"Ted Edwards" wrote in message
news:ciqTd.2339$ab2.2262@edtnps89...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

That's a great tip, Larry. Would you mind detailing how these ferrite
rings
are installed?

With the controls of the system set for normal listening, stop the CD,
tape or whatever. Turn up the volume control about 5 or 10 db and
listen carefully. If you don't hear any stray signals, as they say,
"Don't fix it if it ain't broke." If you do hear a bit of a local
brodcast station or ???, try the ferrite beads.

Ted

Thanks, Ted. Now I understand what I'd be looking for.

One question I've had for years is why I have some (very little, but
noticeable) 60 hz in one channel and not the other. Been that way since I
bought the Mc2300 way back in '75. Any clues?

Harold

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:30:02 -0500, axolotl wrote:
Ted Edwards wrote:


Forget it!! There is more BS in the field of audio than any other -

Antennas come pretty close, though.

Like the stick-on antenna you can buy for the _back_ of your
cellphone, for instance?

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
I'm no EE, but I can't help but feel that the monster cable craze is
*somewhat* over rated.

I am an EE (well, technically I am, but I've never practiced it) and
I've never understood this craze with speaker wire size. There are only
a couple of fundamental parameters that apply: resistance, capacitance,
and inductance.

Resistance: if you deliver 100 watts (an enormance amount) to an 8 ohm
speaker, 3.5 amps will flow. Wire resistance has 2 effects: heating and
voltage drop. In 16 ga wire, the current density will be about
1ma/circ-mill. I.e., heating will be minimal. 200 feet of 16 ga wire
(100 feet each way) has a resistance of .8 ohms. Carrying 3.5 amps the
wire will have a voltage drop of 2.8 v. Putting it another way, the
wire will consume 10 watts (10%). I'm not sure how this is relevant
since voltage/power drop is just compensated for by cranking up the
volume. So 16 ga wire should more than meet the resistance requirement.

I wouldn't think that the capacitance and inductance of the wire could
be anything but negligible. And I can't see how the wire size would
have a significant effect on them even if they aren't negligible.

There is another consideration: that of the wire acting as an antenna.
This wouldn't effect the loudspeaker, but could feedback to the
amplifier. Again, I would think that wire size would not be a
consideration for this effect.

I fully intend to run stranded 10 gage THHN wires to my speaker
locations ...

Use 14 ga: it will be a lot cheaper, it will be a lot easier, and it
will be way more that necessary.

But don't take my word for it - I'm sure that this has been debated
endlessly on the "hi-fi" NG's - Google is your friend.

Bob


Thanks, Bob. I appreciate your candor and excellent information.

Unfortunately, I'm one of those guys that thinks if a little power is good,
more is better. I currently run a McIntosh 2300, rated at 300
watts/channel, and will meet specs pulling over 400. I, on occasion,
drive it that hard. I have three sets of speakers (two sets of JBL S8R's
and a Paragon) and I haven't exactly abandoned my desire for a larger
amplifier, thinking I may go to a 600 watt/channel model. Yeah, I'm
nuts. g

One of my speaker sets will be a great distance from the amplifier. As the
crow flies, perhaps only 60 feet, but as the wire runs, it's likely to be
about 120. I figure using #10 wire isn't a bad idea, considering the
amperage involved is considerable, and the run long. Please feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong. My only claim to this stuff is my love for the
gear and music, I certainly am not knowledgeable.

Considering the additional information I've provided, would you still
recommend using the #14 wire? I can't help but feel the line loss could be
minimized with the #10.

Harold

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:21:06 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:



I'm no EE, but I can't help but feel that the monster cable craze is
*somewhat* over rated. I fully intend to run stranded 10 gage THHN
wires
to my speaker locations in the new house I'm building, and out to the
shop,
underground, in conduit.

Round-trip resistance of a 100 ft run of 12 gage is about 0.375 ohms,
less than 5% of the Z of an 8 ohm speaker. 14 gage would be about 0.6
ohms total.

Skin depth in copper at 20 KHz is about .014 in -- but there isn't
high-frequency power in music. Stranded wire won't help much with
skin effect unless the strands are insulated from each other as in
Litz wire.

Given the skin depth, use of gold-plated anything is absolutely
absurd.

The only exception I might make here is that your connections would
certainly be better, considering gold doesn't corrode the way copper and
other elements do. The only problem I've seen is that the typical gold
connector is so thin that it almost wipes off with your fingers. If you
could buy connectors with a thou of gold flashed on, I can't help but think
you'd benefit by not getting noisy connections.

My choice in using stranded as opposed to solid is for other reasons. I've
pulled enough wire through conduit to know solid is much more difficult. I
also like the fact that it is easier to work with when wiring, and isn't as
prone to breaking from bending. At my age, anything to make it easier works
for me!

Thanks to everyone for the great information.

Harold

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

The only exception I might make here is that your connections would
certainly be better, considering gold doesn't corrode the way copper and
other elements do. The only problem I've seen is that the typical gold
connector is so thin that it almost wipes off with your fingers. If you
could buy connectors with a thou of gold flashed on, I can't help but think
you'd benefit by not getting noisy connections.

Gold is indeed only a poor third place in conductivity, but it
comes in first place for connector plating, because of its
freedom from oxidation. Gold contacts (gold on gold) are
also self-lubricating which is another reason it is chosen
for switch contacts.

It's not just a noise issue - connectors and switches for
small signal applications need to 'dry switch.' By this
I mean the contact resistance has to be very low, even
for small signals. Most larger power switches will show
a fairly large (fractions of an ohm) contact resistance
until an arc forms and blasts the contact area clean.

The contacts in those switches are often made of an alloy
of silver and cadmium. When I worked at GTE, there was a
man there who did nothing but test different alloys to
try to make contacts that worked as well as the existing
ones, but *without* the cadmium!

Connector and switch manufacturers understand how much gold
has to be put on to give a reliable number of operations
for the device. The thicker the plating, the longer it will
last in service.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:28:32 -0500, the inscrutable Larry Green
spake:

100 honest, real, continuous, watts of sound are outrageously loud and
are apt to damage anyone's hearing.

I agree with this statement entirely! I used to work in a recording
studio and 'looked after' my hearing as it was a vital part of my job.
The number of times 'bands' would ask for the volume to be 'cranked up'
during mixing got beyond a joke. They didn't appreciate that your ears
very rapidly get tired when exposed to loud music and your critical
judgement gets shot to hell! Several hours of listening to the same
track over and over is wearing enough at the best of times without
having the volume 'pinning you to the wall'!

That reminds me of one of the last scenes in "The Italian Job" movie.
One of the thieves who wound up with the gold bought his favorite
speakers, known to be "loud enough to blow the clothes right off a
woman". That scene showed it.


---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:28:32 -0500, the inscrutable Larry Green
spake:


100 honest, real, continuous, watts of sound are outrageously loud and
are apt to damage anyone's hearing.

I agree with this statement entirely! I used to work in a recording
studio and 'looked after' my hearing as it was a vital part of my job.
The number of times 'bands' would ask for the volume to be 'cranked up'
during mixing got beyond a joke. They didn't appreciate that your ears
very rapidly get tired when exposed to loud music and your critical
judgement gets shot to hell! Several hours of listening to the same
track over and over is wearing enough at the best of times without
having the volume 'pinning you to the wall'!


That reminds me of one of the last scenes in "The Italian Job" movie.
One of the thieves who wound up with the gold bought his favorite
speakers, known to be "loud enough to blow the clothes right off a
woman". That scene showed it.



LOL....I guess that must be in the recent re-make of the movie as I
certainly don't remember it from the original 60's version.

--
Larry Green

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:59:20 -0500, the inscrutable Larry Green
spake:

I said:
That reminds me of one of the last scenes in "The Italian Job" movie.
One of the thieves who wound up with the gold bought his favorite
speakers, known to be "loud enough to blow the clothes right off a
woman". That scene showed it.

LOL....I guess that must be in the recent re-make of the movie as I
certainly don't remember it from the original 60's version.

It was the newest version, and speaking of Greens, Seth Green was the
thief who did it. I recognized him and went over to meet him at the
Magic Castle in HelL.A. a few years ago. Cool dude. He used to work
with Jennifer Love Hewitt. drool I bet he'd have used that stereo
on her with glee.


---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

"Larry Green" wrote in message
...

Whatever type you use they have to be fitted at each end of each set of
'long' wires in your system


Why both ends? My monitor cable has only one at the 15 pin plug end. Is
the other one inside the monitor case?

Shawn

"Larry Green" wrote in message
...

Whatever type you use they have to be fitted at each end of each set of
'long' wires in your system



Why both ends? My monitor cable has only one at the 15 pin plug end. Is
the other one inside the monitor case?

Shawn



There could be (and possibly is) internal filtering on your monitor but
my guess is the manufacturer was trying to save a few cents/pennies. It
is certainly more 'usual' to see them fitted at each end particularly in
the case of long speaker wires.

--
Larry Green

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 24 Feb 2005 19:49:56 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

Even if you are, you won't know the difference. Time domain
reflectometry comparison between Monster Cable and #14 zip cord showed
no difference in signal quality in a band from 0 to 100MHz.

Don't you know that expensive cables improve "believability" of sound?
G

As soon as you can put "believability" into engineering terms I can
measure, I'll be happy to measure it. I used to work with a guy who
was an freak amongst audiophiles - granite turntable, magnapan speakers,
tube amps, cables the size of your arm, and all that. Yeah, sure, it
sounded good, but...the Bose system for a few hundred bucks sounds
pretty damn good too, y'know?

Umpty eleven years ago, I went with my Dad to buy a stereo. Went to
Japan, and I doubled his "duty free" amount. [Hmmm - half that stereo was
mine.] He'd been talking to the audiophiles, and they basically told him
"if you got a hundred dollar ear, buy the hundred dollar stereo. If you
have the fifty dollar year, buy the fifty dollar stereo." (Tells you hold
long ago this was).
His response was "I've got a ten dollar ear ..."

So I got a week in Japan with my Dad, as he shopped around. Lots of
fun for a twelve year old kid.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

Jim,
Just goes to show ya how much you know. Ted probably knows how to build a
TDR that'll show minute differences in the gold plating.

Bob Swinney
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article r4qTd.475$_G.97@clgrps12, Ted Edwards says...

Even if you are, you won't know the difference. Time domain
reflectometry comparison between Monster Cable and #14 zip cord showed
no difference in signal quality in a band from 0 to 100MHz.

Ah but Ted. You should know more than anyone that TDR
measurements won't show the real effect taht true audiophools
can hear. Their ears are so much more sensitive than those
instruments.

How else could they justify buying those gold-plated power
connectors?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Robert Swinney says...

Jim,
Just goes to show ya how much you know. Ted probably knows how to build a
TDR that'll show minute differences in the gold plating.

I do know that all gold-plating is not the same. Trompeter
(the connector guys) understand that you cannot strike with
nickel first under the gold, like many folks do.

You actually can see the distortion from that.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 25 Feb 2005 12:16:51 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Robert Swinney says...

Jim,
Just goes to show ya how much you know. Ted probably knows how to build a
TDR that'll show minute differences in the gold plating.

I do know that all gold-plating is not the same. Trompeter
(the connector guys) understand that you cannot strike with
nickel first under the gold, like many folks do.

You actually can see the distortion from that.

At audio frequencies?

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Swinney says...

Jim,
Just goes to show ya how much you know. Ted probably knows how to build
a
TDR that'll show minute differences in the gold plating.

I do know that all gold-plating is not the same. Trompeter
(the connector guys) understand that you cannot strike with
nickel first under the gold, like many folks do.

You actually can see the distortion from that.

Jim


That's an interesting observation. If you don't know, the reason the
nickel is plated to begin with is to prevent migration of the gold to the
base metal. In my years of refining I discovered it was pretty much common
practice to find nickel under gold plating when stripping. Sir T.K. Rose
concluded long ago that gold and silver have an affinity for certain metals
and will migrate to them when in close proximity, and they need not be
molten or even hot. Ingots of pure silver and pure gold end up
transferring to one another when in contact, for example. Nickel prevents
the migration. If what you say is correct, unless gold is plated quite
thick (I have no idea what that may mean) , there is likely no benefit in
using it at all, because, over time, and it's not long, it simply vanishes.
One problem gets replaced with another. Comments?

Harold

On 25 Feb 2005 12:16:51 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Robert Swinney says...

Jim,
Just goes to show ya how much you know. Ted probably knows how to build a
TDR that'll show minute differences in the gold plating.

I do know that all gold-plating is not the same. Trompeter
(the connector guys) understand that you cannot strike with
nickel first under the gold, like many folks do.

You actually can see the distortion from that.

Jim

Trompeter makes a lot of their stuff on my machines.

So does Maury Microwave
http://www.maurymw.com/aboutus/plant...ine/mach26.jpg

Gunner

It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
....
Unfortunately, I'm one of those guys that thinks if a little power is good,
more is better. I currently run a McIntosh 2300, rated at 300
watts/channel, and will meet specs pulling over 400. I, on occasion,
drive it that hard. ...

Jimminy Crickets!! (as my mother would say)

thinking I may go to a 600 watt/channel model. ...
Considering the additional information I've provided, would you still
recommend using the #14 wire? ...

Never mind what I said before, I definitely think that you would not be
happy with anything less than #10 wire. (How's that for not answering
the question?)

Bob

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

You actually can see the distortion from that.

That's an interesting observation. If you don't know, the reason the
nickel is plated to begin with is to prevent migration of the gold to the
base metal. In my years of refining I discovered it was pretty much common
practice to find nickel under gold plating when stripping. Sir T.K. Rose
concluded long ago that gold and silver have an affinity for certain metals
and will migrate to them when in close proximity, and they need not be
molten or even hot. Ingots of pure silver and pure gold end up
transferring to one another when in contact, for example. Nickel prevents
the migration. If what you say is correct, unless gold is plated quite
thick (I have no idea what that may mean) , there is likely no benefit in
using it at all, because, over time, and it's not long, it simply vanishes.
One problem gets replaced with another. Comments?

Transition metals are commonly used as both diffusion barriers and
as adhesion layers. (Ti, Ni, Mo, W, etc)

The first prevents the plated, or deposited, layer from diffussing into
the the substrate. This is a real issue in semiconductor processing,
where it's important to keep layers of metal (wiring) on chips from
being contaminated by the layers adjacent. This is especially important
because some of the processing is carried out at elevated temperatures.
A layer of, say, Ti, that is about 200 atomic layers thick will
suffice to keep the layers of the cake from smearing out.

Adhesion layers are another issue. This is why nickel strikes are
used under gold plating as a rule.

Adhesion is a peculiar thing - what makes one thing 'stick' to another?
At atomic levels this question is a) of considerable practical interest
and b) not entirely well understood. There's a lot of research being
done on the fundamentals.

I can recall desperately trying to figure out some way to deposit
copper on sapphire stubstrates - but it would *not* stick. The
common trick is to put down a Ni adhesion layer, but nickel is magnetic
and for our work that was unacceptable.

That company I mentioned (trompeter) makes rf connectors for low
level, high freqency applications. All of the other connectors
I investigated were magnetic because of the ni strike in the plating
process. Because they build for the small-signal rf market - mostly
satallite communications gear - they understand that distortion of
the rf signal can occur from any magnetic materials in the connector,
so they use something they call a "pulse plating" process to
eliminate the Ni strike beforehand. This is specifically to
replace an *adhesion* layer, not a diffusion barrier.

Does the gold diffuse through into the brass metal underneath?

I honestly don't know. They may use some other kind of diffusion
barrier, but I've never seen them degrade over the 20 or so years
I've been using them. I will look up in their catalog at work
and find their spec for plating thickness.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article ,

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
thinking I may go to a 600 watt/channel model. ...
Considering the additional information I've provided, would you still
recommend using the #14 wire? ...

Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Never mind what I said before, I definitely think that you would not be
happy with anything less than #10 wire. (How's that for not answering
the question?)

Oh, heck, run some 4/0 welding cables...Or just put the conduit to hold
them in place, slap the speaker on one end of it, and a speaker grille
on the far end ;-)

Actually, I think the earlier suggestion to run shielded signal cables
and place an amplifier near the far-away speakers is the best solution
for long runs.

Your long run is "about 120 feet". Here's the resistance for 120 feet of
copper wire, and the effect on 600 watts into 8 ohms. 600 watts into 8
ohms is 69.76 volts at 8.6 amps. The volts are the voltage drop for 120
feet of wire at that amperage, and the watts are the power dropped in
the wire, out of 600 watts. I suppose you should double all this since
the wire is to and fro, or 240 feet total.

14ga = 0.3 ohms 2.66 volts 23 watts
12ga = 0.2 1.67 15
10ga = 0.12 1.05 9
8ga = 0.07 0.66 5.6
6ga = 0.05 0.41 3.5
4ga = 0.03 0.26 2.2
4/0 = 0.006 0.05 0.4

So if you really want to satisfy the criteria (someone mentioned, don't
know how much it matters, personally) that you should keep speaker wire
resistance to 0.1 ohms, you'd need to go to 6ga for the 120 foot (240
feet round-trip) run. And you'll have to run back to the house to change
the volume. If you put in a sheilded signal cable, carrying essentially
no power, you can use tiny wire, and you'd have direct volume control in
the shop, where those speakers are (if I understand your setup
correctly).

--
Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by

"Ecnerwal" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
thinking I may go to a 600 watt/channel model. ...
Considering the additional information I've provided, would you still
recommend using the #14 wire? ...

Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Never mind what I said before, I definitely think that you would not be
happy with anything less than #10 wire. (How's that for not answering
the question?)

Oh, heck, run some 4/0 welding cables...Or just put the conduit to hold
them in place, slap the speaker on one end of it, and a speaker grille
on the far end ;-)

Actually, I think the earlier suggestion to run shielded signal cables
and place an amplifier near the far-away speakers is the best solution
for long runs.

Your long run is "about 120 feet". Here's the resistance for 120 feet of
copper wire, and the effect on 600 watts into 8 ohms. 600 watts into 8
ohms is 69.76 volts at 8.6 amps. The volts are the voltage drop for 120
feet of wire at that amperage, and the watts are the power dropped in
the wire, out of 600 watts. I suppose you should double all this since
the wire is to and fro, or 240 feet total.

14ga = 0.3 ohms 2.66 volts 23 watts
12ga = 0.2 1.67 15
10ga = 0.12 1.05 9
8ga = 0.07 0.66 5.6
6ga = 0.05 0.41 3.5
4ga = 0.03 0.26 2.2
4/0 = 0.006 0.05 0.4

So if you really want to satisfy the criteria (someone mentioned, don't
know how much it matters, personally) that you should keep speaker wire
resistance to 0.1 ohms, you'd need to go to 6ga for the 120 foot (240
feet round-trip) run. And you'll have to run back to the house to change
the volume. If you put in a sheilded signal cable, carrying essentially
no power, you can use tiny wire, and you'd have direct volume control in
the shop, where those speakers are (if I understand your setup
correctly).

Chuckle! Yeah, I could do that, but if you've priced Mc amplifiers (I'll
settle for nothing less), you'll understand how cheap large wire looks to
me.

The likelihood of me using anywhere near even 200 watts in the shop is
relatively remote. I can fill a large (*very large*) room with a few watts.
It's very easy for me to overwhelm the loudest of noises with what I have
now, but I'd like the additional power in reserve for heavy passages at
moderate volume. Think 1812 Overture, Carmina Burana, or Toccata & Fugue
in D Minor. The chance of using the 600 continuously is not very
realistic. By the time I'm pulling 300 watts continuous it's not a very
friendly environment. And I wonder why I have tinnitus? g

I recall an experience of many years ago,when I was running a smaller amp
(Mc 2105, two channels @ 105 watts/channel). I had installed some cheap
speakers in the shop and wanted to control the volume. on location. I
knew the output was severe, but was talking with a typical bonehead that
works in a supply store that isn't really in tune with output, apparently.
He provided me with a pair of what I think were called L pads. Rheostats,
more or less, but I'm not sure. I told him that I'd likely smoke them
quite fast, considering the amp had a lot more output than the rating, which
I recall to be 20 watts. He looked at me as if I didn't understand the
least thing about sound gear and told me that I simply don't have enough
power to hurt them, that they were intended to be used exactly as I desired.
Took them home, got them in installed in a couple of handy boxes on the
wall, turned on the stereo and the smoke got out almost instantly.

After much inquiring from various sources, I ended up with a pair of what
must be autoformers, made to be used exactly as I desire, equipped with a
faceplate and several positions nicely marked, which handled the load with
no problems, each of which mounted in the same boxes. I'll use that same
setup again, the only difference being the speakers will be different. I
was fortunate to see them for sale in the paper, being sold because the
cabinets were trash, but the speakers are fine. Price was right, especially
when I've seen the 375 drivers selling for a grand each. I paid just more
than half that for the set of speakers. Hey, they're for the shop.
Cabinets can be ugly. My typical practice is to set volume slightly
higher than I'd like it to be, then control in the shop. I can shut it
right off if the phone rings, or get above the sound of my whining lathe
taking roughing cuts in stainless. It worked fine for years, so I'm hoping
it will here in our new digs, too.

Thanks for the great input. Right now I'm still thinking 10 ga, but
certainly nothing smaller. From the figures provided, it looks like things
get right out of control with smaller than 12 gage wire.

Harold

jim rozen wrote:
I do know that all gold-plating is not the same. Trompeter
(the connector guys) understand that you cannot strike with
nickel first under the gold, like many folks do.

You actually can see the distortion from that.

Jim, I sincerely hope that you don't seriously expect to see any
distortion at audio frequencies resulting from the plated layers found
in connectors.

Maybe at X-band but ...

Ted

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

You actually can see the distortion from that.

That's an interesting observation. If you don't know, the reason the
nickel is plated to begin with is to prevent migration of the gold to the
base metal. In my years of refining I discovered it was pretty much
common
practice to find nickel under gold plating when stripping. Sir T.K.
Rose
concluded long ago that gold and silver have an affinity for certain
metals
and will migrate to them when in close proximity, and they need not be
molten or even hot. Ingots of pure silver and pure gold end up
transferring to one another when in contact, for example. Nickel
prevents
the migration. If what you say is correct, unless gold is plated quite
thick (I have no idea what that may mean) , there is likely no benefit in
using it at all, because, over time, and it's not long, it simply
vanishes.
One problem gets replaced with another. Comments?

Transition metals are commonly used as both diffusion barriers and
as adhesion layers. (Ti, Ni, Mo, W, etc)

The first prevents the plated, or deposited, layer from diffussing into
the the substrate. This is a real issue in semiconductor processing,
where it's important to keep layers of metal (wiring) on chips from
being contaminated by the layers adjacent. This is especially important
because some of the processing is carried out at elevated temperatures.
A layer of, say, Ti, that is about 200 atomic layers thick will
suffice to keep the layers of the cake from smearing out.

Adhesion layers are another issue. This is why nickel strikes are
used under gold plating as a rule.

Adhesion is a peculiar thing - what makes one thing 'stick' to another?
At atomic levels this question is a) of considerable practical interest
and b) not entirely well understood. There's a lot of research being
done on the fundamentals.

I can recall desperately trying to figure out some way to deposit
copper on sapphire stubstrates - but it would *not* stick. The
common trick is to put down a Ni adhesion layer, but nickel is magnetic
and for our work that was unacceptable.

That company I mentioned (trompeter) makes rf connectors for low
level, high freqency applications. All of the other connectors
I investigated were magnetic because of the ni strike in the plating
process. Because they build for the small-signal rf market - mostly
satallite communications gear - they understand that distortion of
the rf signal can occur from any magnetic materials in the connector,
so they use something they call a "pulse plating" process to
eliminate the Ni strike beforehand. This is specifically to
replace an *adhesion* layer, not a diffusion barrier.

Does the gold diffuse through into the brass metal underneath?

Yeah, and I've seen a few examples of it through the years, but just a few,
obviously something that was done rarely. Almost everything I processed
with cyanide had nickel underneath. Without the nickel strike, the gold
layer would start oxidizing, but only because it had been absorbed by the
base metal. As you well know, it's not lost, but is no longer providing a
barriers because it has diffused too much, leaving the base metal
unprotected, and it's the base metal oxidizing, not the gold. The gold is
recovered in refining, assuming you dissolve the base metal, not strip it,
so long as nothing is discarded. I found that by filtering with a well
clogged filter, or allowing the solution to settle well before decanting, I
would end up with the gold, although it certainly didn't look like gold at
that point. When the base metal is dissolved, the gold, for all practical
purposes is down to what might be considered a colloid, (go easy on me here,
Jim, I'm not a chemist) perhaps? Very finely divided particles, clusters
of atoms, nothing you can really see, but you do see the affect, a purple
color. Various processes before dissolving the gold allow complete
recovery.

I honestly don't know. They may use some other kind of diffusion
barrier, but I've never seen them degrade over the 20 or so years
I've been using them. I will look up in their catalog at work
and find their spec for plating thickness.

That varies according to need, and one pays accordingly. I supplied a
modified connector to Univac on several occasions, where four were made from
one, a Cinch wire wrap connector. This was prior to May of '83, when I
closed the doors on my shop permanently. I purchased them directly from
the mfg. and modified them to Univac's specs. They specified a given
depth of plating, under a tenth, 80 millionths as I recall, but one had
options as need required. At least that's the way I remember it. It was
interesting to see the pricing schedule and gold adder, considering I was
machining at the same time I was refining and by then had a firm
understanding of the amount of gold in question. Need I tell you the
price of the gold adder was quite lucrative for the manufacturer?

I did have one very interesting experience, the opportunity to strip some
micro-wave gear that hailed from what must have been WW II equipment. The
plating on it was so heavy that it was in thousandths, not millionths.
There was no barrier under it, which made stripping with cyanide very
difficult because there was nothing to prevent the base metal from
dissolving along with the gold (done electrolytically). Nickel does just
that. Some of this gear was one of the rare times I recall seeing gold
oxidize, but only one part in particular. It was a brass casting (wave
guide? dunno!) that was heavily plated, but still managed, some areas much
worse than others. The gold had obviously been absorbed. A sulfuric
process would have been far better suited to stripping that stuff. It
doesn't attack the copper base, but removes the gold quickly. I would have
to wonder if the diffused gold would have been recovered, though.

Harold

In article 5WdUd.13761$ab2.8115@edtnps89, Ted Edwards says...

You actually can see the distortion from that.

Jim, I sincerely hope that you don't seriously expect to see any
distortion at audio frequencies resulting from the plated layers found
in connectors.

Maybe at X-band but ...

Those were microwave connectors Ted. The distortion winds up
as intermodulation products, trompeter makes so many different
kinds of connectors I think they just decided to make their
plating standards for gold avoid nickel for *all* their connectors.

For me this was good because I had to obtain miniature triax
connectors with very low remanent magnetization.
They were the only folks I found who could do this.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:

In article 5WdUd.13761$ab2.8115@edtnps89, Ted Edwards says...



You actually can see the distortion from that.


Jim, I sincerely hope that you don't seriously expect to see any
distortion at audio frequencies resulting from the plated layers found
in connectors.

Maybe at X-band but ...



Those were microwave connectors Ted. The distortion winds up
as intermodulation products, trompeter makes so many different
kinds of connectors I think they just decided to make their
plating standards for gold avoid nickel for *all* their connectors.

For me this was good because I had to obtain miniature triax
connectors with very low remanent magnetization.
They were the only folks I found who could do this.

Jim

FYI this intermod effect was noticed with a 100 Watt 450 MHz transmitter
which
was connected to an antenna that was also used for receiving (with a
diplexer)

Replace the connectors with Silver and all was OK.

Bill K7NOM

Ignoramus30876 wrote:
100 honest, real, continuous, watts of sound are outrageously loud and
are apt to damage anyone's hearing.

Note how many sound devices advertise "300 watts" of sound, and yet have
fuses that are to blow under much lower power consumption.

TEL me about it! :-)

Some comments on power amplifiers for audio use.

Ratings:
I am not designing for the market place and therefore have
absolutely no interest in inflating power ratings. I rate my
amplifiers in terms of peak power before clipping since:
a) Unlike average power, it is independent of waveform. "RMS
power" is a meaningless concept.
b) all my designs have been capable of maintaining their peak
output indefinitely at any frequency from DC up to 50 or 100KHz.
Clipping level is determined by regulated power supplies and current
limiting for protection.

Back in the mid-60s, a technician working for me was in a band with
his brother. Bro' played bass guitar and wanted an amp. I had
designed a 50 Watt peak per channel stereo amplifier for my students
to build as a lab exercise. (Really got their attention!) I
suggested they use this design for the bass guitar. My tech said
there was no way 50 w was enough so I made a deal: You buy the parts
and build it. If it isn't enough, I will design a more powerfull one
and pay for the parts. This was too good to resist. They bought
special speakers claimed to be suitable for bass guitar use and rated
at 150 W and built suitable enclosures for them and built the amp. At
the first gig, they blew a speaker. They returned it to the shop who
gave them another under warranty. When they blew a second one, the
shop insisted they send it back to the manufacturer before they would
do anything. The manufacturer's response (and I quote) was "What
makes you think you can put 50 real watts into a 150 w rated speaker?"
When they eventually got a speaker system that could take it, they
were quite happy with the amplifier.

Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
watts/channel, and will meet specs pulling over 400. I, on occasion,
drive it that hard. ...

Jimminy Crickets!! (as my mother would say)

thinking I may go to a 600 watt/channel model. ...
Considering the additional information I've provided, would you still
recommend using the #14 wire? ...

Never mind what I said before, I definitely think that you would not be
happy with anything less than #10 wire. (How's that for not answering
the question?)

You gota understand. Harold is building a house. I understand it will
make St. Paul's Cathedral look like a hovel. When you plan to put on a
smorg for 200 people you have to a music system than do the Good Thing.
VBG

Ted

PS: Harold and I have been arguing about this for just ages! :-)

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
Chuckle! Yeah, I could do that, but if you've priced Mc amplifiers (I'll
settle for nothing less), you'll understand how cheap large wire looks to
me.

While I would never argue the quality of Mc amps, I would think you want
low distortion more than you want high power.

The likelihood of me using anywhere near even 200 watts in the shop is
relatively remote.

If we are talking Sear's watts, I agree but if we are talking real
watts, that's probably serious over kill.

Back in the early 60's, I designed and built a stereo amp. It was based
on the use of op-amps (6 per channel including the power stage) and, as
no IC's could meet my performance requirements, I designed my own.

At the time I was teaching circuit design at U of Alberta and had
inherited the sound lab for lab space. The previous occupant had
retired. I kindly agreed to store the AR2AX speakers at home.
(Regretably, I returned them when I left.) Note that AR (acoustic
suspension) speakers, while producing superb sound quality, were
notoriously inefficient.

My amp was designed to clip (regulated supplies) at a little over 10
volts out. Into 8 ohms, this is 1.25 amps or 12.5 watts peak per
channel. This level was chosen because I wished to operate the power
transistors below or, at least not much above, the current where their
beta peaks. At the time the price of complementary Silicon power
transistors rose rapidly above this level. This philosophy produced
unusually low open loop distortion so very large loop gains were not
required.

Briefly, some specs:
Bandwidth: 1.59Hz (10r/s) to 100KHz +1, -3db (open loop bandwidth of
op-amps to exceed this). Actually, all was dc coupled except for a high
pass filter at the input. You'd be astonished how much thermal
potential you can get out of a phono cartridge.
Noise and hum level with tone controls set flat and gain set so a
typical classical recording was peaking just below clipping: 120 db
below full output.
Distortion at 10 volts peak output into 8 ohms: 0.05% THD. (It was
quite a project just to measure this at the time.)

Using a B&K sound level meter and a Tek scope, we determined that
Ravel's Bolero would give us 100+ db spl in our living room before
clipping. (This with the AR2's.) Since 120 db is accepted as the
threshold of pain (for non-atendies of rock concerts), this seems
adequate. A few years later I designed a 50w peak per channel version
for a friend's band. All that accomplished was to blow the snot out of
"150 watt" speakers designed for bass guitars.

I can fill a large (*very large*) room with a few watts.
It's very easy for me to overwhelm the loudest of noises with what I have
now, but I'd like the additional power in reserve for heavy passages at
moderate volume. Think 1812 Overture, Carmina Burana, or Toccata & Fugue
in D Minor.

Add to those, the Ride of the Valkaries and certain selections from
Ancient Airs and Dances. BTW, look at waveform from a violin some time
and you'll see something designed to scare low power amps. :-) One of
my tests was to get one of my grad students to play his violin live into
a pair of B&K condenser mikes driving my amp.

Thanks for the great input. Right now I'm still thinking 10 ga, but
certainly nothing smaller. From the figures provided, it looks like things
get right out of control with smaller than 12 gage wire.

I still think you should go for line level to the shop and an amp there.
One thing you haven't considered is the variation in speaker impedance
with frequency and the damping factor of speaker, enclosure and room.
That's why serious designers want there amps to have very low dynamic
output impedance. Ideally you would like your speakers looking back
into a dead short. The two amps I mentioned in this thread had output
impeadances of the order of a few milliohms. From Evcerwal's post
6ga = 0.05 ohms. This is a full order of magnitude above what I would
like.

Ted

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
Don't use solid wire for speaker audio. Most of the higher
frequency current in audio travels through 'skin effect' on the outer
layer of the copper, and fine stranded wire is a bit lower resistance
at high audio frequencies.

You can forget about skin effect at any frequency my dog can hear.

12-2 SPT-2 stranded "Malibu Light" wire. Big zip-cord.

Sounds good.

If you're going more than 50'-100' or so with the signal (like "out
to the shop") use a 70-volt amplifier system to do it, and drop it
back to 8-ohm at the far end with a speaker transformer.

That's great for typical PA systems but I have yet to see a transformer
that would meet my specs for a high quality system and I've been messing
with this stuff for more than 55 years. I was SO glad when serious
silicon was able to go direct into a speaker.

you get a distorted signal trying to push 8-ohm audio too far, from
the capacitive/inductive effects of the cable.

Yup. If the amp is in LA and the shop in NY, this is a _very_ serious
consideration. Calculate what fraction of a wavelength 100' is at 20KHz.

Ted

"Ted Edwards" wrote in message
news:cQxUd.16083$ab2.10417@edtnps89...
Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
watts/channel, and will meet specs pulling over 400. I, on occasion,
drive it that hard. ...

Jimminy Crickets!! (as my mother would say)

thinking I may go to a 600 watt/channel model. ...
Considering the additional information I've provided, would you still
recommend using the #14 wire? ...

Never mind what I said before, I definitely think that you would not be
happy with anything less than #10 wire. (How's that for not answering
the question?)

You gota understand. Harold is building a house. I understand it will
make St. Paul's Cathedral look like a hovel. When you plan to put on a
smorg for 200 people you have to a music system than do the Good Thing.
VBG

Chuckle! Not this one, Ted. The only room in the house that could be
considered remotely above a standard room is the sound room, and it's about
21' x 31'. Small house, really. I learned my lesson from building the
castle. Big houses are for people with big money. We commoners must live
accordingly.

PS: Harold and I have been arguing about this for just ages! :-)

I prefer to say we've been discussing it. :-) Or maybe I've just been
listening to Ted. I know so little about sound gear that entering into
discussion is difficult for me. However, it's like a car. One need not
understand the workings in order to drive one. I just love running ours
and would give up machines before I'd volunteer the stereo.

How I envy you your knowledge you'll never know!

Harold

"Ted Edwards" wrote in message
news:0ayUd.15751$_G.2216@clgrps12...
snip--
Distortion at 10 volts peak output into 8 ohms: 0.05% THD. (It was
quite a project just to measure this at the time.)

I recall when a half percent distortion was noteworthy. Even today, with
tubes instead of solid state, that seems to be the standard.

While I don't understand everything I read, here's a link that will show
that Mc is now bragging about distortion level in thousandths of a
percentage point. Less than .005%, in fact, and that at their rated
output of 600 watts.

Ted and I have had this conversation more than once, and I still don't
understand the difference in output, but one thing is for sure, when
McIntosh talks about 300 watts, it's enough to create pressure levels that
are very uncomfortable.

I'd welcome the thoughts of anyone that could dispel the notion that the
amplifier at this link does not put out what they claim, and I'd be for ever
in your debt if you can tell me in *terms that I could understand* why their
claim may not be true.


http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/mcprod/s...14&cat=Power+A
mplifiers&prodid=1028&product=MC602



Thanks for the great input. Right now I'm still thinking 10 ga, but
certainly nothing smaller. From the figures provided, it looks like
things
get right out of control with smaller than 12 gage wire.

I still think you should go for line level to the shop and an amp there.

I assume you have one of your amps to spare? That would surely make it
easier! I might even overlook my zeal for owning Mc gear. :-)

Economics drive me pretty hard, Ted. If I was to pursue my ideal setup,
I'd duplicate my entire sound system and have the second one in the shop.
When one considers that my affordable options would be to have a small radio
in the shop, my plan suddenly looks pretty good, even with its warts.
I've always had music in the shop, and realize the potential for poor
acoustics and other distractions, but my feeling is I'll be able to play the
system loud enough to overcome the noise and enjoy music to my taste, even
if it's not perfect. In fact, a lot of the music I have is recorded on 10"
reel to reel, so the quality, in spite of the fact that it is recorded on
quality gear (Crown CX 824 deck), is likely worse than the setup. The time
I can spend relaxing will be in the listening room, which will be better,
although a long ways from being engineered. As long as I can hear and
feel the music, at this point of my life, especially considering my losses
at the high end, I can't help but think I'm going to be pleased. I do
appreciate and respect your comments, though. Just wish I understood them
better.

Harold

In article 0ayUd.15751$_G.2216@clgrps12, Ted Edwards says...

I still think you should go for line level to the shop and an amp there.
One thing you haven't considered is the variation in speaker impedance
with frequency and the damping factor of speaker, enclosure and room.
That's why serious designers want there amps to have very low dynamic
output impedance. Ideally you would like your speakers looking back
into a dead short. The two amps I mentioned in this thread had output
impeadances of the order of a few milliohms. From Evcerwal's post
6ga = 0.05 ohms. This is a full order of magnitude above what I would
like.

Sounds to me like you really want to just put the final drivers
right *at* the voice coil inputs to the speakers. Anything
else and the impedance is going to go up.

Honestly it would mean just two inputs to each speaker, power
and the line source.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Distortion depends upon the outtput power level. Putting out a 150W signal
will produce a very low distortion level as you indicate. Up the power
level to 200W and the distortion may exceed the 1/2% standard.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

Skin effect problems generallly start above 100KHz and that is why your
example needed the higher conductivity across a connection that the silver
on both terminals of the connector became needed. Gold has a higher
resistance than silver but it can be better as it molds better to the
contact.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

What is a Watt of power?

True rms power of 1 Watt ends up being:
1.414W peak
2.828W peak to peak
8W+ for an output level with unlimited amps.
Almost anything past the 8W for instantenous peak power.

Thus you can be rating a speaker for 3W when it really is only capable of
handling 1W. Change the rating to where you have a constant voltage and you
can square the power level. As a result, your 50W amp can also be rated as
2500W if you want to really do it the way that some did back in those days!
Today, after some regulation agreements setup by the makers of amps came
about, the wattage ratings became a lot more sensible.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:03:43 -0800, the renowned "Bob May"
wrote:

What is a Watt of power?

True rms power of 1 Watt ends up being:
1.414W peak

If you're assuming a sinusoidal waveform, the peak wattage into a
resistive load would be 2W. The peak *voltage* would be sqrt(2) times
the RMS voltage.

2.828W peak to peak

What is a "peak to peak" watt? Is power flowing out of the load? With
a sinusoidal waveform and a resistive load, the power goes smoothly
(sin(x)*sin(x)) from 0 to the peak wattage and back again at twice the
frequency of the voltage.

8W+ for an output level with unlimited amps.
Almost anything past the 8W for instantenous peak power.

Thus you can be rating a speaker for 3W when it really is only capable of
handling 1W. Change the rating to where you have a constant voltage and you
can square the power level. As a result, your 50W amp can also be rated as
2500W if you want to really do it the way that some did back in those days!
Today, after some regulation agreements setup by the makers of amps came
about, the wattage ratings became a lot more sensible.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Bob May wrote:
What is a Watt of power?

True rms power of 1 Watt ends up being:
1.414W peak
2.828W peak to peak
8W+ for an output level with unlimited amps.
Almost anything past the 8W for instantenous peak power.

Thus you can be rating a speaker for 3W when it really is only capable of
handling 1W. Change the rating to where you have a constant voltage and you
can square the power level. As a result, your 50W amp can also be rated as
2500W if you want to really do it the way that some did back in those days!
Today, after some regulation agreements setup by the makers of amps came
about, the wattage ratings became a lot more sensible.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?



ALthough they fudge quite a bit compared to ~25 years ago. Used to
be[and still is for anything i buy] the only way to compare a stereo amp
head to head was 'rms watts continuous into 8 ohms, from 20hz to 20 khz
both channels driven at xxpercent distortion'

sneakiest thing they do now is use from 50 hz, whole lotta power to
drive them bottom 30

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:03:43 -0800, the inscrutable "Bob May"
spake:

What is a Watt of power?

When I took the audiophile mags (Stereo Review, etc) a watt was
rated RMS @ 1kHz continuous delivered power for testing and amps were
rated in RMS watts +-3dB for all frequencies between 20Hz and 20kHz
and the distortion figure was the max found between those freqs
at rated output.

--snip--
Thus you can be rating a speaker for 3W when it really is only capable of
handling 1W. Change the rating to where you have a constant voltage and you
can square the power level. As a result, your 50W amp can also be rated as
2500W if you want to really do it the way that some did back in those days!

Oh, you mean "Searz" watts?


Today, after some regulation agreements setup by the makers of amps came
about, the wattage ratings became a lot more sensible.

The same is happening in the compressor field after the recent lawsuit
against the compressor power ratings.


--
"Menja bé, caga fort!"

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:22:12 GMT, "habbi" wrote:

I am building a new house and I want to hardwire it for speakers. Is there
any reason not to use plain solid strand 14/2 NMD 90 wire. I have this wire
on hand and it is half the cost of speaker wire.

You have received lots of good advice here. Now here are some links for
your amusement.

http://www.amusicdirect.com/products...380&sku=AAQEV8
http://gallery.consumerreview.com/au...es/opus-mm.asp
http://www.bybeetech.com/
http://www.amusicdirect.com/products...=280&sku=AELEV
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina27.htm
http://www.altmann.haan.de/tubeolator/default.htm
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina28.htm
http://www.scamshield.com/Feature.asp?id=1



Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs (among other things) http://www.viatrack.ca

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:43:23 -0500, Bob Engelhardt
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I am an EE (well, technically I am, but I've never practiced it) and
I've never understood this craze with speaker wire size. There are only
a couple of fundamental parameters that apply: resistance, capacitance,
and inductance.

Resistance: if you deliver 100 watts (an enormance amount) to an 8 ohm
speaker, 3.5 amps will flow. Wire resistance has 2 effects: heating and
voltage drop. In 16 ga wire, the current density will be about
1ma/circ-mill. I.e., heating will be minimal. 200 feet of 16 ga wire
(100 feet each way) has a resistance of .8 ohms. Carrying 3.5 amps the
wire will have a voltage drop of 2.8 v. Putting it another way, the
wire will consume 10 watts (10%). I'm not sure how this is relevant
since voltage/power drop is just compensated for by cranking up the
volume. So 16 ga wire should more than meet the resistance requirement.

IIRC the problem is not power loss, but damping of the speakers.
Amplifiers are designed with extremely low output impedances (in the
order of fractions of an Ohm, again IIRC. They had damping factors of
figures like 100:1 = 8/100 ohms or thereabouts.), so that they will
act as a near short circuit (dynamic brake) to the speaker when not
sending power. The damping prevents the speakers from oscillating from
their own inherent springiness, because this causes distortion.

Also IIRC, the amplifier needs to be able to be a variable current
source without being a voltage dropper as the speaker sees it in
circuit, to better control the speaker.

Adding resistance by wire will raise the output impedance, thus
lessening the damping.

If your amp had a 100:1 damping factor (a pretty good start) then your
0.8 ohms of wire will significantly affect that figure. If the damping
factor was only say 20:1, then the amp is not as good, you are not as
critical, and the wire will be fine because it's only causing a
relatively small change! G

On the other hand, I have never used monster cable. G

METALWORKING CONTENT. Think MIG Welders. They need to be constant
voltage, Add a long run of wire and you start to see "distortion" of
the welding behaviour! GG

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:28:53 -0800, Larry Jaques
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

That was NOT in the real version!

That reminds me of one of the last scenes in "The Italian Job" movie.
One of the thieves who wound up with the gold bought his favorite
speakers, known to be "loud enough to blow the clothes right off a
woman". That scene showed it.


---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications