So if I go out into space and continue to travel in a straight line where will I go? Where does it end, or what point will I eventually end up? Science can’t begin to answer that.
1/ This is not related to knowing about sound or audio signals going through a cable.
2/ We don’t know because we have no mean to measure stuff over there.
So if I go out into space and continue to travel in a straight line where will I go? Where does it end, or what point will I eventually end up? Science can’t begin to answer that.
"cables transfer more than electrical signals" is true with headphones. They transfer motion as you walk, which depending on the meterial, can be audiable to a lesser or great degree. Otherwise it is imagined, with the proviso below.
As to your thread title. I think a more interesting topic it "Thing that are not yet/usually measured". We appear to be able to measure everthing we need to to characterise an audio system, but most only concentrate on frequency response and maybe THD, missing out on many other important aspects. Cables generally are not one of them. The only significant aspect to cables once they are fit for purpose, is if they introduce RF in an unpredictable way into he system.
RF interference isn't supposed to be there at all. You don't want to measure it, you should really just eliminate it. And microphonics on cables has as much to do with the sweater you're wearing as the cable. I don't know how you'd quantify that into some sort of signal to noise measurement. Specs usually measure the signal path from input to output, not things related to the external environment. The exception to that I guess is room correction because you're asking the sound to inhabit a space.
RF interference isn't supposed to be there at all. You don't want to measure it, you should really just eliminate it. And microphonics on cables has as much to do with the sweater you're wearing as the cable. I don't know how you'd quantify that into some sort of signal to noise measurement. Specs usually measure the signal path from input to output, not things related to the external environment. The exception to that I guess is room correction because you're asking the sound to inhabit a space.
Saying RF shouldn't be there is like saying there shouldn't be dishonesty, crime or bigotry. There is, and we should strive to minimise it. Wishing it away does not work.
RF is a phenomenon, it exists regardless of will or want. How much is transferred and to what degree it affects the signal is debatable. It’s simple............balanced microphone cables were invented to “cure” the issue. Though I would guess super long lines may exposure the (balanced) cable to a degree (with noticeable results) though I have no experience with this? Meaning the included process to reduce the noise maybe has it’s limits?
I make no claims of balanced amplification being better?
The fact that the “idea” of the extra waves have been exploited to the ultimate degree. We all realize this has been a huge money maker for the snake oil providers. EMI paper, absorption products.....anything you can think of. Still I believe the RF waves do affect the devices and cables, though it’s small.
What is true is a blanket noise floor. So why? I mean there are actually very few DAPs which are dead silent. Even the quietest of DAPs will have an ultra-sensitive IEM that will expose the (noise) phenomenon. In this regard it’s debatable where the noise is coming from? The amps, the DAC process, the case EMI intruders? Even amplification post processing may affect the signal? But still those IEMs are few and far between, like two or three.
So in the end our uses of RF disabling affect performance in a good way, yet it is (always) cost ratio often relative to performance that is important. It turns out almost all but a few tube amps are dead silent. So you have to wonder if the noise is an effect of amping, or RF interference? Grounding?
Each person is different too, as far as how much of the effect they notice. There is obviously a possible noise floor in the recordings too. All and all it has to do with choosing products you like, and are trusted to do the do diligence in regards to noise floor.
Saying RF shouldn't be there is like saying there shouldn't be dishonesty, crime or bigotry. There is, and we should strive to minimise it. Wishing it away does not work.
Generally, you don't tolerate RF interference. If it's there at all, it is a problem that needs correcting. You don't quantify it and say x% of RF is ok, but y% isn't like you do with noise or distortion. It either is a problem or it isn't. When you correct it, the fix either works or it doesn't. -binary decision
Generally, you don't tolerate RF interference. If it's there at all, it is a problem that needs correcting. You don't quantify it and say x% of RF is ok, but y% isn't like you do with noise or distortion. It either is a problem or it isn't. When you correct it, the fix either works or it doesn't. -binary decision
RF interference is measured on a dB scale, just like audio, but the spectrum is far wider. So it is not binary. However i assume you ean you decision is binary?
So do you have a threshold for RF that is definative for all frequencies?
Are some parts of the spectra more tolerant of RF than others?
Does it depend on the input or output you are measuring?
Is conducted worse or better than radiated?
What is the dB rating of the RF on your system? On mine, it's zero as far as I know. It's the same with ground loop. If I could detect either of those things, I'd track it down and eliminate it. Do people really measure things that don't belong there at all? For what purpose?
There is a minimum amount allowed in Europe (CE), and a different theashold in the US (FCC), but in general high end gear we strive to go well below that, as these standards are generally just to keep the peace between products, not ensure audio quality. How low, is my info. While in my current job I am not allowed to freelance, I will again one day, so I'll keep proprietary information to myself. Suffice to say your binary assumption is not my experience (30+ years, high end hi-fi and pro audio design)
The gear to measure is runs to several $10000s. I'm lucky I have access to it when I design audio gear.
It has nothing to do with audio quality. Gotcha. You aren't at liberty to say how much. Impressive! It costs tens of thousands of dollars to measure it. Pricey!!
I just have one question... Why should any of this matter to a person listening to music on their home stereo?
It has nothing to do with audio quality. Gotcha. You aren't at liberty to say how much. Impressive! It costs tens of thousands of dollars to measure it. Pricey!!
I just have one question... Why should any of this matter to a person listening to music on their home stereo?
I do try to have a civilised debate with you, but you will insist on trying to goad people with your assumptions. I'm not playing today. I will keep it factual.
However antennas, RF amps and a sheilded room start to get pricy.
It matters when it makes a difference to the sound. When it's measuarable, that's science. Which is what you perport to support, but only when it suits you.
I'm not being uncivilized. I'm simply asking you what relevance of any of this has to me sitting in my living room listening to Mozart on my stereo?
Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding, but the suggestion that I need a $15k piece of test equipment to measure my system for RF interference that doesn't even affect sound quality seems absurd to me. (I'm not even going to ask why I need one that goes from 5kHz up to 7.5GHz!)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
