Townsend Isolda cable

[Max Townshend]

I don’t know. People can have genuine convictions and be wrong, but unable to see that. Mr Townshend seems to be in this category. He comes back to the thread and repeats his points over and over as if speaking to a bunch of kids who don’t understand them. One doesn’t do that when one is knowingly bamboozling people. When reading through the thread, I was almost hoping to see him come back saying that he’d understood his mistake, as he seems to be a nice old chap.

What mistake?
I understand this

and am

and this.

Please point out my mistake?

 

[SIY]

The misuse and misapplication. If you actually understand E&M, as you claim, you’ve proved my point that this isn’t a mistake, it’s deliberate.

 

[ahofer]

It seems like Alpha waves are at subsonic frequency ( 8-12Hz) so perhaps it takes a subsonic wave to hear a hypersonic difference. And is it being suggested we are too beta to hear the difference? or blind-testing is an activity only for Beta Audiophiles? Hmm.

More seriously, lots of blind tests have allowed people hours, and even days, of listening, and it hasn't changed the results with cables and amps. I'll have to dig it up, but there was a test where they simply disguised speaker cables and power cords, and let the users swap them however they like. So the presence of more meditative alpha waves should not have been a problem. I'd suggest we try that, but I have a feeling some other objections might suddenly appear.

I'm actually thrilled a cable believer is hanging in there here. The question is how we turn this into a valid experiment. It would be thrilling, from my point of view, if there were really an audible difference in cables. I doubt it, but it would be great. What sort of controlled, blind experiment design would Mr. Townshend be interested in?

 

[StefaanE]

Although you could be right, this looks to me to be calculated and deliberate. One tipoff is the continual hiding of test details, not to mention the absolutely ludicrous dishonesty about testing for audibility and why he refuses to do it. This reads exactly like the stuff that fake psychics use as tactics, including the running away from actual tests of their claims.

Yeah. I’ve never managed to understand that category of people. They know they are deliberately taking advantage of people’s gullibilty or naivety, consciously lying and cheating. If I’d do that, I’d feel terrible and couldn’t look at myself in a mirror. But they do exist. Sad really.

 

[win]

Big shout out for those Eugene Khutoryansky videos. I love those!

 

[mansr]

Yeah. I’ve never managed to understand that category of people. They know they are deliberately taking advantage of people’s gullibilty or naivety, consciously lying and cheating. If I’d do that, I’d feel terrible and couldn’t look at myself in a mirror. But they do exist. Sad really.

That's why they are rich and you are not.

 

[pozz]

What mistake?
I understand this

and am

and this.

Please point out my mistake?

Ignoring these videos and the rest of the discussion, can you please identify the reference for the y axis of the aforementioned Fig. 3?

 

[solderdude]

The Y axis is simply a dB scale. It comes out of his ADC.
He is measuring the voltage across (I believe to be 1 conductor) of a 7m ? (or 10m ?) cable into his dummy load.
I suspect, however, that when he is measuring his cable he neglected to tell us he is using his inductor and boucherot filter where in all the other cables he is not using this.

When using the dummy load and not using the boucherot filter for the 'normal' speaker cable I calculated a difference of 0.09dB across the dummy load compared to the Isolda.
So with the Isolda cable you end up with 0.1dB more 20kHz compared to 1kHz.. Wow.

 

[Max Townshend]

There is no extra R, C, or L, as it might distort the results.
The main reason for the test in the first place was to find a simple measurement that quantified the difference between different geometries. The easiest way is to see what the voltage drop was across a single conductor. There is no sleight of hand or skullduggery going on here. I am an engineer and engineers only work with the truth, because everyone can see when your bridge falls down. (doctors bury their mistakes, lawyers suggest better luck next time, accountants can come up with any figures they like). What fascinates me, is the imagination of the trolls who don't want to know.
I know there is a difference between cables and the is not down to a slight frequency variation at 20kHz, there is something more going on and I have tried to identify it.
Please participate in the Zoom call at 6 PM GMT 5 Dec 2020. Details to follow.

 

[Cbdb2]

So give us the "truth", properly label the y axis as has been asked half a dozen times. Right now it looks like a short has signal across it. Are you also denying ohms law? Answer the other questions I asked ,like why dosnt your graph look like my sim. Sometimes the bridge dosnt fall but it cost twice as much to build. All youve found is a way to exagerate the minute differences in freq response at 20khz. And then find a way to record it, how much gain did that take. You obviously dont understand EM theory, (any one can watch a video, do the math that backs up your cable claims) because you keep insisting that wave lenght dosnt matter even though thats EE 101.

And your right about one thing, doctors bury there mistakes, in the ground. Accountants can make up numbers? You need a new accountant.

 

[SIY]

So give us the "truth", properly label the y axis as has been asked half a dozen times.

With a reference.

 

[Cbdb2]

What mistake?
I understand this

and am

and this.

Please point out my mistake?

Your mistake is thinking there talking about DC and not a step response. When you close a switch the load end sees a voltage step. Thats whats you should use in your equations. Oh yea you dont have any.

 

[Max Townshend]

As an engineer it is properly labelled. It is the readout that comes with the REW. There is nothing left to add.
If you don't like it, ask questions on the Zoom call 6 PM GMT 5 Dec 2020

 

[Max Townshend]

Your mistake is thinking there talking about DC and not a step response. When you close a switch the load end sees a voltage step. Thats whats you should use in your equations. Oh yea you dont have any.

If you had read chapter 14 All About Circuits chapter 14, you would not have said that.

 

[SIY]

As an engineer it is properly labelled. It is the readout that comes with the REW. There is nothing left to add.
If you don't like it, ask questions on the Zoom call 6 PM GMT 5 Dec 2020

It’s neither labeled nor is a reference stated. As an engineer or otherwise.

 

[Cbdb2]

As an engineer it is properly labelled. It is the readout that comes with the REW. There is nothing left to add.
If you don't like it, ask questions on the Zoom call 6 PM GMT 5 Dec 2020

As an engineer you should know a db is just a ratio and means nothing without knowing what its comparing. As in dbu dbv dbspl dbm. Is 0db 1volt, 1 nano volt, 1nano amp.

 

[Cbdb2]

If you had read chapter 14 All About Circuits chapter 14, you would not have said that.

So your denying a switch produces a voltage step? if you really have an EE education, which Im starting to doubt, you would not have said that.

 

[Max Townshend]

It is a voltage readout. It depends upon how many volts you put in at the amplifier end. It could be 1mV, 1V or 100V, the garphs would all be the same. These tests were done with about 1 volt. but that is irrelevant.

 

[Max Townshend]

So your denying a switch produces a voltage step? if you really have an EE education, which Im starting to doubt, you would not have said that.

The switch produces a step, 0 to 1V which sends DC to the other end, with the capacitance charging up and the magnetic field building up, drawing a net DC. If the wires were infinitely long, the steady DC Voltage divided by the current would be a resistance equal to the characteristic impedance of the cable. That is the start of lesson 1 in transmission line theory when I went to university. see attached

 

[mansr]

Oh dear.