Townsend Isolda cable

[sq225917]

What max is doing is mixing up measurements, audibility and cause and effect. He's either clueless or purposefully deceptive. That you and other align with his marketing means nothing.

 

[Arno Fennix]

What max is doing is mixing up measurements, audibility and cause and effect. He's either clueless or purposefully deceptive. That you and other align with his marketing means nothing.

Remarkable wisdoms..
Edit (could not resist), a Dude would have said "Well yeah....it's like your opinion mannn" (Or even "this agression will not stand mannn..." But seriously, it's all about listening to the cables and then trying to explain it. What Max is doing, I see as what is common in R&D to state a hypothesis and next try to go through test (experiments, which Max also calls what he does), analysis and discussions. As I saw in the 5Dec video, Max is very open and willing to move with better ideas. I like the constructive approach when it comes to scrutinising technical stuff and ideas, it will get everyone further (and in a respectful way)

 

[mansr]

What max is doing is mixing up measurements, audibility and cause and effect. He's either clueless or purposefully deceptive. That you and other align with his marketing means nothing.

It does mean something. It means his strategy is working. P. T. Barnum was right.

 

[SIY]

What Max is doing, I see as what is common in R&D to state a hypothesis and next try to go through test (experiments, which Max also calls what he does), analysis and discussions.

Not even vaguely. And really, you need scare quotes around "experiments."

But the homework from his mommy's refrigerator door was a nice touch. Twice now.

 

[sq225917]

If you want to investigate audible effects on cables you measure the audible results. You can choose to stimulate audible effects by inputting signal/noise outside of the audible range, but only if you first prove the same exists within the system.

Transition lines, mhz noise has nothing to do with how speaker cables effect music playback.

It's like dicking around making claims for reflections in spdif cables. As long as the crossing point is recovered within the accepted timing range nothing else is yet proven to matter.

 

[BDWoody]

I learned that not all audible stuff can be measured or calculated,

Like what? How did you learn this?

Yes, double blind testing preferred even though sometimes it is not easy or practical.

How inconvenient...

So, let's not bother, and just move on as if we had already done that part, because so many anecdotes can't be wrong?

I see.

 

[NTK]

Any two conductors, including two bits of wet string, form a transmission line and may be analysed as such. The theory is in
See chapter 14, page 483 of: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/assets/pdf/alternating-current.pdf The theory commences with Direct Current.
Power lines as short as 6km store charge in the capacitance and magnetic field in the inductance and are normally matched line to load. When the line is open-circuited, and isolated, the line is no longer terminated correctly and reflections occur at about 0.7 the speed of light and take a while to dissipate. It is that energy that is dissipated in the arc.

In the speaker cable that is mis-terminated, every transient sets up reflections at about 0.7 the speed of light which take time to dissipate. It is this effect that causes the measured roll-off in the test and the subsequent smearing of the sound.

What is abundantly clear is that Mr Townshend's modus operandi is to ignore/sidestep all direct questions with simple answers that will clearly debunk his claims. And he will introduce other totally irrelevant subjects to attempt to confuse the issue. Case in point is his recently introduced topic of arc flash in 50/60 Hz powerlines. It has nothing to do with the "store charge in the capacitance and magnetic field in the inductance" of the powerlines.

The cause of the arc flash is as follows: [Here I am mostly talking about high power utilities type powerlines that can be carrying thousands of amps of current at tens or hundreds of thousands of volts, as shown in the video Mr Townshend posted.]

When a circuit breaker tries to break open the circuit, the electrical resistance at the contacts goes from very low to very high. As the switch opens, and since nothing can be instantaneous, the local resistance at the contacting point rises at a finite rate. Power = I^2 R and since I (current) is huge and R (resistance) is rising, there is highly intense local heating at the contact separation point. The heating is enough to cause the air in the vicinity to ionize. The ionized air, unlike normal air, is electrically conductive, and can therefore sustain the electricity flow (as opposed to cutting it off). This is how the arc is developed and sustained, especially when the supply voltage is many thousands volts or more. The circuit is only truly opened when the arc is extinguished. You can also imagine the amount of power released in these arcs (thousands of volts times thousands of amps).

All of this can happen without any inductance in the system. To prove me wrong, please provide any reference as to how to size arc resistant switchgear based on the length of the cables. After all, isn't the amount of "store charge in the capacitance and magnetic field in the inductance" directly proportional to the cable length?

 

[MrPeabody]

Your remark did trigger me to go through the whole topic again in a thorough way, and since it's weekend, this was a good moment ;-)

I am confused, and that's not about all theories, opinions, wisdoms I read, but looking back at the forum name "AudioScience" it appears most take the science part, and only few share actual personal listening experiences in general or even better with Max's cables.
For an analogy it makes me think of specialist technical people trying to fix a piece of equipment, take everything apart and half-way it seems a good idea to check the mains plug or fuse. No offence here, do bare with me (I am like that in many years of engineering but still learning better approaches).

For the cable stuff (and other assumed magical audio areas) I learned that not all audible stuff can be measured or calculated, so listening is the best start. Yes, double blind testing preferred even though sometimes it is not easy or practical. Next step would be, if there IS difference, try to understand/explain/investigate/measure. With this, further changes can be driven and hopefully for the best. If there is no difference, who cares. It is not audible to you on your system for your ears/brain. If one could not verify an improvement in that personal setup, why change?

For what Max is doing, to me it is not the most important he is 100% correct on statements, measurements, theory (as most can not be 100% correct), it did trigger a big discussion so there must be something interesting in this and his resilience in getting back to these discussions again and again is impressive and to me admirable. Mind you, he wouldn't have to do this at all. Many suppliers create products, put it on the market and the only interface is their web-site to place orders.

(As wiser person as myself mentioned something like, that when people are born and start their learning, one of the most important skills is speaking and how to listen is secondary)

For audio, listening and experiencing musical emotions is crucial, so why not start there.....?

Other "vague" audio areas, well it was never for me until I start to listen to them without any assumptions or trying rationalise it. Examples: Grounding boxes (still haven't figured out why it sounded better in a demo), Waxed inductors in cross overs compared to air-wound (No difference measured but dramatic delta in sound), And I replaced an expensive Duelund capacitor by a cheaper better sounding one...and the explanation? Nowhere on the internet (or universe if you like)

Listen, analyse, measure, theory, improve, listen, analyse, measure...(do add steps where ever it fits ;-) )

This post seems very insincere to me. You wrote:

For the cable stuff (and other assumed magical audio areas) I learned that not all audible stuff can be measured or calculated, so listening is the best start.

This isn't sincere. You claim that stuff that is audible is not measurable. You have no justification for this claim. At face value it is bogus, because at face value, there is no possible way that you could ever prove that something that you heard (or had convinced yourself that you heard) was incapable of being measured. This should have been apparent to you if you had thought about it for a moment. It is apparent that you weren't concerned with whether what you wrote was true. You just thought it would be cool to come here and say that there is stuff that is audible that can't be measured, even though you had no reason to think this is true, and even though it should have been obvious that it is a nonsensical notion. So why did you do this?

If you want to counter by giving an example of something that is audible but not capable of being measured, please make certain that you have a very solid reason for claiming that it can't be measured. Anecdotes must be avoided when responding to this. You can't just say something like, "I'm sure I heard what I heard, but I didn't see it measured anywhere." Were you to respond in this manner, there would then be two errors in reasoning. One of them is the error of claiming you heard something without proving that you heard it. The other is in the suggestion that not having seen something measured is poof that it can't be measured. This is an obvious logical error. As for the first error, people often fall back and punt by saying if they heard something, this is all that matters to them. When making a claim that something is true in an absolute sense, i.e., that it is more than perception, it is necessary to present evidence that you truly did hear what you claim to have heard.

 

[Jinjuku]

@ Max Townshend

Do you have the tracking # that you could post here to see where the cables are in transit to Amir?

 

[MrPeabody]

I want to say some things that need to be said here in the plainest manner possible. I hope that I can do that, i.e., say it plainly.

1. Max Townshend has provided compelling evidence that in general there will be measurable differences in the impedance characteristics of different cables.

2. There was nothing new about that. It was not any sort of revelation to anyone. It is something that most informed and reasonable people would have taken for granted, that if you try hard enough, it will be possible to distinguish any two cables from each other by their measured electrical characteristics.

3. Max Townshend has implicitly claimed that these measurable differences translate to audible differences, but he did not offer anything to back this up. As such, what he is actually claiming that any difference that you can measure is a difference that is certain to be audible.

The claim that he should be challenged on is the claim that any difference that you can measure is a difference that is certain to be audible. Reasonable people will take for granted, for good reason, that this claim isn't true. Reasonable people will further conclude that Max Townshend should have known that this claim is not true, and that he almost certainly did know that this claim is not true.

 

[MrPeabody]

... What still stands......listening ;-)

Meaning what exactly? That measurements don't matter unless they correlate with audibility? Well, you should tell this to Max Townshend, but he has spent a lot energy trying to convince us all that any electrical difference that can be measured is certain to be audible. Did you not notice that this is what he did?

 

[Arno Fennix]

Ok, I give up. Sorry, I must have been misunderstanding a lot.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I could be in a bit of bad mood today ...


High End manufacturers from time to time, post in objective fora, Some of them ,even manage to appear knowledgeable. It is IMO, part of a marketing ploy. The posts in the objective fora and those manufacturers' courageous stance against the ferocious tin-eared populace, legitimize the products .... in a

see! even the so-called objectivists could not argue , that the effects are real

-way. They can go back to their markets and spew more of the bovine manure since now they have "proofs", with subsequent positive effects on their bottom line
Are we seeing this here? From the tenor of Mr Townsend replies, as I, empasis on "I", interpret these non response to specific questions, I say YES!

Peace

 

[BDWoody]

So, once Amir gets the cable, we will have more to talk about in the new thread he opens. Until then, this isn't going anywhere useful.

Edit:. Opened for final comment by @solderdude

 

[solderdude]

Remarkable wisdoms..
Edit (could not resist), a Dude would have said "Well yeah....it's like your opinion mannn" (Or even "this agression will not stand mannn..." But seriously, it's all about listening to the cables and then trying to explain it. What Max is doing, I see as what is common in R&D to state a hypothesis and next try to go through test (experiments, which Max also calls what he does), analysis and discussions. As I saw in the 5Dec video, Max is very open and willing to move with better ideas. I like the constructive approach when it comes to scrutinising technical stuff and ideas, it will get everyone further (and in a respectful way)

I will try to explain what you saw and the real world significance once more:

The step shot does not exist in audio. What you see are the highest harmonics that differ. I won't deny that the cable doesn't work. It does and when Amir gets the cable he will measure the same but at least (I hope) he will also show the references.

Now what you see (and hear) is a substantial loss in higher frequencies ACROSS 1 conductor of the cable.
Lets do some simple math...

The previously posted plots with all the weird configurations shows differences between 'normal' cable and 'isolda' cable.
The 'normal' cable shows 9.5dB loss and the Isolda 2.5dB loss at 20kHz. A stunning 7 dB right ? That MUST be audible.
Here is the fun about dB's ... they are nothing more than a ratio.
In this case with the same current and DC resistance of the cable both the Isolda and 'normal' geometry cable it is clear the Isolda is best.
The generic cable with the same DC resistance is clearly higher.
But how high IS this really.

2.5dB (opposite a short which is 0 Ohm) is the DC resistance of 1 conductor in a cable.
2.5dB = factor 1.3
The 'normal' cable at 20kHz = 9.5dB = factor 2.98
This means the difference from DC resistance (and resistance of Isolda at 20kHz) thus is a factor 2.3

The Isolda cable is specified by Max on his website as 8.4mOhm/meter.
We are looking at 1 conductor and a cable has 2 in series. This means 4.2mOhm/meter per conductor.
The cable is 7m long thus the cable resistance of the 1 conductor that is measured across is 29.4mOhm.
As the 'normal' cable is also 29.4mOhm (or very close to it acc to his measurements) the resistance of the 'normal' cable at 20kHz is not 29.4mOhm but a factor 2.3 higher = 67.6mOhm.
Now... the total cable resistance = 58.8 mOhm and the 'normal' cable is 135.2 mOhm

Lets assume we have an 8 Ohm speaker that is purely resistive We get simple voltage division.
0.059Ohm (=59mOhm) + 8 Ohm leaves 0.9927 x Uin = -0.064dB loss
In the 'normal' cable at 20kHz we have 0.135Ohm + 8 Ohm = 0.9834 x Uin = -0.145dB loss.
And this is without the obligatory 1.5uH inductor in front of the cable... more about that later.

This means with a 7m cable you get a whopping 0.08dB less energy at 20kHz compared to a 7m Isolda cable.
The price you have to pay = $ 4000.- for an inaudible small 0.08dB more treble.
Normal 'speaker wire' will cost you less than $ 100.- ... This is -32dB in $ opposite Max's cable (dB's are so much fun)

Now... to ensure the low inductance (which is completely undone by the added 1.5μH inductors so 3μH) and high capacitance cable is safe for all amps and assuming the DC resistance is 0 Ohm (is higher of course) the inductor will add 0 Ohm for DC but at 20kHz its resistance = 0.38 Ohm.

We need to do the calculus again but with the 0.38Ohm at 20kHz added.
0.059Ohm (=59mOhm) + 8 Ohm leaves 0.9927 x Uin = -0.064dB loss (its more as the inductor is not 0 Ohm)
In the 'normal' cable at 20kHz we have 0.135Ohm + 8 Ohm = 0.9834 x Uin = -0.145dB loss.
With the inductor added we have 0.439 + 8 Ohm = 0.948 x Uin = -0.46dB at 20kHz.

This changes everything... When the cable is equipped with the inductor the $4k miracle cable will have 0.315 dB LESS treble energy than a 'normal' cable.

So you pay $4k and get 0.315dB less treble at 20kHz where one is led to believe you get 0.145dB more treble energy because of the demonstration and paper where the extra inductors are left out.

Now you get that the 'tremendous research' amounts to no gain at all except for Max's wallet. I like the guy so its fine if people are willing to donate substantial amounts once in a while to feed his family. That's all what the rich guys buying these cables are doing.
They are buying an illusion.

Any idea why Max doesn't show you the differences across the speaker and only across one conductor ?
Well the above is the reason.

I hope, when @amirm gets the cable he will measure the input vs output and perhaps a real world speaker on his awesome klippel device and shows everyone the huge gain in quality across a speaker.