 5%

How is that relevant to the domaine?

There is an Aktika (sp?) pre-amp that makes 20V @ 50MA +/- 5%

How is that relevant to the domain?

And there is a mod for the PAT-5 to get it to 42V @ 20MA +/- 5%

How is that relevant to the domain?

The reasoning for those superficially absurd voltages is headroom.

And that reasoning is itself provably absurd.

And that is a long, difficult, and very nearly futile discussion mostly
based on revealed religion.

Sir, it is you spouting religion and absurdity.

Let's go, once again, to the issue of what follows the preamp: a power amp. Since these preamp do NOT have balanced outputs, we can safely assume
that they are intended for power amps with unbalanced inputs.

And what is the input voltage for these amps required to drive them to
full rated power? Well, it ranges from 0.5V to 2.0V RMS.

So, REGARDLESS of the headroom of the preamp, what is the result of
driving a power amp whose input sensitivity is, say, 2.0V when driven by
20V?

(Subtle hint: the power amp will be driven FAR into clipping).

Can you guess what the result will be?

Do you need another hint?

Let's be generous and assume the amp is very conservatively spec'ed and can
put out TWICE its rated power (and let's, in fact, NOT deal with revealed religion,
like "headroom", let's deal with physicqal facts, like the MAXIMUM instantaneous
output power of an amp is limited by the unloaded rail voltage minus the voltage
drop of the output devices. That's it, regardless of which religion you buy into,
THAT is the limit. Doesn't matter HOW the power supply is design, doesn't matter
if the PS has bazillion microfarad caps in it: what's the maximum rail voltage? THAT's what defines the maximum output power. Period.

Let's say we got ourselves a power amp nominally ratede at 200 watts continuous into 8 ohms, that's 40 VRMS, meaning the nominal rail voltage is in the realm of
+-60V. Let's just pretend and say it's +-75V and ther are ginormous capacitors sitting
in it.

And lets say that an input voltage of 2.0V is required to get the amp to put out 200
watts continuous into 8 ohms. At that point, the amp is swinging +-56V peak.

And since our rails are limited, in our example above, to +-75 volts, putting ANY
more than 2.5V into the amp will result in clipping: that +-75 volts DEFINES the headroom of the power amp under ALL conditions.

Now, stuff in your 20V from your magic preamp. That means the amp will be asked to swing +-560V peak. And where is that +-560 volts supposed to come from?

Expain to me, now, how that 20V output voltage is in any way relevant to the domain at hand?

Given the choice between YOUR revealed religion of "headroom" and "20V
preamps) and the like vs physical reality, what do you think my choice would be?

Need a hint?

And, that is AC voltage. Not DC - so those electrons are flying back and forth

No, they are NOT "flying back and forth": they are imperceptively jigging about with a small net movement in one direction than another, with an average net velocity measured in some small fraction of centimeters per hour.

Dick Pierce

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)