Mac Mini heat sink upgrading?

In article replytogroup-577521.10140527062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini?

No one in their right mind.

In article replytogroup-577521.10140527062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini? My PPC 1.25 ghz model would need a heat sink not exceeding 47 mm x 118 mm. (47 mm is about 1.5 inches.) A Sonic Tower might work if one ground the 2 of the sides but it would be great to get a good one that might fit (with some retrofitting of course to mount it).

What would be the purpose of doing this? Would this reduce the fan noise from my PPC 1.25 ghz Mac Mini?

Regards,

John Byrns

On 2007-06-27 12:14:36 -0500, John Byrns byrnsj@redacted.invalid said:

In article replytogroup-577521.10140527062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini? My PPC 1.25 ghz model would need a heat sink not exceeding 47 mm x 118 mm. (47 mm is about 1.5 inches.) A Sonic Tower might work if one ground the 2 of the sides but it would be great to get a good one that might fit (with some retrofitting of course to mount it).

What would be the purpose of doing this? Would this reduce the fan noise from my PPC 1.25 ghz Mac Mini?

Disregard The New Guy. The guy is obsessed with heat sinks, and is under the mistaken belief that all Macs are insufficiently cooled.

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini?

No one in their right mind.

I never implied I was in my right mind.

So Micheele, did you look into the transferring costs with your current cell provider to extricate yourself out of your contract? I seem to remember a website that does nothing but find people to take over contracts of other people that don't need them anymore. You'd have to Google that. I should have included that in the original reply but forgot.

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini? My PPC 1.25 ghz model would need a heat sink not exceeding 47 mm x 118 mm. (47 mm is about 1.5 inches.) A Sonic Tower might work if one ground the 2 of the sides but it would be great to get a good one that might fit (with some retrofitting of course to mount it).

What would be the purpose of doing this? Would this reduce the fan noise from my PPC 1.25 ghz Mac Mini?

Yes John. It would dramatically reduce it. The same way good heat sinks dramatically reduce the noise of fans in any computer.

But for now, try what another poster did: place it vertically so the bottom can dissipate heat better. The ultimate would be to place it on a cold surface. The slot loading optical drive should have no problems operating in a vertical position, as far as I know. Which isn't very far. The Mini uses a small fan, similar to what you find on some video cards so when its going hard its really irritating.
That's what I'm really trying to get away from; the pitch of the whine more than anything.

The New Guy wrote:

What would be the purpose of [putting in a larger heat sink]? Would this reduce the fan noise from my PPC 1.25 ghz Mac Mini?

Yes John. It would dramatically reduce it. The same way good heat sinks dramatically reduce the noise of fans in any computer.

John,

As Jolly Roger has said, be wary of what "The New Guy" has to say about cooling in general and heat sinks in particular. It's not that TNG is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, but he is remarkably confused about fundamentals in such a way that a little knowledge really is dangerous.

I most certainly don't want to repeat the discussion that has already taken place, but you can go back a few weeks and look the discussion he started about iMac cooling.

-j

What would be the purpose of [putting in a larger heat sink]? Would this reduce the fan noise from my PPC 1.25 ghz Mac Mini?

Yes John. It would dramatically reduce it. The same way good heat sinks dramatically reduce the noise of fans in any computer.

As Jolly Roger has said, be wary of what "The New Guy" has to say about cooling in general and heat sinks in particular. It's not that TNG is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, but he is remarkably confused about fundamentals in such a way that a little knowledge really is dangerous.

I most certainly don't want to repeat the discussion that has already taken place, but you can go back a few weeks and look the discussion he started about iMac cooling.

How about not trying to sabotage a thread? I simply asked if anyone has heard of the Mini heat sink being upgraded. The answer is a Yes or a no-answer. If its a Yes, hopefully an URL will follow so I can learn about it. Surely this hardware deficient newsgroup can grapple with that simple task.

In article replytogroup-250C73.18342527062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

How about not trying to sabotage a thread? I simply asked if anyone has heard of the Mini heat sink being upgraded. The answer is a Yes or a no-answer. If its a Yes, hopefully an URL will follow so I can learn about it. Surely this hardware deficient newsgroup can grapple with that simple task.

Because you asserted in a subsequent post that the change make a hugely positive impact, and you are woefully under-qualified to make a statement like that.

If all you were interested in was an answer to your question, you wouldn't have attempted to shove bad advice down someone else's throat. Leaving that as is would be extremely irresponsible.

In short, you sabotaged your own thread. Next time if all you want is an answer, don't offer bad advice in a follow-up.

The New Guy wrote:

How about not trying to sabotage a thread? I simply asked if anyone has heard of the Mini heat sink being upgraded.

Is that all you asked?

I responded to message-id

replytogroup-250C73.18342527062007@redacted.invalid

in which you stated:

[putting in a larger heat sink] would dramatically reduce [fan noise]. The same way good heat sinks dramatically reduce the noise of fans in any computer.

I did not respond to your question that started this thread.

Anyway, I do hope that you succeed in your project to upgrade your heat sink. I hope that you keep a record of CPU and other critical component temperatures as well as fan noise both before and after the upgrade. When you do, please post your results.

And for the record, I do agree that a good heat sink versus a bad heat sink can have the effect that you describe here. Much of what you say is correct. Although I have no reason to believe that the heat sink in the mini is inadequate. But even when you are right, you've shot your credibility when it comes to talking about cooling. So go ahead and do your heat sink project, but if you recommend it to others before you have results, I (and apparently I'm not the only one) will advise people to take your recommendations with a large grain of salt.

-j

In article replytogroup-A4F670.15174927062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini? My PPC 1.25 ghz model would need a heat sink not exceeding 47 mm x 118 mm. (47 mm is about 1.5 inches.) A Sonic Tower might work if one ground the 2 of the sides but it would be great to get a good one that might fit (with some retrofitting of course to mount it).

What would be the purpose of doing this? Would this reduce the fan noise from my PPC 1.25 ghz Mac Mini?

Yes John. It would dramatically reduce it. The same way good heat sinks dramatically reduce the noise of fans in any computer.

The Mac mini fan is only a minor annoyance, what really needs better heat management is my "AirPortExtreme 802.11n" base station whose top surface gets nearly hot enough to fry eggs on.

Regards,

John Byrns

In article byrnsj-FC3581.19584627062007@redacted.invalid, John Byrns byrnsj@redacted.invalid wrote: ....

The Mac mini fan is only a minor annoyance, what really needs better heat management is my "AirPortExtreme 802.11n" base station whose top surface gets nearly hot enough to fry eggs on.

He who controls the air flow controls how the eggs are cooked.

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

Anyway, I do hope that you succeed in your project to upgrade your heat sink. I hope that you keep a record of CPU and other critical component temperatures as well as fan noise both before and after the upgrade. When you do, please post your results.

For my 1.25gHz Mini, the HDD temperature is the only one Temperature Monitor displays. Can this Mini keep show other temperatures?

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini? My PPC 1.25 ghz model would need a heat sink not exceeding 47 mm x 118 mm. (47 mm is about 1.5 inches.) A Sonic Tower might work if one ground the 2 of the sides but it would be great to get a good one that might fit (with some retrofitting of course to mount it).

Apparently replacing the Mini's processor with a Core 2 Duo (2.16GHz Merom T740) results in lower temperatures:

http://macenstein.com/default/archives/323 http://homepage.mac.com/macaholicg5/PhotoAlbum12.html

Maybe you don't need to change your heatsink at all (c:

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini? My PPC 1.25 ghz model would need a heat sink not exceeding 47 mm x 118 mm. (47 mm is about 1.5 inches.) A Sonic Tower might work if one ground the 2 of the sides but it would be great to get a good one that might fit (with some retrofitting of course to mount it).

What would be the purpose of doing this? Would this reduce the fan noise from my PPC 1.25 ghz Mac Mini?

Yes. It would dramatically reduce it. The same way good heat sinks dramatically reduce the noise of fans in any computer.

The Mac mini fan is only a minor annoyance, what really needs better heat management is my "AirPortExtreme 802.11n" base station whose top surface gets nearly hot enough to fry eggs on.

Are you running it with the top on? If so, how do you know its so hot?

If not, try pointing a fan on it. If it works, you can incorporate the fan in a future install. I don't have an Airport in mine so I can't comment.

This is another example though, of how one component can heat up others. Perhaps one of the reasons I find the Mini's fan kind of bothersome is that I'm running it without the top on. If I had the top on, surely the noise would be far less aggravating. But then it would just run that much hotter! A better heat sink would solve all these problems. In fact its quite likely that with a good heat sink I might not need a fan at all. I'd prefer to have a silent 5 volt 120 mm fan on it just to make sure though.

Anyway, I do hope that you succeed in your project to upgrade your heat sink. I hope that you keep a record of CPU and other critical component temperatures as well as fan noise both before and after the upgrade. When you do, please post your results.

For my 1.25gHz Mini, the HDD temperature is the only one Temperature Monitor displays. Can this Mini keep show other temperatures?

I'm using a Western Digital 250 gb IDE HD and I don't get any temperature monitoring off it at all or anywhere else on the computer.
I have several programs that supposedly would detect temperature sensors. A while back, before I looked into this, I was running a different hard drive. It may have had a temperature monitor in it so it may be hard drive specific. Does anyone know if the Intel Minis have temp sensors in them? Judging from Jolly Roger's temp postings the iMacs have quite a few. I've got a Seagate 200 gb IDE hard drive lying around. I'll hook it up later to see if it has a sensor built in.

In article sdfisher-2A4843.17071227062007@redacted.invalid, Steven Fisher sdfisher@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-250C73.18342527062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

How about not trying to sabotage a thread? I simply asked if anyone has heard of the Mini heat sink being upgraded. The answer is a Yes or a no-answer. If its a Yes, hopefully an URL will follow so I can learn about it. Surely this hardware deficient newsgroup can grapple with that simple task.

Because you asserted in a subsequent post that the change make a hugely positive impact, and you are woefully under-qualified to make a statement like that.

I would propose that if a statement is true or false, the credibility of the person making that statement is irrelevant. All the matters is the truth of the statement. Some of you are well educated in science yet lack real world experience so you don't recognize where the priorities lie in the computer cooling world. I don't want to dig up what was amply discussed before though.

If all you were interested in was an answer to your question, you wouldn't have attempted to shove bad advice down someone else's throat. Leaving that as is would be extremely irresponsible.

What bad advice are you talking about?

In article replytogroup-EEA8A5.14343228062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Because you asserted in a subsequent post that the change make a hugely positive impact, and you are woefully under-qualified to make a statement like that.

I would propose that if a statement is true or false, the credibility of the person making that statement is irrelevant. All the matters is the truth of the statement.

That is correct; however, when the truth of the statement is not self evident, the credibility of the person making it comes into question.
And when the person making the statement has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't know much, if anything, about the topic, his credibility is very much an issue.

Some of you are well educated in science yet lack real world experience so you don't recognize where the priorities lie in the computer cooling world.

You have demonstrated lack of education in the field as well as lack of real-world experience, nor have you shown any cognizance of what the priorities are.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about again.

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini? My PPC 1.25 ghz model would need a heat sink not exceeding 47 mm x 118 mm. (47 mm is about 1.5 inches.) A Sonic Tower might work if one ground the 2 of the sides but it would be great to get a good one that might fit (with some retrofitting of course to mount it).

Apparently replacing the Mini's processor with a Core 2 Duo (2.16GHz Merom T740) results in lower temperatures. http://macenstein.com/default/archives/323 http://homepage.mac.com/macaholicg5/PhotoAlbum12.html Maybe you don't need to change your heatsink at all (c:

Nothing like killing too birds with one stone. :) Many thanks.

Because you asserted in a subsequent post that the change make a hugely positive impact, and you are woefully under-qualified to make a statement like that.

I would propose that if a statement is true or false, the credibility of the person making that statement is irrelevant. All the matters is the truth of the statement.

That is correct; however, when the truth of the statement is not self evident, the credibility of the person making it comes into question.

If people were knowledgeable on a subject, the truth of the statement would be evident. So it all comes down to real world experience.

Some of you are well educated in science yet lack real world experience so you don't recognize where the priorities lie in the computer cooling world.

You have demonstrated lack of education in the field as well as lack of real-world experience, nor have you shown any cognizance of what the priorities are.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about again.

Your opinion, Michelle. Like I've said, you know software very well.
In hardware your knowledge just isn't there. In real world experience, less so. Maybe you just can't stand it when someone disagrees with you?

In article replytogroup-E5EA25.15161228062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Because you asserted in a subsequent post that the change make a hugely positive impact, and you are woefully under-qualified to make a statement like that.

I would propose that if a statement is true or false, the credibility of the person making that statement is irrelevant. All the matters is the truth of the statement.

That is correct; however, when the truth of the statement is not self evident, the credibility of the person making it comes into question.

If people were knowledgeable on a subject, the truth of the statement would be evident. So it all comes down to real world experience.

Some of you are well educated in science yet lack real world experience so you don't recognize where the priorities lie in the computer cooling world.

You have demonstrated lack of education in the field as well as lack of real-world experience, nor have you shown any cognizance of what the priorities are.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about again.

Your opinion, Michelle. Like I've said, you know software very well.
In hardware your knowledge just isn't there. In real world experience, less so. Maybe you just can't stand it when someone disagrees with you?

No, just the opinion of everyone of this NG who has two braincells to rub together, a department in which you were sadly short-changed.

In article replytogroup-E5EA25.15161228062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Because you asserted in a subsequent post that the change make a hugely positive impact, and you are woefully under-qualified to make a statement like that.

I would propose that if a statement is true or false, the credibility of the person making that statement is irrelevant. All the matters is the truth of the statement.

That is correct; however, when the truth of the statement is not self evident, the credibility of the person making it comes into question.

If people were knowledgeable on a subject, the truth of the statement would be evident. So it all comes down to real world experience.

Some of you are well educated in science yet lack real world experience so you don't recognize where the priorities lie in the computer cooling world.

You have demonstrated lack of education in the field as well as lack of real-world experience, nor have you shown any cognizance of what the priorities are.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about again.

Your opinion, Michelle. Like I've said, you know software very well.
In hardware your knowledge just isn't there. In real world experience, less so. Maybe you just can't stand it when someone disagrees with you?

Ya know, you keep saying that. But looking back at that thread about heat sinks, I can't find one single person that agrees with you. Why does that not tell you something? If you're so right, how can everyone else be so wrong?

Maybe you just can't stand it when everyone disagrees with you.

Ruby.

RubyTuesday wrote:

In article replytogroup-E5EA25.15161228062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about again. Your opinion, Michelle. Like I've said, you know software very well.
In hardware your knowledge just isn't there. In real world experience, less so. Maybe you just can't stand it when someone disagrees with you?

Ya know, you keep saying that. But looking back at that thread about heat sinks, I can't find one single person that agrees with you. Why does that not tell you something? If you're so right, how can everyone else be so wrong?

I'd say it's because the New Guy is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

In article anon-3FC0EF.15572628062007@redacted.invalid, RubyTuesday anon@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-E5EA25.15161228062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Because you asserted in a subsequent post that the change make a hugely positive impact, and you are woefully under-qualified to make a statement like that.

I would propose that if a statement is true or false, the credibility of the person making that statement is irrelevant. All the matters is the truth of the statement.

That is correct; however, when the truth of the statement is not self evident, the credibility of the person making it comes into question.

If people were knowledgeable on a subject, the truth of the statement would be evident. So it all comes down to real world experience.

Some of you are well educated in science yet lack real world experience so you don't recognize where the priorities lie in the computer cooling world.

You have demonstrated lack of education in the field as well as lack of real-world experience, nor have you shown any cognizance of what the priorities are.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about again.

Your opinion, Michelle. Like I've said, you know software very well.
In hardware your knowledge just isn't there. In real world experience, less so. Maybe you just can't stand it when someone disagrees with you?

Ya know, you keep saying that. But looking back at that thread about heat sinks, I can't find one single person that agrees with you. Why does that not tell you something? If you're so right, how can everyone else be so wrong?

Maybe you just can't stand it when everyone disagrees with you.

Not at all. Like I said, the hardware experience here is not strong.
The software experience here is very strong. Actually there were several people that agreed with several of my points. Once Michelle and others starting slinging insults than others jumped on the bandwagon. It happens. No biggee. And its not about someone "agreeing with you" on everything. Its about specific points. My experience gave me knowledge and now I know why certain designs are lacking. If someone else doesn't have that experience, they may not agree with me. Perfectly understandable. But we're getting off track.

This thread is simply about if anyone has read or heard of the Mini heat sink being replaced. I Googled but didn't have much luck.

The New Guy wrote:

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini? My PPC 1.25 ghz model would need a heat sink not exceeding 47 mm x 118 mm. (47 mm is about 1.5 inches.) A Sonic Tower might work if one ground the 2 of the sides but it would be great to get a good one that might fit (with some retrofitting of course to mount it). What would be the purpose of doing this? Would this reduce the fan noise from my PPC 1.25 ghz Mac Mini? Yes. It would dramatically reduce it. The same way good heat sinks dramatically reduce the noise of fans in any computer.
The Mac mini fan is only a minor annoyance, what really needs better heat management is my "AirPortExtreme 802.11n" base station whose top surface gets nearly hot enough to fry eggs on.

Are you running it with the top on? If so, how do you know its so hot?

If not, try pointing a fan on it. If it works, you can incorporate the fan in a future install. I don't have an Airport in mine so I can't comment.

This is another example though, of how one component can heat up others. Perhaps one of the reasons I find the Mini's fan kind of bothersome is that I'm running it without the top on. If I had the top on, surely the noise would be far less aggravating. But then it would just run that much hotter! A better heat sink would solve all these problems. In fact its quite likely that with a good heat sink I might not need a fan at all. I'd prefer to have a silent 5 volt 120 mm fan on it just to make sure though. Do you read for comprehension or just blather? Its his Airport Base Station, not the Mini that he says is getting hot. Sheesh!

In article %LWgi.5764$yN.1696@redacted.invalid, Grandpa me@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

Has anyone heard of someone changing the heat sink on their Mini? My PPC 1.25 ghz model would need a heat sink not exceeding 47 mm x 118 mm. (47 mm is about 1.5 inches.) A Sonic Tower might work if one ground the 2 of the sides but it would be great to get a good one that might fit (with some retrofitting of course to mount it). What would be the purpose of doing this? Would this reduce the fan noise from my PPC 1.25 ghz Mac Mini? Yes. It would dramatically reduce it. The same way good heat sinks dramatically reduce the noise of fans in any computer.
The Mac mini fan is only a minor annoyance, what really needs better heat management is my "AirPortExtreme 802.11n" base station whose top surface gets nearly hot enough to fry eggs on.

Are you running it with the top on? If so, how do you know its so hot?

If not, try pointing a fan on it. If it works, you can incorporate the fan in a future install. I don't have an Airport in mine so I can't comment.

This is another example though, of how one component can heat up others. Perhaps one of the reasons I find the Mini's fan kind of bothersome is that I'm running it without the top on. If I had the top on, surely the noise would be far less aggravating. But then it would just run that much hotter! A better heat sink would solve all these problems. In fact its quite likely that with a good heat sink I might not need a fan at all. I'd prefer to have a silent 5 volt 120 mm fan on it just to make sure though.

Do you read for comprehension or just blather? Its his Airport Base Station, not the Mini that he says is getting hot. Sheesh!

Right you are. My mistake. Thought it was the internal Airport.

On 2007-06-28 17:27:11 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

Maybe you just can't stand it when everyone disagrees with you.

Not at all. Like I said, the hardware experience here is not strong.

You have no evidence to back up that opinion - and it is just an opinion. Some of us do have substantial hardware experience.

The software experience here is very strong.

As is the hardware experience.

My experience gave me knowledge and now I know why certain designs are lacking. If someone else doesn't have that experience, they may not agree with me. Perfectly understandable.

Exactly what experience do you have? What degrees do you hold?

On 2007-06-28 16:50:45 -0500, James Glidewell jimglidewell@redacted.invalid said:

New Guy is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

From that page:

"Meanwhile, people with true knowledge tended to underestimate their competence."

Word. It's quite typical for engineers in most engineering teams in which I've worked to create performance estimates (with little outside (marketing etc.) influence) that lean heavily to the pessimistic side.
Ans the sure-tell sign of a person without much experience is that they tend to bite off more than they can chew. ; )

Maybe you just can't stand it when everyone disagrees with you.

Not at all. Like I said, the hardware experience here is not strong.

You have no evidence to back up that opinion - and it is just an opinion. Some of us do have substantial hardware experience.

My evidence is what people say about hardware here. That's just my opinion of course. You're may differ. No problem. Its a free country, right?

The software experience here is very strong.

As is the hardware experience.

If you want to believe that, fine.

My experience gave me knowledge and now I know why certain designs are lacking. If someone else doesn't have that experience, they may not agree with me. Perfectly understandable.

Exactly what experience do you have? What degrees do you hold?

Real world experience. Trying different things and seeing their effect. The only thing that matters is results. And I get results in my own equipment.

Look at the medical profession. Here you have highly educated professionals that are almost useless for anything but trauma (accidents). In disease, they are useful for little more than diagnosis. They are highly trained, and by society's definition, highly educated. Yet they largely responsible for our society's disgraceful health condition. If you told them "I ate something different and noticed these health benefits", they wouldn't listen.
Or 99% wouldn't. They are simply not willing to step out of the mainstream and risk ridicule by their peers by noticing something different. You will almost never hear a medical doctor ever recommend fasting yet that has helped untold numbers of people cure terminal health conditions. In some ways education can hinder people. It traps them in established ways of thinking.

Results are the only thing that matters.

Before I gave results showing very effective and silent cooling options. Temperature results. The only thing that matters.

A lot of you think that exhausted hot air is not a sign of poor cooling. I guess that could be true if you believe that components and their heat sinks can run at far higher temperatures than typical room temperature with no long term problems. Most electronics experts will attest to the fact that you want to run electronics at as cool a temperature as possible or as close to room temperature as possible.
This is indeed possible and can be tested simply by holding your hand and feeling the exhausted air. If it feels warm, that means its a lot higher then room temperature.

Cooling can be quite easy. Some techniques may seem a little unorthodox, but they are not costly and they really work.

In article 2007062817511075249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 16:50:45 -0500, James Glidewell jimglidewell@redacted.invalid said:

New Guy is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

From that page:

"Meanwhile, people with true knowledge tended to underestimate their competence."

Word. It's quite typical for engineers in most engineering teams in which I've worked to create performance estimates (with little outside (marketing etc.) influence) that lean heavily to the pessimistic side.

Don't you mean the optimistic side? Like their performance goals may be a little unrealistic and not sustainable by market prices? Or were they trying to scare the others by warning that if they didn't do things their way, repercussions would follow, like product failure?

Ans the sure-tell sign of a person without much experience is that they tend to bite off more than they can chew. ; )

We all do that once in a while. But if you want to reach your goals, sometimes its better to aim a little beyond them.

In article JKD8oM.L96@redacted.invalid, James Glidewell jimglidewell@redacted.invalid wrote:

I'd say it's because the New Guy is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

I think you hit the nail on the head.

In article replytogroup-E5EA25.15161228062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Your opinion, Michelle. Like I've said, you know software very well. In hardware your knowledge just isn't there.

I software and hardware, your knowledge isn't there.

In real world experience, less so. Maybe you just can't stand it when someone disagrees with you?

Oh, I can stand it alright. What I can't stand is when someone who knows less than I do insists that I'm wrong and he's right, especially when it is obvious that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

I'll stack up my hardware knowledge and real-world experience against yours any day.

The New Guy wrote:

In article 2007062817511075249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 16:50:45 -0500, James Glidewell jimglidewell@redacted.invalid said:

New Guy is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect From that page:

"Meanwhile, people with true knowledge tended to underestimate their competence."

Word. It's quite typical for engineers in most engineering teams in which I've worked to create performance estimates (with little outside (marketing etc.) influence) that lean heavily to the pessimistic side.

Don't you mean the optimistic side? Like their performance goals may be a little unrealistic and not sustainable by market prices? Or were they trying to scare the others by warning that if they didn't do things their way, repercussions would follow, like product failure?

Ans the sure-tell sign of a person without much experience is that they tend to bite off more than they can chew. ; )

We all do that once in a while. But if you want to reach your goals, sometimes its better to aim a little beyond them.

Just how long did the engineers say that the Mars rovers were going to last? And how long have they lasted? Would you say that they were "optimistic?" Most of the design engineers that I worked with were always "hedging their bets" when it came to design life. They'd guarantee 500 hours MTBF, but we would typically actually experience 2000 hours or more. No electronic engineer that I worked with would consider pushing the environmental envelope to get a little more performance. Everything was always derated. But you probably wouldn't know about that criteria.

D-K indeed.

In article replytogroup-9699C5.17271128062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

This thread is simply about if anyone has read or heard of the Mini heat sink being replaced. I Googled but didn't have much luck.

That should give you a hint right there.

You should apply to Apple for this job; it fits your self-described expertise:

<http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=6501& CurrentPage=2> Requisition Number 2946588 Job title Engineering Project Mgr: Enclosures Location Santa Clara Valley Country United States City Cupertino State/Province California Job type Full Time

Job description As an Engineering Project Manager within the Product Design organization you will be responsible for managing the development and implementation process for one of our Product Design teams. The position will support multiple product lines from our Mac engineering organization. In this role you will drive the day to day program activities to meet the overall program objectives with a heavy focus on the mechanical design engineering cycle and deployment planning. Key skills to include: the ability to create and maintain program schedules; the ability to predict pitfalls and develop a better course of action; the ability to identify and direct all resources required to execute successful programs; and the ability to collaborate across engineering, operations and our OEM partners to meet very aggressive cost, schedule, quality and TTV goals. The ability to work closely with the respective Eng Managers, Operations managers, Marketing managers and Product Design Engineers, as well as our vendors and OEM partners is crucial to success. The ideal person is a Project/Program Manager with a mechanical engineering or related technical background.

• At least 8 years of combined experience in project management and mechanical engineering delivering products comprised of multiple materials and high esthetic quality.
• Detailed knowledge of the product development processes as well as a strong understanding of manufacturing processes. *Experience interfacing with Operations, Mechanical Engineering/Design and Marketing Preferred Experience:
• Masters in Engineering preferred.
• Multi-national development experiences also a plus.
• Understands CAD/Mechanical design

In article replytogroup-612238.18034528062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

You have no evidence to back up that opinion - and it is just an opinion. Some of us do have substantial hardware experience.

My evidence is what people say about hardware here.

That evidence goes against your opinion.

Exactly what experience do you have? What degrees do you hold?

Real world experience. Trying different things and seeing their effect. The only thing that matters is results. And I get results in my own equipment.

In other words, nothing worthwhile.

Before I gave results showing very effective and silent cooling options. Temperature results. The only thing that matters.

You didn't measure the right things, and your interpretation of your results is screwy.

On 2007-06-28 18:07:59 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

In article 2007062817511075249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 16:50:45 -0500, James Glidewell jimglidewell@redacted.invalid said:

New Guy is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

From that page:

"Meanwhile, people with true knowledge tended to underestimate their competence."

Word. It's quite typical for engineers in most engineering teams in which I've worked to create performance estimates (with little outside (marketing etc.) influence) that lean heavily to the pessimistic side.

Don't you mean the optimistic side? Like their performance goals may be a little unrealistic and not sustainable by market prices? Or were they trying to scare the others by warning that if they didn't do things their way, repercussions would follow, like product failure?

No, I don't mean the optimistic side. Experienced engineers don't set themselves up for failure. You haven't ever worked in engineering, have you?

Ans the sure-tell sign of a person without much experience is that they

tend to bite off more than they can chew. ; )

We all do that once in a while. But if you want to reach your goals, sometimes its better to aim a little beyond them.

See above.

The New Guy wrote:

Does anyone know if the Intel Minis have temp sensors in them?

Yes they do - that is how I was able to provide you with temperatures in an earlier thread. Here is a screenshot showing the sensors probed by Temperature Monitor: http://freespace.virgin.net/george.coward/other/temp-mon.png

The Mini is the latest model (just a few days' old). I've suspended SETI@redacted.invalid for the time being, so those temperatures are with the Mini idle and a room temperature of 18 C.

Exactly what experience do you have? What degrees do you hold?

Real world experience. Trying different things and seeing their effect. The only thing that matters is results. And I get results in my own equipment.

In other words, nothing worthwhile.

Well if you call cooling at near ambient levels nothing, so be it.
Its the pinnacle of simple, air cooled, cooling, nevertheless. Nobody wants to rely on liquid cooling if they don't have to. The air being exhausted out of my machines feel the same as the ambient temperature.
That's cooling that works. And its near silent almost all the time.
And the only thing that isn't silent is that tiny Mini fan. That's why I'm searching for a better heat sink.

Before I gave results showing very effective and silent cooling options. Temperature results. The only thing that matters.

You didn't measure the right things, and your interpretation of your results is screwy.

I didn't measure anything at all. You don't even remember. If you go back to that thread that would never die, you will see that I gave an example of a siltentpcreview article that also showed near ambient levels of cooling that were far lower than the ones supplied by Jolly Roger's iMac and G5 Tower. It wasn't my figures. Remember, I don't have temperature sensors in my Mini. But any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

Michelle, you seem exceedingly angry lately. Maybe some more cardio would relieve some of the angst?

In article 2007062819014416807-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 18:07:59 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

In article 2007062817511075249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 16:50:45 -0500, James Glidewell jimglidewell@redacted.invalid said:

New Guy is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

From that page:

"Meanwhile, people with true knowledge tended to underestimate their competence."

Word. It's quite typical for engineers in most engineering teams in which I've worked to create performance estimates (with little outside (marketing etc.) influence) that lean heavily to the pessimistic side.

Don't you mean the optimistic side? Like their performance goals may be a little unrealistic and not sustainable by market prices? Or were they trying to scare the others by warning that if they didn't do things their way, repercussions would follow, like product failure?

No, I don't mean the optimistic side. Experienced engineers don't set themselves up for failure. You haven't ever worked in engineering, have you?

I've never had to answer to anyone but the market, thankfully. And the market treats me well, so far. My results are good and people appreciate them when they open their eyes to new ideas. Sadly, few people do.

If you're worried about your job, then I guess you may design pessimistically. If you strive for high goals, you may risk more. It all depends on the job.

Ans the sure-tell sign of a person without much experience is that they

tend to bite off more than they can chew. ; )

We all do that once in a while. But if you want to reach your goals, sometimes its better to aim a little beyond them.

See above.

Well I guess nobody has replaced the Mini's heat sink so far........:)

Does anyone know if the Intel Minis have temp sensors in them?

Yes they do - that is how I was able to provide you with temperatures in an earlier thread. Here is a screenshot showing the sensors probed by Temperature Monitor: http://freespace.virgin.net/george.coward/other/temp-mon.png

The Mini is the latest model (just a few days' old). I've suspended SETI@redacted.invalid for the time being, so those temperatures are with the Mini idle and a room temperature of 18 C.

The fact that you have the latest model is the reason you have those precious sensors. The PPC models, at least mine, didn't. The only sensor was in the hard drive, if it had one that is.

Please post the same figures if you ever pop off the top. I presume that was taken when idling?

And to those familiar with the Apple temperature sensors: If I used an infrared or laser thermometer on the surface of say, the heat sink (by the say, its interesting that they spell heat sink as one word on that screenshot), would I get the same reading as the Apple sensor would give me? I should hunt someone down nearby that has a newer Mac to try it. I'm going to get one of those nifty thermometers but it would be a drag if my readings were not consistent with what an onboard sensor would give.

Ans the sure-tell sign of a person without much experience is that they tend to bite off more than they can chew. ; )

We all do that once in a while. But if you want to reach your goals, sometimes its better to aim a little beyond them.

Just how long did the engineers say that the Mars rovers were going to last? And how long have they lasted? Would you say that they were "optimistic?" Most of the design engineers that I worked with were always "hedging their bets" when it came to design life. They'd guarantee 500 hours MTBF, but we would typically actually experience 2000 hours or more. No electronic engineer that I worked with would consider pushing the environmental envelope to get a little more performance. Everything was always derated. But you probably wouldn't know about that criteria.

I guess it depends on the consequences of failure. Sometimes its not a serious consideration. When you're dealing with something millions of miles away, it most definitely is. Ironically, the best cooling will help all those components last longer.......lol. :)

On 2007-06-28 20:23:09 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

No, cooling is working if the temperature of the components being cooled is low. The temperature of the exiting air is insignificant.

You have a lot to learn, my friend.

On 2007-06-28 20:26:49 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

In article 2007062819014416807-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 18:07:59 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

In article 2007062817511075249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 16:50:45 -0500, James Glidewell jimglidewell@redacted.invalid said:

New Guy is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

From that page:

"Meanwhile, people with true knowledge tended to underestimate their competence."

Word. It's quite typical for engineers in most engineering teams in which I've worked to create performance estimates (with little outside (marketing etc.) influence) that lean heavily to the pessimistic side.

Don't you mean the optimistic side? Like their performance goals may be a little unrealistic and not sustainable by market prices? Or were they trying to scare the others by warning that if they didn't do things their way, repercussions would follow, like product failure?

No, I don't mean the optimistic side. Experienced engineers don't set themselves up for failure. You haven't ever worked in engineering, have you?

I've never had to answer to anyone but the market, thankfully. And the market treats me well, so far. My results are good and people appreciate them when they open their eyes to new ideas. Sadly, few people do.

If you're worried about your job, then I guess you may design pessimistically. If you strive for high goals, you may risk more. It all depends on the job.

This is why people here tend to think you are a know-it-all teenager.
You have zero knowledge of engineering, you hold no degree, yet you claim to know why engineers design things the way they do.

any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

No, cooling is working if the temperature of the components being cooled is low. The temperature of the exiting air is insignificant.

You have a lot to learn, my friend.

Well, that was polite at least.
Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot. This is supposing that we're in a normal enclosure that doesn't trap air of course.

In article 2007062821083775249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 20:26:49 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

In article 2007062819014416807-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 18:07:59 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

In article 2007062817511075249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 16:50:45 -0500, James Glidewell jimglidewell@redacted.invalid said:

New Guy is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

From that page:

"Meanwhile, people with true knowledge tended to underestimate their competence."

Word. It's quite typical for engineers in most engineering teams in which I've worked to create performance estimates (with little outside (marketing etc.) influence) that lean heavily to the pessimistic side.

Don't you mean the optimistic side? Like their performance goals may be a little unrealistic and not sustainable by market prices? Or were they trying to scare the others by warning that if they didn't do things their way, repercussions would follow, like product failure?

No, I don't mean the optimistic side. Experienced engineers don't set themselves up for failure. You haven't ever worked in engineering, have you?

I've never had to answer to anyone but the market, thankfully. And the market treats me well, so far. My results are good and people appreciate them when they open their eyes to new ideas. Sadly, few people do.

If you're worried about your job, then I guess you may design pessimistically. If you strive for high goals, you may risk more. It all depends on the job.

This is why people here tend to think you are a know-it-all teenager.
You have zero knowledge of engineering, you hold no degree, yet you claim to know why engineers design things the way they do.

Why not just respond in specifics. If you don't agree with something, stay on point. General insults don't do anyone any good.

In article replytogroup-9699C5.17271128062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

...... Its about specific points. My experience gave me knowledge ...

Experience isn't getting an empirical idea of how hot exhaust air is. You need to measure the temperature of component of interest (eg, cpu) and find the operating range of said component. Then if make a modification (heat sink, fan, baffles, etc), then you need to report the resulting temperature of the component. Finally, if both the before and after temperature are within the stated operating range, you need to find some information to suggest that there is some value to your modification - perhaps the component life is lengthened. But you need to get some solid information suggesting that this increase in component life is significant in this applicatin. If the component normally lasts 10 years and your modification makes it last 20, it is probably a waste of time.

On 2007-06-28 21:19:31 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

This is why people here tend to think you are a know-it-all teenager. You have zero knowledge of engineering, you hold no degree, yet you claim to know why engineers design things the way they do.

Why not just respond in specifics. If you don't agree with something, stay on point. General insults don't do anyone any good.

If you really want specifics, you'll take a course in thermodynamics.

In article replytogroup-3811AC.20230828062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Michelle, you seem exceedingly angry lately. Maybe some more cardio would relieve some of the angst?

You seem exceedingly smarmy and insulting lately. Maybe knowing what you're talking about would let you stop making a complete ass of yourself.

In article replytogroup-477292.21181528062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot.

The heat transfers from the component, heating the air, and the air then leaves the enclosure. That is a concept that you refuse to understand.

In article 2007062821050616807-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-28 20:23:09 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

No, cooling is working if the temperature of the components being cooled is low. The temperature of the exiting air is insignificant.

I agree that it is the "temperature of the components being cooled" that is important, but I don't agree that the "temperature of the exiting air is insignificant", although "The New Guy's" conclusions about the exhausted air don't necessarily follow.

Regards,

John Byrns

On 2007-06-28 23:30:37 -0500, John Byrns byrnsj@redacted.invalid said:

I don't agree that the "temperature of the exiting air is insignificant"

It's insignificant when you consider that the air flow rate is variable.

In article replytogroup-EEA8A5.14343228062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article sdfisher-2A4843.17071227062007@redacted.invalid, Steven Fisher sdfisher@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-250C73.18342527062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

How about not trying to sabotage a thread? I simply asked if anyone has heard of the Mini heat sink being upgraded. The answer is a Yes or a no-answer. If its a Yes, hopefully an URL will follow so I can learn about it. Surely this hardware deficient newsgroup can grapple with that simple task.

Because you asserted in a subsequent post that the change make a hugely positive impact, and you are woefully under-qualified to make a statement like that.

I would propose that if a statement is true or false, the credibility of the person making that statement is irrelevant. All the matters is the truth of the statement. Some of you are well educated in science yet lack real world experience so you don't recognize where the priorities lie in the computer cooling world. I don't want to dig up what was amply discussed before though.

If a statement can be proven true or false, sure. However, you've done nothing of the kind. For all you know, a larger heat sink will lower air circulation sufficiently to completely fry the CPU. You do know the heat has to go somewhere after the heatsink draws it away, right?

If all you were interested in was an answer to your question, you wouldn't have attempted to shove bad advice down someone else's throat. Leaving that as is would be extremely irresponsible.

What bad advice are you talking about?

Replacing the heatsink. YOU go ahead risk your mini by doing it if you're brave - just don't assert that it will make things better when it isn't proven. I mean, you haven't even TRIED it on ONE computer yet, where the hell do you get off telling people to do it because it will have a huge, positive impact? At a minimum, it will void the warranty, so it's automatically bad advice on those grounds. Honestly, it's difficult to imagine someone who gives as little thought to things as you.

The New Guy wrote:

In article anon-3FC0EF.15572628062007@redacted.invalid, RubyTuesday anon@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-E5EA25.15161228062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about again. Your opinion, Michelle. Like I've said, you know software very well.
In hardware your knowledge just isn't there. In real world experience, less so. Maybe you just can't stand it when someone disagrees with you? Ya know, you keep saying that. But looking back at that thread about heat sinks, I can't find one single person that agrees with you. Why does that not tell you something? If you're so right, how can everyone else be so wrong?

Maybe you just can't stand it when everyone disagrees with you.

Not at all. Like I said, the hardware experience here is not strong.
The software experience here is very strong. Actually there were several people that agreed with several of my points. Once Michelle and others starting slinging insults than others jumped on the bandwagon. It happens. No biggee. And its not about someone "agreeing with you" on everything. Its about specific points. My experience gave me knowledge and now I know why certain designs are lacking. If someone else doesn't have that experience, they may not agree with me. Perfectly understandable. But we're getting off track.

This thread is simply about if anyone has read or heard of the Mini heat sink being replaced. I Googled but didn't have much luck.

It really begs the question (and excuse my language if that sort of thing if frowned upon here) of why the fuck you think you're in a position to second guess the Apple ENGINEERS that designed and built the fucking things in the first place?

Personally, I can't remember reading anything about the mass-recall of Mac Minis that had died due to overheating issues. Can anyone point me towards a source that shows any Mac has overheating issues under normal conditions?

Sheesh...

Andy.

In article replytogroup-57D64B.20264928062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No, I don't mean the optimistic side. Experienced engineers don't set themselves up for failure. You haven't ever worked in engineering, have you?

I've never had to answer to anyone but the market, thankfully. And the market treats me well, so far. My results are good and people appreciate them when they open their eyes to new ideas. Sadly, few people do.

If you're worried about your job, then I guess you may design pessimistically.

You may be worried about something other than your job, or indeed anything about your life specifically. Engineers and architects (whether we're talking about computer systems or physical structures) are very often financially liable for the expenses incurred when the things they've created don't match what someone - often not them - has promised. Sometimes those "expenses" manifest as injury or death, which can be a crippling burden for anyone with a conscience.

If you strive for high goals, you may risk more. It all depends on the job.

True. If nobody's safety depends on you getting it right you can go pretty wild.

G

In article replytogroup-3811AC.20230828062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Exactly what experience do you have? What degrees do you hold?

Real world experience. Trying different things and seeing their effect. The only thing that matters is results. And I get results in my own equipment.

In other words, nothing worthwhile.

Well if you call cooling at near ambient levels nothing, so be it.
Its the pinnacle of simple, air cooled, cooling, nevertheless. Nobody wants to rely on liquid cooling if they don't have to. The air being exhausted out of my machines feel the same as the ambient temperature.
That's cooling that works.

Unless, of course, the exhaust was cool because the airflow was trapping the hot air inside....

I didn't measure anything at all. You don't even remember. If you go back to that thread that would never die, you will see that I gave an example of a siltentpcreview article that also showed near ambient levels of cooling that were far lower than the ones supplied by Jolly Roger's iMac and G5 Tower. It wasn't my figures. Remember, I don't have temperature sensors in my Mini. But any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

Yes, any idiot probably would assume that without bothering to verify.

G

On 2007-06-29 07:31:35 -0500, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid said:

Well if you call cooling at near ambient levels nothing, so be it. Its the pinnacle of simple, air cooled, cooling, nevertheless. Nobody wants to rely on liquid cooling if they don't have to. The air being exhausted out of my machines feel the same as the ambient temperature. That's cooling that works.

Unless, of course, the exhaust was cool because the airflow was trapping the hot air inside....

It's also possible that the air flow was way faster than needed, which begs the question "How much power was the machine consuming at the time?".

In article 2007062908392775249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's also possible that the air flow was way faster than needed,

But was it faster than a unladen swallow?

On 2007-06-29 10:16:07 -0500, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid said:

In article 2007062908392775249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's also possible that the air flow was way faster than needed,

But was it faster than a unladen swallow?

Would that be a "gulp"?

In article michelle-E8A88C.08160729062007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 2007062908392775249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's also possible that the air flow was way faster than needed,

But was it faster than a unladen swallow?

African or European?

On 2007-06-29 10:28:34 -0500, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid said:

In article michelle-E8A88C.08160729062007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 2007062908392775249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's also possible that the air flow was way faster than needed,

But was it faster than a unladen swallow?

African or European?

Does one swallow faster than the other?

In article replytogroup-3811AC.20230828062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Exactly what experience do you have? What degrees do you hold?

Real world experience. Trying different things and seeing their effect. The only thing that matters is results. And I get results in my own equipment.

In other words, nothing worthwhile.

Well if you call cooling at near ambient levels nothing, so be it.
Its the pinnacle of simple, air cooled, cooling, nevertheless. Nobody wants to rely on liquid cooling if they don't have to. The air being exhausted out of my machines feel the same as the ambient temperature.
That's cooling that works. And its near silent almost all the time.
And the only thing that isn't silent is that tiny Mini fan. That's why I'm searching for a better heat sink.

Before I gave results showing very effective and silent cooling options. Temperature results. The only thing that matters.

You didn't measure the right things, and your interpretation of your results is screwy.

I didn't measure anything at all. You don't even remember. If you go back to that thread that would never die, you will see that I gave an example of a siltentpcreview article that also showed near ambient levels of cooling that were far lower than the ones supplied by Jolly Roger's iMac and G5 Tower. It wasn't my figures. Remember, I don't have temperature sensors in my Mini. But any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

It could also mean that the heat sink is packed with dust, or that it has become thermally disconnected from the chip it's supposed to cool.

The only proper test, is to measure the temperature of the chip you're trying to cool -- not the exiting air, not even the heat sink (which doesn't actually "sink" any heat at all, but rather just moves it from one place to another).

I don't play an engineer on TV, but I am one 8^}

Isaac

In article michelle-BBE8FA.21275428062007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-477292.21181528062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot.

The heat transfers from the component, heating the air, and the air then leaves the enclosure. That is a concept that you refuse to understand.

It is impossible for the heat sink to be at a lower temperature than the exiting air that is removing its thermal energy.

Isaac

On 2007-06-29 11:19:51 -0500, isw isw@redacted.invalid said:

The only proper test, is to measure the temperature of the chip you're trying to cool

Exactly.

On 2007-06-29 11:25:33 -0500, isw isw@redacted.invalid said:

In article michelle-BBE8FA.21275428062007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-477292.21181528062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot.

The heat transfers from the component, heating the air, and the air then leaves the enclosure. That is a concept that you refuse to understand.

It is impossible for the heat sink to be at a lower temperature than the exiting air that is removing its thermal energy.

True in the strict sense, but you're not taking into account that some systems funnel heated air from multiple components into a single air channel before final exit.

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot.

The heat transfers from the component, heating the air, and the air then leaves the enclosure. That is a concept that you refuse to understand.

My point all along is if the heat sink is properly designed for the task, it will hardly get warm. So it really can't heat the air as long as their is reasonable airflow aided by a fan. It all boils down to the job the heat sink is doing since we never operate in sealed boxes - there is always airflow.

Now if the heat sink is barely getting warm, it doesn't heat the air so the exiting air is near ambient temperature. So exhausted air temperatures are very indicative of cooling efficiency, hard as that may be to accept for some of you.

The cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

No, cooling is working if the temperature of the components being cooled is low. The temperature of the exiting air is insignificant.

I agree that it is the "temperature of the components being cooled" that is important,

I think we all agree on that.

but I don't agree that the "temperature of the exiting air is insignificant", although "The New Guy's" conclusions about the exhausted air don't necessarily follow.

Explain please. What I'm curious about I guess is how something can be cooled to near ambient levels with the exhausted air being hot.
Now you may not agree that cooling to near ambient levels is important. But that is not what we're discussing here.

I don't agree that the "temperature of the exiting air is insignificant"

It's insignificant when you consider that the air flow rate is variable.

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

isw isw@redacted.invalid writes:

In article replytogroup-3811AC.20230828062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

But any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

It could also mean that the heat sink is packed with dust, or that it has become thermally disconnected from the chip it's supposed to cool.

It seems to me that, to a first approximation, the temperature of the exausted air would only depend on the amount of heat being generated and the rate of air flow, and would be independent of the condition of the heat sink. If you do something to make the heat sink work poorly, then the temperature of the chip would increase until the temperature differential is large enough to transfer the same amount of heat as before.

If a statement can be proven true or false, sure. However, you've done nothing of the kind. For all you know, a larger heat sink will lower air circulation sufficiently to completely fry the CPU.

Large heat sinks are often used without fans because they work so well. But usually with a low rpm large (120 mm or 140 mm) fan.
Upgrading to a larger heat sink results in lower CPU temps.

You do know the heat has to go somewhere after the heatsink draws it away, right?

Yeah, I think we're a little past that.

If all you were interested in was an answer to your question, you wouldn't have attempted to shove bad advice down someone else's throat. Leaving that as is would be extremely irresponsible.

What bad advice are you talking about?

Replacing the heatsink.

I asked if anyone had heard of someone who had done it. Since the heat sink is more akin to something on a video card, its obvious it could be improved. There are no high end heat sinks in the world that are small. Size matter in heat sinks.

YOU go ahead risk your mini by doing it if you're brave - just don't assert that it will make things better when it isn't proven. I mean, you haven't even TRIED it on ONE computer yet, where the hell do you get off telling people to do it

If you review this thread, I never told anyone to do it. I asked if it had been done.

because it will have a huge, positive impact?

If the fan ramps up when the CPU is moderately stressed, that means the heat sink is not up to the task.

At a minimum, it will void the warranty,

So? Do it after your warranty expires. Or buy a used one. I would imagine that a sizable percentage of the readers here are using used computers. And anyone, how would it void the warranty? How would they even know? Have you ever dismantled a Mini? Its not very complicated. Also, the CPU heat sink is under a plastic housing so you could replace the plastic holders with metal ones like I did and they would never know. I doubt that they would dismantle the plastic housing when they're working on it if they don't have to. I mean, its not as if a lot of people are fooling with Mini heat sinks. In fact, its obvious that its rarely been done. Otherwise someone would have posted a link.

so it's automatically bad advice on those grounds. Honestly, it's difficult to imagine someone who gives as little thought to things as you.

Its difficult to imagine how someone can be so fearful of change.....:)

It really begs the question of why do you think you're in a position to second guess the Apple ENGINEERS that designed and built the things in the first place?

Have you ever heard of any product that could not be improved? I'm trying to improve one area of the Mini that bugs me. That's all. In fact, most inventions and improvements came about from precisely that reason.

Personally, I can't remember reading anything about the mass-recall of Mac Minis that had died due to overheating issues. Can anyone point me towards a source that shows any Mac has overheating issues under normal conditions?

That's not the point. The point is the machine uses a small fan and any small fan is noisy when spinning fast. If I could somehow funnel air from a large fan down to the heat sink that would be an improvement too. But I don't know how to do it. That, of course, wouldn't be nearly as good as just using a better heat sink in the first place.

No, I don't mean the optimistic side. Experienced engineers don't set themselves up for failure. You haven't ever worked in engineering, have you?

I've never had to answer to anyone but the market, thankfully. And the market treats me well, so far. My results are good and people appreciate them when they open their eyes to new ideas. Sadly, few people do.

If you're worried about your job, then I guess you may design pessimistically.

You may be worried about something other than your job, or indeed anything about your life specifically. Engineers and architects (whether we're talking about computer systems or physical structures) are very often financially liable for the expenses incurred when the things they've created don't match what someone - often not them - has promised. Sometimes those "expenses" manifest as injury or death, which can be a crippling burden for anyone with a conscience.

Good points. But we're hardly talking about maiming and death here!
But you do show why an engineer may design pessimistically as Jolly mentioned above. And really engineering is always a mixture of both.
You want to push the envelope but have to refrain from risk. The engineering balance.

Well if you call cooling at near ambient levels nothing, so be it.
Its the pinnacle of simple, air cooled, cooling, nevertheless. Nobody wants to rely on liquid cooling if they don't have to. The air being exhausted out of my machines feel the same as the ambient temperature.
That's cooling that works.

Unless, of course, the exhaust was cool because the airflow was trapping the hot air inside....

But that never happens! How could any case trap air inside? Did someone wrap a plastic bag around it? Airflow - air movement which is the opposite of "trapping the hot air inside".

I didn't measure anything at all. You don't even remember. If you go back to that thread that would never die, you will see that I gave an example of a siltentpcreview article that also showed near ambient levels of cooling that were far lower than the ones supplied by Jolly Roger's iMac and G5 Tower. It wasn't my figures. Remember, I don't have temperature sensors in my Mini. But any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

Yes, any idiot probably would assume that without bothering to verify.

Well this idiot has components running at near ambient levels in a near silent system. And it works.

Well if you call cooling at near ambient levels nothing, so be it. Its the pinnacle of simple, air cooled, cooling, nevertheless. Nobody wants to rely on liquid cooling if they don't have to. The air being exhausted out of my machines feel the same as the ambient temperature. That's cooling that works.

Unless, of course, the exhaust was cool because the airflow was trapping the hot air inside....

Well that's quite impossible as I just mentioned in the previous thread.

It's also possible that the air flow was way faster than needed,

So its noisy. Here we go again: You cannot depend on airflow if you care about noise.

I didn't measure anything at all. You don't even remember. If you go back to that thread that would never die, you will see that I gave an example of a siltentpcreview article that also showed near ambient levels of cooling that were far lower than the ones supplied by Jolly Roger's iMac and G5 Tower. It wasn't my figures. Remember, I don't have temperature sensors in my Mini. But any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

It could also mean that the heat sink is packed with dust,

IF your system is packed with dust, you're too stupid to own a computer.

or that it has become thermally disconnected from the chip it's supposed to cool.

So then the person that applied the heat sink didn't know what they were doing and used deficient thermal compound. Once again, if you don't know how to apply thermal compound, you shouldn't be messing with your heat sink.

The only proper test, is to measure the temperature of the chip you're trying to cool -- not the exiting air, not even the heat sink (which doesn't actually "sink" any heat at all, but rather just moves it from one place to another).

I guess you haven't worked with heat sinks. If a heat sink is working well and is up for the job needed, it will hardly get warm to the touch. I guess a lot of you only have experience with really lousy heat sinks. Think of the example I gave many moons ago.
1: You hold a small piece of metal that warms to your touch. 2: You hold a large piece of metal that doesn't warm to your touch. #2 is the better heat sink. It doesn't get as warm. The better the heat sink, the cooler it runs. The cooler it runs, the lower the temperature of the exhausted air. Which is exactly what I've been reiterating from the beginning. Hopefully some of your eyes are being opened.

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot.

It is impossible for the heat sink to be at a lower temperature than the exiting air that is removing its thermal energy.

Yes, that's kind of obvious. Nowhere did I intimate that that was not
true. But it IS very much possible for the heat sink to be NEAR ambient temperature levels. VERY near.

But this bring up an interesting question that you engineers can answer. When we go outside, the higher the wind, the lower the temperatures feels. Is it ever possible that a similar thing happens with inanimate objects? You take a heat sink with nothing heating it, then you blast it with, say, 70 F room temperature air. Can the temperature of the heat sink ever get lower than 70 F? It FEELS colder in a wind to us, but what about the actual temperature solid structures? I think someone mentioned before that we feel cool because of the rate of evaporation from our skin. I'm not sure if that applies here but of course solid structures have no evaporation rate.

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot.

It is impossible for the heat sink to be at a lower temperature than the exiting air that is removing its thermal energy.

True in the strict sense, but you're not taking into account that some systems funnel heated air from multiple components into a single air channel before final exit.

And that design is going to be relegated to the scrap heap more and more, the Mac Pro case design being a good start.

The trouble is the shape of the typical motherboard. Instead of about 12" x 9" (108 square inches), it could be maybe 18" x 6 " or whatever the maximum depth needed for the longest PCI card. A large fan (250 mm or about 10") on the bottom would push air up and ductwork would conduct the air into each area. You could have separate channels for the CPU heat sink, Video card(s), ram and chipset(s). Then the hard drives (2 fixed for Raid 0 for the OS and Programs and others in removable hard drive drawers for data) could be mounted on the other side of the motherboard with a channel of air for them. But to reshape motherboard design......that would take a lot of convincing.
Sort of like reinventing the wheel. If they just oriented the ram so it was in the same direction as the PCI slots, that would help a lot.
The CPU channel would be still be at the far right, then maybe the ram and chipsets, then the PCI slots. With ram getting hotter and hotter, (note the heat sinks on most all high end ram), it just makes sense to cool it with some airflow. But not like the Mac Pro using the hot CPU heat sink air to cool the FB-Dimm ram heat sinks.

We may see some very different case design come about once 250 mm or larger fans become more common.

The New Guy wrote:

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot. It is impossible for the heat sink to be at a lower temperature than the exiting air that is removing its thermal energy.

Yes, that's kind of obvious. Nowhere did I intimate that that was not
true. But it IS very much possible for the heat sink to be NEAR ambient temperature levels. VERY near.

But this bring up an interesting question that you engineers can answer. When we go outside, the higher the wind, the lower the temperatures feels. Is it ever possible that a similar thing happens with inanimate objects? You take a heat sink with nothing heating it, then you blast it with, say, 70 F room temperature air. Can the temperature of the heat sink ever get lower than 70 F? It FEELS colder in a wind to us, but what about the actual temperature solid structures? I think someone mentioned before that we feel cool because of the rate of evaporation from our skin. I'm not sure if that applies here but of course solid structures have no evaporation rate.

No they will not cool lower than 70 F. There is no evaporative action, which is what is happening to your stupid hand when you feel the exit air. This whole thing is how you FEEL about it. Check out some thermodynamic laws about heat transfer. Do you know "easy" it is to transfer heat from one object at 26C to ambient air of 25C? If the incoming air is 25C and the exit air is 25C just how much heat is being removed from the system?

In article replytogroup-C03557.12504529062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot.

It is impossible for the heat sink to be at a lower temperature than the exiting air that is removing its thermal energy.

Yes, that's kind of obvious. Nowhere did I intimate that that was not
true. But it IS very much possible for the heat sink to be NEAR ambient temperature levels. VERY near.

But this bring up an interesting question that you engineers can answer. When we go outside, the higher the wind, the lower the temperatures feels. Is it ever possible that a similar thing happens with inanimate objects? You take a heat sink with nothing heating it, then you blast it with, say, 70 F room temperature air. Can the temperature of the heat sink ever get lower than 70 F? It FEELS colder in a wind to us, but what about the actual temperature solid structures? I think someone mentioned before that we feel cool because of the rate of evaporation from our skin. I'm not sure if that applies here but of course solid structures have no evaporation rate.

No; the cooling effect you observe under those conditions is mostly due to evaporation of the moisture on the skin. Inanimate object do not perspire. The heat of vaporization of water is approximately 539 cal/gram.

Even if such objects did perspire, no amount of airflow would cool them below the temperature of the air passing over them; the moisture would just not vaporize. You would do well learn a little about partial pressures and thermodynamic equilibrium.

On 2007-06-29 12:25:17 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

Have you ever heard of any product that could not be improved? I'm trying to improve one area of the Mini that bugs me. That's all.

What area would that be? I have yet to see a shred of proof from you that the Mac mini runs too hot.

Have you ever heard of any product that could not be improved? I'm trying to improve one area of the Mini that bugs me. That's all.

What area would that be? I have yet to see a shred of proof from you that the Mac mini runs too hot.

I'll admit I'm much more sensitive to noise than most people. Its not the heat issue that prompted this original post though. It was the noise. Of course that is related to the heat.

On 2007-06-29 16:58:28 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

Have you ever heard of any product that could not be improved? I'm trying to improve one area of the Mini that bugs me. That's all.

What area would that be? I have yet to see a shred of proof from you that the Mac mini runs too hot.

I'll admit I'm much more sensitive to noise than most people. Its not the heat issue that prompted this original post though. It was the noise. Of course that is related to the heat.

I barely hear any of my three Mac mini fans, even when I'm pushing them. Then again I live in a big city.

Have you ever heard of any product that could not be improved? I'm trying to improve one area of the Mini that bugs me. That's all.

What area would that be? I have yet to see a shred of proof from you that the Mac mini runs too hot.

I'll admit I'm much more sensitive to noise than most people. Its not the heat issue that prompted this original post though. It was the noise. Of course that is related to the heat.

I barely hear any of my three Mac mini fans, even when I'm pushing them. Then again I live in a big city.

When my CPU use is above about 75% they ramp up. Are you using Intel Minis? Maybe they are quieter?

Methinks an Intel Mini is something I should get soon. So many advantages: 667mhz ram speed, double the ram capacity, full size Sata hard drive use without an adaptor, the ability to upgrade the CPU, the ability to run a 22" widescreen (1680 x 1050) which is currently the most bang for the buck.....the list just grows. Especially attractive with the recent crash in ram prices. But it looks like you can't add a high gain receiving antenna to the built in wireless. Is that correct? With the portability factor, that is especially interesting.

The New Guy wrote:

Please post the same figures if you ever pop off the top.

Yes, will do. As a matter of fact I plan to pop the hood in the very near future in order to add more RAM.

I presume that was taken when idling?

Yes; the temperature doubles when pegged at 100%. I'd like to resume SETI@redacted.invalid on it, but 81-88 C cannot be good for the CPU. I will be looking into "non-invasive" cooling solutions in order to avoid voiding the warranty...

In article 2007062918225275249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-29 16:58:28 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

Have you ever heard of any product that could not be improved? I'm trying to improve one area of the Mini that bugs me. That's all.

What area would that be? I have yet to see a shred of proof from you that the Mac mini runs too hot.

I'll admit I'm much more sensitive to noise than most people. Its not the heat issue that prompted this original post though. It was the noise. Of course that is related to the heat.

I barely hear any of my three Mac mini fans, even when I'm pushing them. Then again I live in a big city.

The fan in my Mac mini is on and making noise any time the computer is not sleeping, I would be happier if the fan only came on when the CPU is under stress as with my iBook book.

Regards,

John Byrns

In article ILXgi.1367$w2.241@redacted.invalid, Grandpa me@redacted.invalid wrote:

Just how long did the engineers say that the Mars rovers were going to last? And how long have they lasted? Would you say that they were "optimistic?"

Without knowing the confidence values and the distribution of failure, I don't know. If the numbers usually bandied about for the "design lifetime" were actually, e.g., the expected minimum lifetime with a confidence of 95%, and the chance of failure follows some distribution characterized by high infant mortality (quite likely!), then the usual case would be lifetimes much longer than the design lifetime.

However, this is off the topic of whether "The New Guy" is suffering from Dunning-Kruger... I'd give way better than 95% confidence for a YES on that one :-)

In article replytogroup-477292.21181528062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot. This is supposing that we're in a normal enclosure that doesn't trap air of course.

Free clue: No one cools a component to "near ambient levels". It's both impractical and unnecessary.

In article replytogroup-258A88.11542229062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2007-06-29 16:58:28 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

Have you ever heard of any product that could not be improved? I'm trying to improve one area of the Mini that bugs me. That's all.

What area would that be? I have yet to see a shred of proof from you that the Mac mini runs too hot.

I'll admit I'm much more sensitive to noise than most people. Its not the heat issue that prompted this original post though. It was the noise. Of course that is related to the heat.

I barely hear any of my three Mac mini fans, even when I'm pushing them. Then again I live in a big city.

The Mac Minis I've seen have been near enough to silent for my tastes.

Then again, I own a Dual G4 MDD "Wind-tunnel" model without the PS/Fan upgrades and don't really find it a problem.

Andy.

In article 4685cf7a$0$12801$5a62ac22@redacted.invalid, Andy nospam@redacted.invalid wrote: .....

The Mac Minis I've seen have been near enough to silent for my tastes.

Then again, I own a Dual G4 MDD "Wind-tunnel" model without the PS/Fan upgrades and don't really find it a problem.

HELLO? WHAT? COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? :-)

In article replytogroup-AD4DD1.12251729062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

It really begs the question of why do you think you're in a position to second guess the Apple ENGINEERS that designed and built the things in the first place?

Have you ever heard of any product that could not be improved? I'm trying to improve one area of the Mini that bugs me. That's all. In fact, most inventions and improvements came about from precisely that reason.

Well, when you become competent in the area, then perhaps you will have something constructive to add.

In article replytogroup-1AE924.18560129062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Methinks an Intel Mini is something I should get soon.

Methinks a Dell, Gateway, HP, or Compaq is something you should get soon, so you would bug their newsgroups instead of this one.

In article replytogroup-C03557.12504529062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

When we go outside, the higher the wind, the lower the temperatures feels.

Not always. Try going out in the 110 (+/- 5) degree temperature here in Phoenix on a windy day. The temperature feels hotter than if there were no wind.

In article replytogroup-4C4709.12442829062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

I guess you haven't worked with heat sinks.

That's your stock bullshit answer, if someone disagrees with you, you tell them that they have no hands-on, real-world, etc., experience.

In article 2007062910323811272-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's also possible that the air flow was way faster than needed,

But was it faster than a unladen swallow?

African or European?

Does one swallow faster than the other?

Or does it spit?

In article michelle-E318CD.21270929062007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-C03557.12504529062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

When we go outside, the higher the wind, the lower the temperatures feels.

Not always. Try going out in the 110 (+/- 5) degree temperature here in Phoenix on a windy day. The temperature feels hotter than if there were no wind.

I recall Orlando at 100F, 98% humidity, and smoke from forest fires covering the city.

No amount of wind could have made a difference.

Same in Nawlins... And Atlanta...

In article replytogroup-4C4709.12442829062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

I didn't measure anything at all. You don't even remember. If you go back to that thread that would never die, you will see that I gave an example of a siltentpcreview article that also showed near ambient levels of cooling that were far lower than the ones supplied by Jolly Roger's iMac and G5 Tower. It wasn't my figures. Remember, I don't have temperature sensors in my Mini. But any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

It could also mean that the heat sink is packed with dust,

IF your system is packed with dust, you're too stupid to own a computer.

or that it has become thermally disconnected from the chip it's supposed to cool.

So then the person that applied the heat sink didn't know what they were doing and used deficient thermal compound. Once again, if you don't know how to apply thermal compound, you shouldn't be messing with your heat sink.

The only proper test, is to measure the temperature of the chip you're trying to cool -- not the exiting air, not even the heat sink (which doesn't actually "sink" any heat at all, but rather just moves it from one place to another).

I guess you haven't worked with heat sinks. If a heat sink is working well and is up for the job needed, it will hardly get warm to the touch. I guess a lot of you only have experience with really lousy heat sinks.

If you guess that I have designed more than a few heat-removal systems for commercial electronics equipment (as well as designing the equipment itself), and have taught more than a few young engineers how to do the thermal calculations needed to size a heatsink (because they are not taught that in "engineering" schools), then your guess would be a lot closer.

Your notion of "hardly warm to the touch" is just naive. In almost every case where you'd have that result, you spent more money and took up more space, than you needed to. For any particular device, there is an allowable upper limit for its operating temperature, to ensure proper operation and reliability, and the manufacturer provides it. A competent engineer will provide a heatsink that will ensure that temperature is not exceeded during operation, and no more. Engineering is an economic discipline.

Think of the example I gave many moons ago.
1: You hold a small piece of metal that warms to your touch. 2: You hold a large piece of metal that doesn't warm to your touch. #2 is the better heat sink.

Not necessarily. It may take the second piece longer, but both will eventually rise to the same temperature (that of your hand). That is so because, by itself, neither of those is actually a heat sink. A "heat sink" is actually a theoretical construct; something that exhibits no temperature rise at all no matter how much heat is applied to it -- the ocean is a pretty good approximation for any heat source smaller than the sun. The devices we usually call "heat sinks" are really just couplers (thermal impedance matching devices), intended to couple the heat more efficiently from some object to the air.

It doesn't get as warm. The better the heat sink, the cooler it runs. The cooler it runs, the lower the temperature of the exhausted air.

Well, no. Actually, the heat generated by the underlying device is constant. It is coupled by the heatsink to the passing air no matter what the heatsink's temperature is -- a smaller sink will necessitate a greater temperature above that of the air, however. The temperature rise of the air is determined by how much airflow there is, and how much power (watts) it is carrying away, and has nothing at all to do with how large the heatsink is, or its temperature.

Bottom line: the rise in temperature of the air in passing through the unit is dependent solely on the total amount of heat generated inside (in watts, say), and is not related directly to the temperature of any particular heatsink which may be inside. Applied to a given device, a small, hot heatsink or a large, warm one, would result in exactly the same exit air temperature.

Which is exactly what I've been reiterating from the beginning.

I'd suggest you "guess" again (to quote something I read recently).

Isaac

On 2007-06-30 00:08:26 -0500, isw isw@redacted.invalid said:

The temperature rise of the air is determined by how much airflow there is

This is what I've been telling The New Guy all along. Good luck with getting him to believe it...

On 2007-06-29 18:56:01 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

When my CPU use is above about 75% they ramp up. Are you using Intel Minis? Maybe they are quieter?

I have a G4 mini and two Intel minis. None of them seem excessively loud. Then again my office environment is not so quiet I can hear a pin drop anyway.

In article replytogroup-6E3474.12155929062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

If you review this thread, I never told anyone to do it. I asked if it had been done.

On the contrary: You recommended it to someone in the third post on it. Thus, the storm.

In article byrnsj-34E2E0.19583329062007@redacted.invalid, John Byrns byrnsj@redacted.invalid wrote:

The fan in my Mac mini is on and making noise any time the computer is not sleeping, I would be happier if the fan only came on when the CPU is under stress as with my iBook book.

There's a small cable in your mini that you or whoever worked on your mini forgot to plug back in. Without that cable, the fans run at full.

On 2007-06-29 22:35:22 -0500, Andy nospam@redacted.invalid said:

Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2007-06-29 16:58:28 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

Have you ever heard of any product that could not be improved? I'm trying to improve one area of the Mini that bugs me. That's all.

What area would that be? I have yet to see a shred of proof from you that the Mac mini runs too hot.

I'll admit I'm much more sensitive to noise than most people. Its not the heat issue that prompted this original post though. It was the noise. Of course that is related to the heat.

I barely hear any of my three Mac mini fans, even when I'm pushing them. Then again I live in a big city.

The Mac Minis I've seen have been near enough to silent for my tastes.

Then again, I own a Dual G4 MDD "Wind-tunnel" model without the PS/Fan upgrades and don't really find it a problem.

Same here. In fact the ATI Radeon X850 XT in my G5 tower makes way more racket with it's stupid noisy little fan than any of Apple's fans.

Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-06-30 00:08:26 -0500, isw isw@redacted.invalid said:

The temperature rise of the air is determined by how much airflow there is

This is what I've been telling The New Guy all along. Good luck with getting him to believe it...

"Gutta cavat lapidem..." doesn't work on this stone, as it seems.

In article replytogroup-2BB931.12352929062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well if you call cooling at near ambient levels nothing, so be it. Its the pinnacle of simple, air cooled, cooling, nevertheless. Nobody wants to rely on liquid cooling if they don't have to. The air being exhausted out of my machines feel the same as the ambient temperature. That's cooling that works.

Unless, of course, the exhaust was cool because the airflow was trapping the hot air inside....

Well that's quite impossible as I just mentioned in the previous thread.

I didn't see the previous thread, but it's certainly not impossible in the general case. What makes it impossible in yours?

It's also possible that the air flow was way faster than needed,

So its noisy.

And consuming extra power and, ironically, generating excess heat.

G

In article replytogroup-CA7D37.12334229062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well if you call cooling at near ambient levels nothing, so be it.
Its the pinnacle of simple, air cooled, cooling, nevertheless. Nobody wants to rely on liquid cooling if they don't have to. The air being exhausted out of my machines feel the same as the ambient temperature.
That's cooling that works.

Unless, of course, the exhaust was cool because the airflow was trapping the hot air inside....

But that never happens! How could any case trap air inside? Did someone wrap a plastic bag around it?

Oh dear.

Anyone know a good introductory text on fluid dynamics?

Airflow - air movement which is the opposite of "trapping the hot air inside".

You do know that last thing wasn't a sentence, right? It didn't express a complete thought, so I'm not really sure what you intended to say.

I didn't measure anything at all. ... But any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

Yes, any idiot probably would assume that without bothering to verify.

Well this idiot has components running at near ambient levels in a near silent system. And it works.

And you know they're near ambient how? I thought you said you didn't measure anything.

In article uce-463390.09054730062007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Oh dear.

Anyone know a good introductory text on fluid dynamics?

Why? It doesn't substitute for "real world experience". If you don't believe me, just ask New Guy; he'll tell you.

Well this idiot has components running at near ambient levels in a near silent system. And it works.

And you know they're near ambient how? I thought you said you didn't measure anything.

He knows that they're near ambient because the exhaust air is near ambient.

In article steve-82B058.22403029062007@redacted.invalid, Steven Fisher steve@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article byrnsj-34E2E0.19583329062007@redacted.invalid, John Byrns byrnsj@redacted.invalid wrote:

The fan in my Mac mini is on and making noise any time the computer is not sleeping, I would be happier if the fan only came on when the CPU is under stress as with my iBook book.

There's a small cable in your mini that you or whoever worked on your mini forgot to plug back in. Without that cable, the fans run at full.

Well then blame Steve Jobs and the Apple factory for that, my Mac mini has never been worked on by me or anyone else since it first left the Apple store, I don't even have a clue how to open the box. Speaking of that how do you open the box, I assume it takes some kind of special tool? I would like to add more memory and an airport card as I did with my iBook.

Regards,

John Byrns

In article byrnsj-3C2FC2.09460330062007@redacted.invalid, John Byrns byrnsj@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well then blame Steve Jobs and the Apple factory for that, my Mac mini has never been worked on by me or anyone else since it first left the Apple store, I don't even have a clue how to open the box. Speaking of that how do you open the box, I assume it takes some kind of special tool? I would like to add more memory and an airport card as I did with my iBook.

It happens sometimes. Don't worry about it.

If you get a local dealer to install the memory, they'll be able to reconnect the cable at the same time. Getting a mini's case open is only the first problem in working on it.

On 2007-06-30 09:18:37 -0500, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid said:

In article uce-463390.09054730062007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Oh dear.

Anyone know a good introductory text on fluid dynamics?

Why? It doesn't substitute for "real world experience". If you don't believe me, just ask New Guy; he'll tell you.

Well this idiot has components running at near ambient levels in a near silent system. And it works.

And you know they're near ambient how? I thought you said you didn't measure anything.

He knows that they're near ambient because the exhaust air is near ambient.

Technically, he feels the exhaust air is near ambient.

On 2007-06-30 09:46:04 -0500, John Byrns byrnsj@redacted.invalid said:

Speaking of that how do you open the box, I assume it takes some kind of special tool? I would like to add more memory and an airport card as I did with my iBook.

You can find various web sites on the web with detailed instructions showing how to take Mac minis apart. Google is your friend. Here's one:

http://www.applefritter.com/Mac_Mini_Take_Apart_Guide

On 2007-06-30 10:41:14 -0500, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid said:

On 2007-06-30 09:46:04 -0500, John Byrns byrnsj@redacted.invalid said:

Speaking of that how do you open the box, I assume it takes some kind of special tool? I would like to add more memory and an airport card as I did with my iBook.

You can find various web sites on the web with detailed instructions showing how to take Mac minis apart. Google is your friend. Here's one:

http://www.applefritter.com/Mac_Mini_Take_Apart_Guide

There's a video here as well:

http://www.smashsworld.com/2005/01/taking-apart-mac-mini-how-to.php

In article 2007063010385050878-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

He knows that they're near ambient because the exhaust air is near ambient.

Technically, he feels the exhaust air is near ambient.

You getting new agey on JR?

On 2007-06-30 14:37:28 -0500, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid said:

In article 2007063010385050878-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

He knows that they're near ambient because the exhaust air is near ambient.

Technically, he feels the exhaust air is near ambient.

You getting new agey on JR?

Hey I can be sensitive.

Please post the same figures if you ever pop off the top.

Yes, will do. As a matter of fact I plan to pop the hood in the very near future in order to add more RAM.

Great.

I presume that was taken when idling?

Yes; the temperature doubles when pegged at 100%. I'd like to resume SETI@redacted.invalid on it, but 81-88 C cannot be good for the CPU. I will be looking into "non-invasive" cooling solutions in order to avoid voiding the warranty...

I wonder if there is a water block that is small enough to fit on that CPU? For the 1.25 ghz PPC it would need to be 47 mm x 118 mm. The 118 shouldn't be a problem. The 47 might very well be.

The fan in my Mac mini is on and making noise any time the computer is not sleeping, I would be happier if the fan only came on when the CPU is under stress as with my iBook book.

For that to happen you would need a massive heat sink. Maybe almost as large as the entire Mini!....:)

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot. This is supposing that we're in a normal enclosure that doesn't trap air of course.

Free clue: No one cools a component to "near ambient levels". It's both impractical and unnecessary.

Free clue: I do. Its done quite easily using exterior air and venting it immediately so the heat doesn't rise in the enclosure. Now whether you believe its necessary, that up to you. But its very practical indeed.

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

I think we're a little beyond these semantics. The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need. Now it just happens that 120 mm and larger fans fit nicely on larger heat sinks. So now many users are finding they can run that 120 mm fan at inaudible speeds and still get good cooling.

When we go outside, the higher the wind, the lower the temperatures feels.

Not always. Try going out in the 110 (+/- 5) degree temperature here in Phoenix on a windy day. The temperature feels hotter than if there were no wind.

Reminds me of when I was driving through the desert in the evening and the temperature was over 100 F. You're right, it did feel like it was heating my skin. I guess that was because it was above body temperature. It sure felt eerie the first time.

I didn't measure anything at all. You don't even remember. If you go back to that thread that would never die, you will see that I gave an example of a siltentpcreview article that also showed near ambient levels of cooling that were far lower than the ones supplied by Jolly Roger's iMac and G5 Tower. It wasn't my figures. Remember, I don't have temperature sensors in my Mini. But any idiot knows that the cooling is working if the exhausted air is cool.

It could also mean that the heat sink is packed with dust,

IF your system is packed with dust, you're too stupid to own a computer.

or that it has become thermally disconnected from the chip it's supposed to cool.

So then the person that applied the heat sink didn't know what they were doing and used deficient thermal compound. Once again, if you don't know how to apply thermal compound, you shouldn't be messing with your heat sink.

The only proper test, is to measure the temperature of the chip you're trying to cool -- not the exiting air, not even the heat sink (which doesn't actually "sink" any heat at all, but rather just moves it from one place to another).

I guess you haven't worked with heat sinks. If a heat sink is working well and is up for the job needed, it will hardly get warm to the touch. I guess a lot of you only have experience with really lousy heat sinks.

Your notion of "hardly warm to the touch" is just naive. In almost every case where you'd have that result, you spent more money and took up more space, than you needed to.

Remember I'm trying to look at the heat pessimistically. So I say that running it at idle. Obviously when its working hard things are going to heat up. But the point is, during normal operation its near ambient levels. But there has to be lots of "breathing room" so when its working hard, the fans can spin faster and get the job done. I believe some of the misunderstandings here are because I didn't make that clear earlier on. The guy running the Seti reminded me of that.

My original post did involve the heat exhausted when the iMac and Mac Pro were idling. That's why I was so concerned. I thought that if its this hot idling, imagine when its being stressed?!

For any particular device, there is an allowable upper limit for its operating temperature, to ensure proper operation and reliability, and the manufacturer provides it. A competent engineer will provide a heatsink that will ensure that temperature is not exceeded during operation, and no more. Engineering is an economic discipline.

But you know very well the cost of copper and aluminum. Not cheap.
So the less the manufacturer thinks they can get away with, the better the bottom line. Hence good heat sinks are very expensive.

Think of the example I gave many moons ago.
1: You hold a small piece of metal that warms to your touch. 2: You hold a large piece of metal that doesn't warm to your touch. #2 is the better heat sink.

Not necessarily. It may take the second piece longer, but both will eventually rise to the same temperature (that of your hand).

So if I hold a steel railing that is 50 feet long for 100 hours, its going to warm to my hand?

That is so because, by itself, neither of those is actually a heat sink. A "heat sink" is actually a theoretical construct; something that exhibits no temperature rise at all no matter how much heat is applied to it -- the ocean is a pretty good approximation for any heat source smaller than the sun. The devices we usually call "heat sinks" are really just couplers (thermal impedance matching devices), intended to couple the heat more efficiently from some object to the air.

That may be true theoretically, but I don't see the significance here.
The CPU heat sink draws heat away and that heat ends up heating the air. The railing draws heat away from my hand as is clearly evident if you hold cold steel for a while.

It doesn't get as warm. The better the heat sink, the cooler it runs. The cooler it runs, the lower the temperature of the exhausted air.

Well, no. Actually, the heat generated by the underlying device is constant.

By "it", of course I meant the heat sink.

And if the resources are taxed, wouldn't the CPU run hotter?

It is coupled by the heatsink to the passing air no matter what the heatsink's temperature is -- a smaller sink will necessitate a greater temperature above that of the air, however.

Hence almost all high performance are very large.

The temperature rise of the air is determined by how much airflow there is, and how much power (watts) it is carrying away, and has nothing at all to do with how large the heatsink is, or its temperature.

Well just by chance, all high performance heat sinks are very large.
Coincidence?

When my CPU use is above about 75% they ramp up. Are you using Intel Minis? Maybe they are quieter?

I have a G4 mini and two Intel minis. None of them seem excessively loud. Then again my office environment is not so quiet I can hear a pin drop anyway.

But when the Mini runs hard doing some intensive task, isn't that fan whine a little grating on the ears? And wouldn't it be nice if the fan whine was at a lower frequency? That's sure what I would love.
There are so many advantages to the Intel Mini, so if I could solve this little pesky issue, it would be grand.

The only negative to the Intel Mini that I can think of so far is that I can't hook up a second hard drive like I can on the PPC Mini because my 2.5" > 3.5" IDE adaptor enables 2 devices on that channel. Unless someone has rigged up a 2.5" optical IDE to 3.5" IDE adaptor? Now if the Mini used a Sata optical drive, it might be easier. But unfortunately its still IDE.

Same here. In fact the ATI Radeon X850 XT in my G5 tower makes way more racket with it's stupid noisy little fan than any of Apple's fans.

And ironically the Mini uses that same size noisy fan. If the heat sink was larger, one could use a larger fan. Same airflow with less rpm's. Noise problem solved.

You may notice on some high end video card heat sinks, they are positioning the heat sink "on top" of the card so its not in between the PCI cards. Then you can use a 120 mm fan and keep the noise levels down.

On 2007-07-01 13:16:57 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

Same here. In fact the ATI Radeon X850 XT in my G5 tower makes way more racket with it's stupid noisy little fan than any of Apple's fans.

And ironically the Mini uses that same size noisy fan.

The Mac mini uses the same exact fan as the Radeon X850 XT? Citation please? If that's true, the mini's is somehow way quieter, because I never hear it.

If the heat sink was larger, one could use a larger fan. Same airflow with less rpm's. Noise problem solved.

There is no noise problem here - and that's with three different minis. Even when I put the CPU through its paces there's no noticeable noise.

In article replytogroup-849376.12413201072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

The fan in my Mac mini is on and making noise any time the computer is not sleeping, I would be happier if the fan only came on when the CPU is under stress as with my iBook book.

For that to happen you would need a massive heat sink. Maybe almost as large as the entire Mini!....:)

Then why does the Book fan only run when the CPU is stressed? Are you saying the iBook has "a massive heat sink" maybe even as large as an "entire Mini!"?

Regards,

John Byrns

In article replytogroup-4D08CD.12400501072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Please post the same figures if you ever pop off the top.

Yes, will do. As a matter of fact I plan to pop the hood in the very near future in order to add more RAM.

Great.

I presume that was taken when idling?

Yes; the temperature doubles when pegged at 100%. I'd like to resume SETI@redacted.invalid on it, but 81-88 C cannot be good for the CPU. I will be looking into "non-invasive" cooling solutions in order to avoid voiding the warranty...

I wonder if there is a water block that is small enough to fit on that CPU? For the 1.25 ghz PPC it would need to be 47 mm x 118 mm. The 118 shouldn't be a problem. The 47 might very well be.

That, or any other sort of "heat pipe", doesn't get rid of any heat at all; it just moves it from one place to another with good efficiency. Heat pipes have been used in laptops for a long time.

If you really want to stick a large radiating element on your mini, a surplus heat pipe might be a way to go.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-2A3FB1.12462901072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

I think we're a little beyond these semantics.

You obviously don't understand what semantics means either.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Now it just happens that 120 mm and larger fans fit nicely on larger heat sinks. So now many users are finding they can run that 120 mm fan at inaudible speeds and still get good cooling.

In article CJedneFMbZSTVRjbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@redacted.invalid, russotto@redacted.invalid (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

In article replytogroup-477292.21181528062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot. This is supposing that we're in a normal enclosure that doesn't trap air of course.

Free clue: No one cools a component to "near ambient levels". It's both impractical and unnecessary.

Correct. The closer to ambient, the harder the cooling process becomes. Exponentially harder.

In article BvWdnU66EOIUWhjbnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@redacted.invalid, russotto@redacted.invalid (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

In article ILXgi.1367$w2.241@redacted.invalid, Grandpa me@redacted.invalid wrote:

Just how long did the engineers say that the Mars rovers were going to last? And how long have they lasted? Would you say that they were "optimistic?"

Without knowing the confidence values and the distribution of failure, I don't know. If the numbers usually bandied about for the "design lifetime" were actually, e.g., the expected minimum lifetime with a confidence of 95%, and the chance of failure follows some distribution characterized by high infant mortality (quite likely!), then the usual case would be lifetimes much longer than the design lifetime.

However, this is off the topic of whether "The New Guy" is suffering from Dunning-Kruger... I'd give way better than 95% confidence for a YES on that one :-)

I'd just say he's just a thick cunt who is unaware that he is. Unless he's MC in disguise.

In article isw-32E83F.22082629062007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-4C4709.12442829062007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

[snip]

Think of the example I gave many moons ago.
1: You hold a small piece of metal that warms to your touch. 2: You hold a large piece of metal that doesn't warm to your touch. #2 is the better heat sink.

Not necessarily. It may take the second piece longer, but both will eventually rise to the same temperature (that of your hand). That is so because, by itself, neither of those is actually a heat sink. A "heat sink" is actually a theoretical construct; something that exhibits no temperature rise at all no matter how much heat is applied to it -- the ocean is a pretty good approximation for any heat source smaller than the sun. The devices we usually call "heat sinks" are really just couplers (thermal impedance matching devices), intended to couple the heat more efficiently from some object to the air.

This is one of the bits Mr NG doesn't get.

In article replytogroup-2A3FB1.12462901072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

I think we're a little beyond these semantics.

It's not semantics; it's basic concept. Until you understand basic concepts, you will not be able to have a meaningful discussion on the topic, and will continue to post the nonsense that you continually write.

The fan in my Mac mini is on and making noise any time the computer is not sleeping, I would be happier if the fan only came on when the CPU is under stress as with my iBook book.

There's a small cable in your mini that you or whoever worked on your mini forgot to plug back in. Without that cable, the fans run at full.

It runs from the motherboard to the daughtercard. But I'm guessing his machine is running normally and like me, is sensitive to noise,
plus he's probably in a quiet environment so he hears it more easily.

I've been experimenting with putting noise generators in a column.
And it does work well. Remember high frequencies don't go around corners like bass does - directional is a more accurate term. If you have some milk crates you can try this. It won't win any Architectual Digest design awards but it does seem to work. Place your Mini vertically with the bottom facing the interior, and then stack 2 or more milk crates above and below it. Then wrap something soft like thick blankets or a soft lined sleeping bag around the column. Leave a few inches at the bottom for air to come in. You should hear a dramatic reduction in noise. You'll need longer wires for this to work or you could use 2 blankets with the wires coming out. This is not practical but its easy to do if you have milk crates or something else that allows air to pass vertically upwards. The downside to this is there are still hard surfaces for sound to reflect off of inside the milk crates, some more than others depending on the design.
Ideally the inside of the milk crates should be lined with sound absorbing material. Closed cell foam might be good. I was trying to research what commonly available materials absorb higher frequencies but its not easy to find. If anyone has any tips, that would be great.

The fan in my Mac mini is on and making noise any time the computer is not sleeping, I would be happier if the fan only came on when the CPU is under stress as with my iBook book.

There's a small cable in your mini that you or whoever worked on your mini forgot to plug back in. Without that cable, the fans run at full.

Well then blame Steve Jobs and the Apple factory for that, my Mac mini has never been worked on by me or anyone else since it first left the Apple store, I don't even have a clue how to open the box. Speaking of that how do you open the box, I assume it takes some kind of special tool? I would like to add more memory and an airport card as I did with my iBook.

Some people use putty knives but most are not the full width to encompass all the clips. Anything 4" or more wide should do it. I used what looks like a putty knife but really was designed for mortar work I think. Work slow and be very patient. Lots of tutorials online relating to upgrading the Mini's memory.

Well then blame Steve Jobs and the Apple factory for that, my Mac mini has never been worked on by me or anyone else since it first left the Apple store, I don't even have a clue how to open the box. Speaking of that how do you open the box, I assume it takes some kind of special tool? I would like to add more memory and an airport card as I did with my iBook.

It happens sometimes. Don't worry about it.

If you get a local dealer to install the memory, they'll be able to reconnect the cable at the same time. Getting a mini's case open is only the first problem in working on it.

Once you get it open, you can compare your layout with the pictures online. You'll see 2 black wires wrapped together that go to the daughtercard (where the 2.5" hard drive and optical drive plugs into) from the motherboard. This controls the fans otherwise they'll be going full bore all the time.

Same here. In fact the ATI Radeon X850 XT in my G5 tower makes way more racket with it's stupid noisy little fan than any of Apple's fans.

And ironically the Mini uses that same size noisy fan.

The Mac mini uses the same exact fan as the Radeon X850 XT?

No. I said same size. But that could have been clearer on my part.

If the heat sink was larger, one could use a larger fan. Same airflow with less rpm's. Noise problem solved.

There is no noise problem here - and that's with three different minis. Even when I put the CPU through its paces there's no noticeable noise.

I wonder if there's much difference between the newest Intel Mini, the first Intel Mini, and the PPC Mini. Sounds like there is. The CPU on the Mini - is that a notebook style CPU? Or a desktop style? Or is there even much of a difference anymore?

The fan in my Mac mini is on and making noise any time the computer is not sleeping, I would be happier if the fan only came on when the CPU is under stress as with my iBook book.

For that to happen you would need a massive heat sink. Maybe almost as large as the entire Mini!....:)

Then why does the Book fan only run when the CPU is stressed? Are you saying the iBook has "a massive heat sink" maybe even as large as an "entire Mini!"?

I know nothing about notebooks. Somebody else can answer that I'm sure. But we all know how hot some notebooks get. Its hard cooling something like that.

Yes; the temperature doubles when pegged at 100%. I'd like to resume SETI@redacted.invalid on it, but 81-88 C cannot be good for the CPU. I will be looking into "non-invasive" cooling solutions in order to avoid voiding the warranty...

I wonder if there is a water block that is small enough to fit on that CPU? For the 1.25 ghz PPC it would need to be 47 mm x 118 mm. The 118 shouldn't be a problem. The 47 might very well be.

That, or any other sort of "heat pipe", doesn't get rid of any heat at all; it just moves it from one place to another with good efficiency. Heat pipes have been used in laptops for a long time.

If you really want to stick a large radiating element on your mini, a surplus heat pipe might be a way to go.

Yes, I was looking at some heat sinks and realized that the heat pipe design, because it elevates the heat sink off the motherboard, might allow a mammoth heat sink to be installed if only the mounting area is small enough. Often the manufacturer never mentions what those dimensions are. Its just not something that people need. They look for Socket 775, AMD, etc.

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Now it just happens that 120 mm and larger fans fit nicely on larger heat sinks. So now many users are finding they can run that 120 mm fan at inaudible speeds and still get good cooling.

On 2007-07-01 18:27:15 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

I wonder if there's much difference between the newest Intel Mini, the first Intel Mini, and the PPC Mini. Sounds like there is.

I have the PPC mini and two Intel minis. None of them are very loud.

The CPU on the Mini - is that a notebook style CPU? Or a desktop style? Or is there even much of a difference anymore?

The G4 mini has a 1.42 GHz PowerPC 7447a (G4) processor:

<http://tinyurl.com/cpjvg>
<http://tinyurl.com/2pyxfn>

In article replytogroup-BF82BA.12440701072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote: ......

Free clue: No one cools a component to "near ambient levels". It's both impractical and unnecessary.

Free clue: I do. Its done quite easily using exterior air and venting it immediately so the heat doesn't rise in the enclosure. Now whether you believe its necessary, that up to you. But its very practical indeed.

Post your measurements of the component and temperature of exhaust air. Measure this for several values of airflow.

In article replytogroup-BF82BA.12440701072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot. This is supposing that we're in a normal enclosure that doesn't trap air of course.

Free clue: No one cools a component to "near ambient levels". It's both impractical and unnecessary.

Free clue: I do. Its done quite easily using exterior air and venting it immediately so the heat doesn't rise in the enclosure. Now whether you believe its necessary, that up to you. But its very practical indeed.

Q = -hA(Ts - T)

The CPU on the Mini - is that a notebook style CPU? Or a desktop style?
Or is there even much of a difference anymore?

The G4 mini has a 1.42 GHz PowerPC 7447a (G4) processor: http://tinyurl.com/cpjvg http://tinyurl.com/2pyxfn

But is the CPU on the Intel Mini a notebook style? If it is, the cost should be higher to upgrade or replace than if it was a desktop style. That is if there is even a difference.
Hopefully someone knows this stuff. I sure don't.

Free clue: No one cools a component to "near ambient levels". It's both impractical and unnecessary.

Free clue: I do. Its done quite easily using exterior air and venting it immediately so the heat doesn't rise in the enclosure. Now whether you believe its necessary, that up to you. But its very practical indeed.

Post your measurements of the component and temperature of exhaust air. Measure this for several values of airflow.

I'm shopping around for an infrared type thermometer.
But I'll have to test it with a machine that has built in sensors to make sure its calibrated correctly. Unless you can look it up, the sensors are not exactly obvious on the motherboard, are they? And would the temp of the motherboard itself influence the ambient air reading? Sort of like mounting a thermometer outside on a surface that gets hot or cold. Its probably going to influence the reading.
I hope to avoid inaccuracies like that.

On 2007-07-02 10:33:34 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

The CPU on the Mini - is that a notebook style CPU? Or a desktop style? Or is there even much of a difference anymore?

The G4 mini has a 1.42 GHz PowerPC 7447a (G4) processor: http://tinyurl.com/cpjvg http://tinyurl.com/2pyxfn

But is the CPU on the Intel Mini a notebook style? If it is, the cost should be higher to upgrade or replace than if it was a desktop style. That is if there is even a difference. Hopefully someone knows this stuff. I sure don't.

Huh? There's no "notebook style" 7448. It is what it is.

Now would someone please enlighten me on how a component can be cooled at near ambient levels and the exhausting air is hot. This is supposing that we're in a normal enclosure that doesn't trap air of course.

Free clue: No one cools a component to "near ambient levels". It's both impractical and unnecessary.

Free clue: I do. Its done quite easily using exterior air and venting it immediately so the heat doesn't rise in the enclosure. Now whether you believe its necessary, that up to you. But its very practical indeed.

Q = -hA(Ts - T)

That brought me here: http://biocab.org/Heat_Transfer.html A nice summary of correct terminology to help express myself better.
Thanks.

In article replytogroup-4AF686.10375302072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Free clue: No one cools a component to "near ambient levels". It's both impractical and unnecessary.

Free clue: I do. Its done quite easily using exterior air and venting it immediately so the heat doesn't rise in the enclosure. Now whether you believe its necessary, that up to you. But its very practical indeed.

Post your measurements of the component and temperature of exhaust air. Measure this for several values of airflow.

I'm shopping around for an infrared type thermometer.
But I'll have to test it with a machine that has built in sensors to make sure its calibrated correctly. Unless you can look it up, the sensors are not exactly obvious on the motherboard, are they? And would the temp of the motherboard itself influence the ambient air reading? Sort of like mounting a thermometer outside on a surface that gets hot or cold. Its probably going to influence the reading.
I hope to avoid inaccuracies like that.

I can't say about the mini and its CPU in particular, but it's common for the temperature sensor to be built into the CPU chip itself. It's just another transistor, wired in a special way.

You can find little apps that can give you a readout from it.

And remember, it will be measuring the temperature of the active surface of the processor directly, so it'll be considerably warmer than any external surface you can stick a thermometer on.

Isaac

Free clue: No one cools a component to "near ambient levels". It's both impractical and unnecessary.

Free clue: I do. Its done quite easily using exterior air and venting it immediately so the heat doesn't rise in the enclosure. Now whether you believe its necessary, that up to you. But its very practical indeed.

Post your measurements of the component and temperature of exhaust air. Measure this for several values of airflow.

I'm shopping around for an infrared type thermometer.
But I'll have to test it with a machine that has built in sensors to make sure its calibrated correctly. Unless you can look it up, the sensors are not exactly obvious on the motherboard, are they? And would the temp of the motherboard itself influence the ambient air reading? Sort of like mounting a thermometer outside on a surface that gets hot or cold. Its probably going to influence the reading.
I hope to avoid inaccuracies like that.

I can't say about the mini and its CPU in particular, but it's common for the temperature sensor to be built into the CPU chip itself. It's just another transistor, wired in a special way. You can find little apps that can give you a readout from it. And remember, it will be measuring the temperature of the active surface of the processor directly, so it'll be considerably warmer than any external surface you can stick a thermometer on. Isaac

Thanks Isaac.

In article replytogroup-FA3BE1.18382701072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size. For a given chip producing a certain amount of heat, and a given airflow, there will be more or less one size of heat sink that is correct. Size in this case may simply be nothing more than the surface area due to it having lots of fins.

You vary one of the parameters, such as heat produced, and if you want to remain at equilibrium (i.e. constant chip temperature), you better also vary the other parameter you have control over, namely airflow. So we see what is observed, namely the fan speeds up. You optimise the heat-sink size to maximise the heat transfer from the chip to the heat sink, and then to the air. It doesn't necessarily lead automatically to the conclusion that the heat sink is large.

On 2007-07-02 13:06:38 -0500, Tim Streater timstreater@redacted.invalid said:

In article replytogroup-FA3BE1.18382701072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size. For a given chip producing a certain amount of heat, and a given airflow, there will be more or less one size of heat sink that is correct. Size in this case may simply be nothing more than the surface area due to it having lots of fins.

You vary one of the parameters, such as heat produced, and if you want to remain at equilibrium (i.e. constant chip temperature), you better also vary the other parameter you have control over, namely airflow. So we see what is observed, namely the fan speeds up. You optimise the heat-sink size to maximise the heat transfer from the chip to the heat sink, and then to the air. It doesn't necessarily lead automatically to the conclusion that the heat sink is large.

Many of us have tried, in vein, to explain this to The New Guy repeatedly. He refuses to believe it. Good luck with that.

In article 200707021341388930-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

Many of us have tried, in vein, to explain this to The New Guy repeatedly.

<grammar/spelling nazi>

"in vain"

In article michelle-32E7D0.13382702072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 200707021341388930-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

Many of us have tried, in vein, to explain this to The New Guy repeatedly.

<grammar/spelling nazi>

"in vain"

  Maybe that meant they got so frustrated they cut themselves..

On 2007-07-02 15:38:27 -0500, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid said:

In article 200707021341388930-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

Many of us have tried, in vein, to explain this to The New Guy repeatedly.

<grammar/spelling nazi> "in vain"

Good catch. Thanks.

In article 2007070216235643658-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

Many of us have tried, in vein, to explain this to The New Guy repeatedly.

<grammar/spelling nazi> "in vain"

Good catch. Thanks.

I can see how you made that error; he is, after all, a blood sucker--metaphorically speaking, of course.

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.
The bigger the heat sink, all other things being equal, the cooler it will run, simply because more heat is drawn out of the heat generator.
Manufacturers use smaller heat sinks to simply save money.

Name one top end heat sink that is small!

Look at Scythe, Thermaltake and other high end manufacturers. All of their best products are huge.

For a given chip producing a certain amount of heat, and a given airflow, there will be more or less one size of heat sink that is correct. Size in this case may simply be nothing more than the surface area due to it having lots of fins.

But the reason the manufacturer wants to use smaller heat sinks is to save material costs. Aluminum and copper are very expensive.

You vary one of the parameters, such as heat produced, and if you want to remain at equilibrium (i.e. constant chip temperature), you better also vary the other parameter you have control over, namely airflow. So we see what is observed, namely the fan speeds up. You optimise the heat-sink size to maximise the heat transfer from the chip to the heat sink, and then to the air. It doesn't necessarily lead automatically to the conclusion that the heat sink is large.

Name one high end heat sink that is small then.
You cannot speed a fan up much and retain a quiet system.
Its all in the heat sink - not in the fan. Unless you don't mind a loud system. Few people do though. A few years ago people had lower standards. Those noise standards are getting a little higher now that people realize they don't have to put up with that anymore.

In article replytogroup-08EE2F.19215902072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right? I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

Some of you think I'm talking without thinking, yet when it comes to specifics, you are silent.

Name a high end heat sink that is small!

Anyway, its obvious that very few if any people have ever replaced the Mini heat sink. Back to some intensive Googling. And thanks to those of you that responded with specifics.

In article replytogroup-A087CF.08451103072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily, as we all keep pointing out. Probably you would have to use calculus or numerical methods to calculate the optimum size.

I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

Of course not. Why should I know anything about specific heat sinks made by particular manufacturers? Or care, more to the point? And who says that any such heat sink bought pre-designed, is going to be the best for a particular application? I'd rather have the one designed for the situation. What these and previous threads have been trying, with little evident success, to dun into your head, are the principles involved.

Another of the constraints is bound to be cost, something else you seem to poo-poo. One would make the bulk of the heat sink out of aluminium, to reduce cost and weight, and have a copper plug in it where it meets the chip. The plug itself would need to be designed, again to provide a good impedance match with the aluminium. The impedance mismatch is due to the different thermal conductivities of copper and aluminium.

In article replytogroup-A087CF.08451103072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily. Other factors come into play, and "large" is ambiguous. All else being equal, increased surface area will generally help.

G

In article uce-4D4BAB.11062703072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-A087CF.08451103072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily. Other factors come into play, and "large" is ambiguous. All else being equal, increased surface area will generally help.

Right, but with properly designed fins. It does no good to have large fins with insufficient cross section area to accommodate the heat flow at any point along the its height.

In article replytogroup-A087CF.08451103072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

"Transferring maximum heat" is not the issue. Any heat sink, regardless of size, will, in every case, transfer all of the heat being generated by the active device to the air. What changes, and what you can control, is the temperature difference between the sink and the air for that to happen -- small sink, large differential, and vice-versa.

Most CPU-like devices are perfectly happy with a chip temperature of 100 C or so; simpler devices like power transistors can be operated up to maybe 150 C. Note that is NOT the package temp; it's the temperature of the chip inside that package.

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Nope; the amount of heat transferred is always the same; only the temperature is different.

I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

"High end" heat sinks are never small because they are after-market items, bought mostly by individuals for whom the clue-meter reads very low. IOW, they're big because that's what people who know nothing about proper device cooling will pay for. That, and the "mine's bigger than yours" strategy of marketing.

Compare to "high-end" audio cables at a few dozen dollars a meter -- they're not better because they're bigger or more expensive.

--

There are some fairly subtle reasons why very large heat sinks might be useful to folks who want to overclock processors "to the max", but those don't apply to properly designed commercial gear.

Isaac

In article tim.streater-22CAB0.15172803072007@redacted.invalid, Tim Streater tim.streater@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-A087CF.08451103072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily, as we all keep pointing out. Probably you would have to use calculus or numerical methods to calculate the optimum size.

Actually, thermal calculations are similar to the ones used to calculate series resistors. IOW, really simple.

1. From the chip's data sheet, determine the "thermal resistance" from the chip (it's called the "junction" for historical reasons) to the package (called the "case") -- it's called "theta j-c", and it's expressed in degrees per watt.

2. Use the data sheet for the heat sink grease (or pad) to determine theta c-s (case to sink, again in degrees per watt).

3. Use the heat sink data sheet to determine theta s-a (sink to air, degrees per watt, and it's given for still air and for a range of flows). For a custom sink, you can easily measure theta s-a.

4. Simply add theta j-c, theta c-s, and theta s-a. That gives you theta j-a, the temperature difference per watt transported between the junction (the chip) and the air, for that specific heat sink, installation method, and air flow.

5. From the chip data sheet, look up the power consumed by the chip (in watts), or measure it.

6. Multiply that number by theta j-a. That gives you the actual temperature difference between the chip and the air when transporting the specified number of watts.

7. Take the maximum air temperature you expect (you do know where this thing is going to be used, don't you?), and add to it the temperature difference determined in (6). That tells you the chip (junction) temperature for that air temperature.

8. Use the device data sheet to determine the maximum allowable operating temperature for the chip. Compare to the number you calculated in (7). If (7) is lower, you can go with it, or you can consider a smaller heat sink, a smaller fan, or any similar combination. If the junction temperature is higher than specified, you have a different set of choices, involving a possibly reduced functional lifetime, or a better sink or fan. Or you can change the operating parameters of the device (e.g. reduce the clock rate) to reduce the amount of heat generated.

--

Now you know more about thermal calculations than most of the newly-minted engineers I've worked with during my career.

Isaac

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

"Transferring maximum heat" is not the issue. Any heat sink, regardless of size, will, in every case, transfer all of the heat being generated by the active device to the air. What changes, and what you can control, is the temperature difference between the sink and the air for that to happen -- small sink, large differential, and vice-versa.

Most CPU-like devices are perfectly happy with a chip temperature of 100 C or so; simpler devices like power transistors can be operated up to maybe 150 C. Note that is NOT the package temp; it's the temperature of the chip inside that package.

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible? Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Nope; the amount of heat transferred is always the same; only the temperature is different.

Whatever. Semantics. Show me a small heat sink that cools as well as a large, top rated one.

I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

"High end" heat sinks are never small because they are after-market items, bought mostly by individuals for whom the clue-meter reads very low. IOW, they're big because that's what people who know nothing about proper device cooling will pay for. That, and the "mine's bigger than yours" strategy of marketing.

OK - list even one heat sink that cools as well as the Scythe Ninja, a very large unit.

You think the Mac Pro uses large heat sinks (which look very similar to the Scythe Ninja's mind you) because of bragging rights? They are expensive. They are used when noise is a priority. And judging from most people's experience with the Mac Pro, it worked. Its a rather quiet computer.

Compare to "high-end" audio cables at a few dozen dollars a meter -- they're not better because they're bigger or more expensive.

Many audiophiles swear that changing the cables was one of the best investments they ever made in their system. I haven't experimented with audio cables, so I have no comment. Let's just keep this in the computer world, ok?

There are some fairly subtle reasons why very large heat sinks might be useful to folks who want to overclock processors "to the max", but those don't apply to properly designed commercial gear.

It all boils down to what temperature you will put up with. I've found ways of getting much lower temps with non-standard techniques while keeping the noise floor very low.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily. Other factors come into play, and "large" is ambiguous. All else being equal, increased surface area will generally help.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large. Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily, as we all keep pointing out. Probably you would have to use calculus or numerical methods to calculate the optimum size.

I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

Of course not. Why should I know anything about specific heat sinks made by particular manufacturers? Or care, more to the point? And who says that any such heat sink bought pre-designed, is going to be the best for a particular application? I'd rather have the one designed for the situation. What these and previous threads have been trying, with little evident success, to dun into your head, are the principles involved.

Another of the constraints is bound to be cost, something else you seem to poo-poo. One would make the bulk of the heat sink out of aluminium, to reduce cost and weight, and have a copper plug in it where it meets the chip. The plug itself would need to be designed, again to provide a good impedance match with the aluminium. The impedance mismatch is due to the different thermal conductivities of copper and aluminium.

Finally the truth comes out. You're simply not familiar with today's heat sinks. See what I mean? This is typical of the lack of real world hardware experience here.

Have a look at the websites of Thermaltake and Scythe, two of the most respected names in the industry. And then show me a high end heat sink that isn't large.

In article replytogroup-BB95B1.15594303072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily, as we all keep pointing out. Probably you would have to use calculus or numerical methods to calculate the optimum size.

I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

Of course not. Why should I know anything about specific heat sinks made by particular manufacturers? Or care, more to the point? And who says that any such heat sink bought pre-designed, is going to be the best for a particular application? I'd rather have the one designed for the situation. What these and previous threads have been trying, with little evident success, to dun into your head, are the principles involved.

Another of the constraints is bound to be cost, something else you seem to poo-poo. One would make the bulk of the heat sink out of aluminium, to reduce cost and weight, and have a copper plug in it where it meets the chip. The plug itself would need to be designed, again to provide a good impedance match with the aluminium. The impedance mismatch is due to the different thermal conductivities of copper and aluminium.

Finally the truth comes out. You're simply not familiar with today's heat sinks. See what I mean? This is typical of the lack of real world hardware experience here.

You really don't have a fucking clue, do you?

I know about heat sinks to the same extent that I know about how cars work. As someone with a physics degree, and from Imperial College at that, I can be relied upon to understand the basics of heat sinks. Friend Isaac obviously has a better detail knowledge of the theory, but then I never studied it from an engineering perspective, just from one of heat flow, and what heat is.

Equally, I know the basic principles of how car engines work. But that doesn't mean I know how to design them. When I buy a car, I might well match it to the purpose - a small car for commuting, possibly a slightly larger one if I'm a commercial traveller. But I don't buy a Range Rover unless I'm a farmer.

You give the impression of someone who's heard that you put fuel in one end of the car, and it makes the wheels turn. Then you come along and say "Gee, I've got this fluid called water, a whole lot cheaper, why don't we run the car on that instead?".

That the Mac Pro's heat sinks are large is not at all interesting. They're just the end result of the design.

And by the way, increasing the surface area of something within the same dimensions is easy. You might try googling for "fractal solids surface area" or some such.

In article timstreater-3A1CD0.22265403072007@redacted.invalid, Tim Streater timstreater@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-BB95B1.15594303072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily, as we all keep pointing out. Probably you would have to use calculus or numerical methods to calculate the optimum size.

I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

Of course not. Why should I know anything about specific heat sinks made by particular manufacturers? Or care, more to the point? And who says that any such heat sink bought pre-designed, is going to be the best for a particular application? I'd rather have the one designed for the situation. What these and previous threads have been trying, with little evident success, to dun into your head, are the principles involved.

Another of the constraints is bound to be cost, something else you seem to poo-poo. One would make the bulk of the heat sink out of aluminium, to reduce cost and weight, and have a copper plug in it where it meets the chip. The plug itself would need to be designed, again to provide a good impedance match with the aluminium. The impedance mismatch is due to the different thermal conductivities of copper and aluminium.

Finally the truth comes out. You're simply not familiar with today's heat sinks. See what I mean? This is typical of the lack of real world hardware experience here.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Profanity is a sign that you've really got poor emotional control.

I know about heat sinks to the same extent that I know about how cars work. As someone with a physics degree, and from Imperial College at that, I can be relied upon to understand the basics of heat sinks. Friend Isaac obviously has a better detail knowledge of the theory, but then I never studied it from an engineering perspective, just from one of heat flow, and what heat is.

Exactly - no real world experience.

Equally, I know the basic principles of how car engines work. But that doesn't mean I know how to design them. When I buy a car, I might well match it to the purpose - a small car for commuting, possibly a slightly larger one if I'm a commercial traveller. But I don't buy a Range Rover unless I'm a farmer.

That's got nothing to do with this discussion. For an educated person you sure get distracted easily.

You give the impression of someone who's heard that you put fuel in one end of the car, and it makes the wheels turn. Then you come along and say "Gee, I've got this fluid called water, a whole lot cheaper, why don't we run the car on that instead?".

The insults cometh. Let's veer away from specifics and start with the insult train. You're learning from Michelle. Well done.

That the Mac Pro's heat sinks are large is not at all interesting. They're just the end result of the design.

Not interesting to you because it substantiates my points.

And by the way, increasing the surface area of something within the same dimensions is easy. You might try googling for "fractal solids surface area" or some such.

Well if it was easy, they wouldn't be always coming out LARGER models.
Larger models that people have difficulty both working with and mounting. Nobody wants a larger heat sink. But that's the only way of getting top notch cooling. But you're a physicist and know all that.

In article replytogroup-5C0EDB.15593703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

When something barely fits into some cases, its large. Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

Sure you can; just put in more fins that are spaced closer together.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large. Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

Sure you can; just put in more fins that are spaced closer together.

And you don't think they've already gone done that avenue already? You think they wake up one morning and say "Hey, lets add some more fins!". And another gasps "Why didn't I think of that?!...........And why are you in my room? We need a new writer........:)"

In article replytogroup-5C0EDB.15593703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily. Other factors come into play, and "large" is ambiguous. All else being equal, increased surface area will generally help.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large.

So if you meant large by that definition - the displacement of the object if sealed in plastic wrap - then, no. A "large" heat sink is not necessarily better than a smaller one.

Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

No. Actually it's not. Didn't you get the demonstration in grade school where the teacher cut a hole in an 8.5x11 piece of paper large enough for him to walk through?

This, by the way, is equally important for brains. It's not volume that counts, it's surface area; and the size of the skull really has very little implication for the surface area of the brain jammed inside it.

In article replytogroup-903C77.15590703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible? Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

Defined "worked better." I expect what the prior poster was trying to get across to you is that heat dissipation isn't the only axis in real-world equations. More particularly, as you strive to maximize heat transfer you will hit a point where it's gratuitous...where the fact you happen to be running 3 degrees cooler isn't really gaining you anything that's worth the money you dissipated getting there.

Compare to "high-end" audio cables at a few dozen dollars a meter -- they're not better because they're bigger or more expensive.

Many audiophiles swear that changing the cables was one of the best investments they ever made in their system.

Note that the prior poster did not express that high-end cables weren't better. He just expressed that it wasn't the price or size that made them so. (And, relatedly, cost and size are thus not reliable predictors of quality.)

In article replytogroup-2BEAB8.19015203072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

When something barely fits into some cases, its large. Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

Sure you can; just put in more fins that are spaced closer together.

And you don't think they've already gone done that avenue already?

Who are these "they"? I was responding to your blanket statement.

In article replytogroup-903C77.15590703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

"Transferring maximum heat" is not the issue. Any heat sink, regardless of size, will, in every case, transfer all of the heat being generated by the active device to the air. What changes, and what you can control, is the temperature difference between the sink and the air for that to happen -- small sink, large differential, and vice-versa.

Most CPU-like devices are perfectly happy with a chip temperature of 100 C or so; simpler devices like power transistors can be operated up to maybe 150 C. Note that is NOT the package temp; it's the temperature of the chip inside that package.

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible?

Whenever you want/need a smaller and/or less expensive unit -- which is to say, nearly all the time, so far as manufacturers are concerned. And understand, there is NO PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE from running it cooler. NONE. It is possible that a lower temperature might increase the statistically likely lifetime, but that is rarely a design requirement, as operation at the rated temperature gives an operating lifetime longer than the useful lifetime anyway (who cares that there are a lot of Intel 80286 systems that get really hot but still work just fine?).

Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

As I said, overclocking is a special case. Processors are timed by a "clock", but the amount of time required to execute individual instructions (actually, the propagation delay of the gates), varies with temperature; warmer means things take longer. As long as every operation has time to complete before the next "tick", everything works perfectly, and it does not matter how long before that next tick an operation completes, because the speed of operation is entirely controlled by that clock.

As long as the processor is operated within the parameters specified by the manufacturer -- maximum clock rate, maximum temperature -- everything works just fine and there is NO NEED to operate the device at a lower temperature. It won't work a bit better.

Overclocking changes all that. There is no need to have a set of design parameters that will allow a manufacturer to make a large number of units with the expectation that all of them will perform as intended. All the overclocker wants is to extract the maximum possible performance (which universally means the highest clock rate) from one, individual device -- the one he has his hands on.

In that case, it makes sense to cool the processor down to as low a temperature as possible. That makes the propagation delays of those little gates as short as possible, so then he can up the clock rate to the point that the shorter delays are just barely able to keep up. Of course, increasing the clock rate increases the amount of power the chip consumes, making the cooling problem even worse.

So for an overclocker, "works better" means one thing and one thing only -- maximum clock speed.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Nope; the amount of heat transferred is always the same; only the temperature is different.

Whatever. Semantics. Show me a small heat sink that cools as well as a large, top rated one.

I think you are confusing "semantics" with physics.

I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

"High end" heat sinks are never small because they are after-market items, bought mostly by individuals for whom the clue-meter reads very low. IOW, they're big because that's what people who know nothing about proper device cooling will pay for. That, and the "mine's bigger than yours" strategy of marketing.

OK - list even one heat sink that cools as well as the Scythe Ninja, a very large unit.

You persist in thinking that there's something important about "cools as well"; overclocking excepted, there's simply not.

Isaac

In article uce-38D186.21480703072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-903C77.15590703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible? Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

Defined "worked better." I expect what the prior poster was trying to get across to you is that heat dissipation isn't the only axis in real-world equations. More particularly, as you strive to maximize heat transfer you will hit a point where it's gratuitous...where the fact you happen to be running 3 degrees cooler isn't really gaining you anything that's worth the money you dissipated getting there.

Compare to "high-end" audio cables at a few dozen dollars a meter -- they're not better because they're bigger or more expensive.

Many audiophiles swear that changing the cables was one of the best investments they ever made in their system.

Note that the prior poster did not express that high-end cables weren't better. He just expressed that it wasn't the price or size that made them so. (And, relatedly, cost and size are thus not reliable predictors of quality.)

It's true that I didn't specifically say it in that post, but I will now:

There is no demonstrable advantage at all to be had by using high-cost "high-end" audio cables -- other than bragging rights, that is.

Isaac

In article michelle-8FAC3A.15502303072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-5C0EDB.15593703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

When something barely fits into some cases, its large. Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

Sure you can; just put in more fins that are spaced closer together.

That might increase the surface area, but it doesn't work as one might hope vis-a-vis being a better heat sink. For one thing, air gets viscous and "sticky' when you try to force it through small slits. There are other problems, too...

Isaac

In article replytogroup-8BB36C.18233101072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well then blame Steve Jobs and the Apple factory for that, my Mac mini has never been worked on by me or anyone else since it first left the Apple store, I don't even have a clue how to open the box. Speaking of that how do you open the box, I assume it takes some kind of special tool? I would like to add more memory and an airport card as I did with my iBook.

It happens sometimes. Don't worry about it.

If you get a local dealer to install the memory, they'll be able to reconnect the cable at the same time. Getting a mini's case open is only the first problem in working on it.

Once you get it open, you can compare your layout with the pictures online. You'll see 2 black wires wrapped together that go to the daughtercard (where the 2.5" hard drive and optical drive plugs into) from the motherboard. This controls the fans otherwise they'll be going full bore all the time.

Very few people have the ability to be patient. Very few people even know how to properly ground themselves! This is I recommended he see a dealer or other qualified (and patient) person. Are you offering to take responsibility if he fries his computer?

In article replytogroup-9E1878.17444903072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article timstreater-3A1CD0.22265403072007@redacted.invalid, Tim Streater timstreater@redacted.invalid wrote:

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Profanity is a sign that you've really got poor emotional control.

On usenet, I see no reason to be patient with nincompoops. You've been afforded a lot of useful information and wisdom from a number of people here and haven't recognised it.

I know about heat sinks to the same extent that I know about how cars work. As someone with a physics degree, and from Imperial College at that, I can be relied upon to understand the basics of heat sinks. Friend Isaac obviously has a better detail knowledge of the theory, but then I never studied it from an engineering perspective, just from one of heat flow, and what heat is.

Exactly - no real world experience.

This thread, and other too, have been about the PRINCIPLES that underlie how heat sinks are used. To the extent that "real world experience" comes in, I'll go with the Apple engineers.

Equally, I know the basic principles of how car engines work. But that doesn't mean I know how to design them. When I buy a car, I might well match it to the purpose - a small car for commuting, possibly a slightly larger one if I'm a commercial traveller. But I don't buy a Range Rover unless I'm a farmer.

That's got nothing to do with this discussion. For an educated person you sure get distracted easily.

I'm not distracted. I'm giving an analogy. You match the solution to the requirement.

You give the impression of someone who's heard that you put fuel in one end of the car, and it makes the wheels turn. Then you come along and say "Gee, I've got this fluid called water, a whole lot cheaper, why don't we run the car on that instead?".

The insults cometh. Let's veer away from specifics and start with the insult train. You're learning from Michelle. Well done.

We're not talking about specifics, and never have been.

That the Mac Pro's heat sinks are large is not at all interesting. They're just the end result of the design.

Not interesting to you because it substantiates my points.

Not interesting because irrelevant.

And by the way, increasing the surface area of something within the same dimensions is easy. You might try googling for "fractal solids surface area" or some such.

Well if it was easy, they wouldn't be always coming out LARGER models.

Who is this "they" you're talking about. Real world manufacturers use what is appropriate for the job. They don't go down the aftermarket store and, to use the car analogy again, add shiny chromium bolt-on goodies to make their car look better.

Larger models that people have difficulty both working with and mounting. Nobody wants a larger heat sink. But that's the only way of getting top notch cooling.

Not in general, as has been pointed out. And explained.

But you're a physicist and know all that.

Yes that's right. But unlike you, I'm willing to be educated by the several people here who, also unlike you, actually DO have "real world experience".

  All of this brings up an interesting question. The Widget on my 

MBP says the CPU A temperature diode is 145.4 degrees F. Is this a good place to measure temps that might cause a problem and is this a good temperature?

On 2007-07-04 07:54:48 -0500, Kurt Ullman kurtullman@redacted.invalid said:

  All of this brings up an interesting question. The Widget on my

MBP says the CPU A temperature diode is 145.4 degrees F. Is this a good place to measure temps that might cause a problem and is this a good temperature?

Intel specifies that the absolute maximum operating junction temperature for the Intel Core 2 Duo processor is 100Ú Celsius (212Ú Fahrenheit). So 145.4Ú F is just fine.

<http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sspec=sl9se#>

In article <kurtullman-864C77.08544404072007@redacted.invalid

, Kurt Ullman kurtullman@redacted.invalid wrote:

  All of this brings up an interesting question. The Widget on my 

MBP says the CPU A temperature diode is 145.4 degrees F. Is this a good place to measure temps that might cause a problem and is this a good temperature?

It's the best possible place; that diode is on the same substrate with the rest of the CPU chip, and was fabricated along with the rest of it. FYI, a diode shows a "forward voltage drop" that is a predictable function of temperature. You just run a constant current through the thing, and measure the voltage across it.

145 F is about 62 C. I don't have a data sheet on that specific chip, but in general, microprocessors are perfectly happy up to about 100 C.

Looks like you have plenty of margin.

Isaac

In article isw-35D654.09000204072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article <kurtullman-864C77.08544404072007@redacted.invalid

, Kurt Ullman kurtullman@redacted.invalid wrote:

  All of this brings up an interesting question. The Widget on my 

MBP says the CPU A temperature diode is 145.4 degrees F. Is this a good place to measure temps that might cause a problem and is this a good temperature?

It's the best possible place; that diode is on the same substrate with the rest of the CPU chip, and was fabricated along with the rest of it. FYI, a diode shows a "forward voltage drop" that is a predictable function of temperature. You just run a constant current through the thing, and measure the voltage across it.

145 F is about 62 C. I don't have a data sheet on that specific chip, but in general, microprocessors are perfectly happy up to about 100 C.

Looks like you have plenty of margin.

Isaac

Thanks. I am not sure what to make of this, but the same widget says the bottom side of the enclosure is exactly 98.6 degrees. Cue the Twilight Zone theme _grin.

On 2007-07-04 17:13:09 +0100, Kurt Ullman kurtullman@redacted.invalid said:

Thanks. I am not sure what to make of this, but the same widget says the bottom side of the enclosure is exactly 98.6 degrees. Cue the Twilight Zone theme _grin.

You are spending too much time with your laptop on your lap ;-)

JOOI my MacBook reports 48 C (118F) diode temperature, 29C (84F) bottomside at the moment. I'm using Temperature Monitor from bresink.com

Making the CPU work can jump its temperature relatively quickly - I noticed the Adobe Acrobat Reader installation took it up to 70-odd C (168-odd F) in a matter of seconds, then the fan kicked in at high speed and dropped it by 10 degrees within a very short time. The X Windows peformance tester (/usr/X11R6/bin/x11perf) makes it sound a little like a 747 winding up for takeoff.

In article isw-35D654.09000204072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article <kurtullman-864C77.08544404072007@redacted.invalid

, Kurt Ullman kurtullman@redacted.invalid wrote:

  All of this brings up an interesting question. The Widget on my 

MBP says the CPU A temperature diode is 145.4 degrees F. Is this a good place to measure temps that might cause a problem and is this a good temperature?

It's the best possible place; that diode is on the same substrate with the rest of the CPU chip, and was fabricated along with the rest of it. FYI, a diode shows a "forward voltage drop" that is a predictable function of temperature. You just run a constant current through the thing, and measure the voltage across it.

Doesn't that assume that the constant current source and the voltage reference for the ADC that measures the voltage are not affected by temperature?

Regards,

John Byrns

On 2007-07-04, John Byrns byrnsj@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-35D654.09000204072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's the best possible place; that diode is on the same substrate with the rest of the CPU chip, and was fabricated along with the rest of it. FYI, a diode shows a "forward voltage drop" that is a predictable function of temperature. You just run a constant current through the thing, and measure the voltage across it.

Doesn't that assume that the constant current source and the voltage reference for the ADC that measures the voltage are not affected by temperature?

Ian

isw isw@redacted.invalid writes:

It's true that I didn't specifically say it in that post, but I will now:

There is no demonstrable advantage at all to be had by using high-cost "high-end" audio cables -- other than bragging rights, that is.

More accurately: Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement. You'll eliminate crackling, hiss, dropouts, etc. This kind cabling is not expensive.

Upgrading from good cables to audiophile-cable may show an improvement on test equipment, but most people won't be able to hear the difference, and even if you can hear a difference, I doubt it's significant enough to justify the tremendous price involved.

It's like when I was shopping for a home theater system. A $5000 set of speakers I auditioned definitely sounded better than the $1500 set I ended up buying, but it didn't sound $3500 worth of "better".

-- David

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible? Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

Defined "worked better."

Duh......cooler?

I expect what the prior poster was trying to get across to you is that heat dissipation isn't the only axis in real-world equations. More particularly, as you strive to maximize heat transfer you will hit a point where it's gratuitous...where the fact you happen to be running 3 degrees cooler isn't really gaining you anything that's worth the money you dissipated getting there.

Once again, totally irrelevant. Good cooling results in dramatically reduced temps. You need some real world experience. Some of you are so brainwashed by Apple you don't have a clue as to what the market is doing.

Compare to "high-end" audio cables at a few dozen dollars a meter -- they're not better because they're bigger or more expensive.

Many audiophiles swear that changing the cables was one of the best investments they ever made in their system.

Note that the prior poster did not express that high-end cables weren't better. He just expressed that it wasn't the price or size that made them so. (And, relatedly, cost and size are thus not reliable predictors of quality.)

Well the guy obviously doesn't have any real world experience in the audiophile world either. I've never met ANY audiophile that doesn't take care in his cables. Its because it does matter. Otherwise a few of them wouldn't bother.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large. Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

Sure you can; just put in more fins that are spaced closer together.

And you don't think they've already gone done that avenue already?

Who are these "they"? I was responding to your blanket statement.

Manufacturers. If it was possible to just add more fins they would be doing that with each successive model. But you don't see that in the REAL WORLD. The heat sinks themselves are large because that works best.

In article isw-FC4CE6.22132503072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-903C77.15590703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

"Transferring maximum heat" is not the issue. Any heat sink, regardless of size, will, in every case, transfer all of the heat being generated by the active device to the air. What changes, and what you can control, is the temperature difference between the sink and the air for that to happen -- small sink, large differential, and vice-versa.

Most CPU-like devices are perfectly happy with a chip temperature of 100 C or so; simpler devices like power transistors can be operated up to maybe 150 C. Note that is NOT the package temp; it's the temperature of the chip inside that package.

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible?

Whenever you want/need a smaller and/or less expensive unit -- which is to say, nearly all the time, so far as manufacturers are concerned. And understand, there is NO PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE from running it cooler.

Overclockers (with the pinnacle of performance standards) know the cooler it runs the better - hence their little adventure into sub freezing temperatures. It allowed them to reach performance levels never attained before. That's the REAL WORLD.

NONE. It is possible that a lower temperature might increase the statistically likely lifetime, but that is rarely a design requirement,

Rubbish. Its done because it works. Wake up and read.

as operation at the rated temperature gives an operating lifetime longer than the useful lifetime anyway (who cares that there are a lot of Intel 80286 systems that get really hot but still work just fine?).

Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

As I said, overclocking is a special case. Processors are timed by a "clock", but the amount of time required to execute individual instructions (actually, the propagation delay of the gates), varies with temperature; warmer means things take longer. As long as every operation has time to complete before the next "tick", everything works perfectly, and it does not matter how long before that next tick an operation completes, because the speed of operation is entirely controlled by that clock.

Wrong again. You bring the temps down by a quality heat sink so you have a quieter computer.

Overclocking changes all that. There is no need to have a set of design parameters that will allow a manufacturer to make a large number of units with the expectation that all of them will perform as intended. All the overclocker wants is to extract the maximum possible performance (which universally means the highest clock rate) from one, individual device -- the one he has his hands on.

I mentioned overclocking because its the extreme. If you want to learn about something, it pays to go the edge. What works for them trickles down to everybody else. The principles are vital.

So for an overclocker, "works better" means one thing and one thing only -- maximum clock speed.

Its called performance, in whatever they're doing. Whether it be playing a silly game or working with video or Photoshop or whatever your needs.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Nope; the amount of heat transferred is always the same; only the temperature is different.

Whatever. Semantics. Show me a small heat sink that cools as well as a large, top rated one.

I think you are confusing "semantics" with physics.

See - you can't name a SINGLE heat sink that is top rated that is not large.

I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

"High end" heat sinks are never small because they are after-market items, bought mostly by individuals for whom the clue-meter reads very low. IOW, they're big because that's what people who know nothing about proper device cooling will pay for. That, and the "mine's bigger than yours" strategy of marketing.

OK - list even one heat sink that cools as well as the Scythe Ninja, a very large unit.

You persist in thinking that there's something important about "cools as well"; overclocking excepted, there's simply not.

Ditto - no real world experience.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily. Other factors come into play, and "large" is ambiguous. All else being equal, increased surface area will generally help.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large.

So if you meant large by that definition - the displacement of the object if sealed in plastic wrap - then, no. A "large" heat sink is not necessarily better than a smaller one.

That's what you people keep saying and yet you can't give one example of a top end heat sink that is not large.

Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

No. Actually it's not. Didn't you get the demonstration in grade school where the teacher cut a hole in an 8.5x11 piece of paper large enough for him to walk through?

This, by the way, is equally important for brains. It's not volume that counts, it's surface area; and the size of the skull really has very little implication for the surface area of the brain jammed inside it.

Once again, they wouldn't keep getting bigger if they don't have to.
Wrong again. Basic theory just doesn't seem to work in computer cooling. Not in the REAL WORLD.

In article isw-70783F.22181803072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-38D186.21480703072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-903C77.15590703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible? Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

Defined "worked better." I expect what the prior poster was trying to get across to you is that heat dissipation isn't the only axis in real-world equations. More particularly, as you strive to maximize heat transfer you will hit a point where it's gratuitous...where the fact you happen to be running 3 degrees cooler isn't really gaining you anything that's worth the money you dissipated getting there.

Compare to "high-end" audio cables at a few dozen dollars a meter -- they're not better because they're bigger or more expensive.

Many audiophiles swear that changing the cables was one of the best investments they ever made in their system.

Note that the prior poster did not express that high-end cables weren't better. He just expressed that it wasn't the price or size that made them so. (And, relatedly, cost and size are thus not reliable predictors of quality.)

It's true that I didn't specifically say it in that post, but I will now:

There is no demonstrable advantage at all to be had by using high-cost "high-end" audio cables -- other than bragging rights, that is.

Isaac

Well I guess you're deaf or listening on a very sub standard system.
I'm not saying its worth it to spend $5000 on a 1 meter pair of cable.
But there are most definitely differences in the sound of cables.
Once again, no REAL WORLD experience.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large. Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

Sure you can; just put in more fins that are spaced closer together.

That might increase the surface area, but it doesn't work as one might hope vis-a-vis being a better heat sink. For one thing, air gets viscous and "sticky' when you try to force it through small slits. There are other problems, too...

Which is precisely why in the REAL WORLD manufacturers can only go so far with making the air gaps smaller and smaller. But Michelle knows everything about that of course.

In article steve-4E9D8F.23294703072007@redacted.invalid, Steven Fisher steve@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-8BB36C.18233101072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well then blame Steve Jobs and the Apple factory for that, my Mac mini has never been worked on by me or anyone else since it first left the Apple store, I don't even have a clue how to open the box. Speaking of that how do you open the box, I assume it takes some kind of special tool? I would like to add more memory and an airport card as I did with my iBook.

It happens sometimes. Don't worry about it.

If you get a local dealer to install the memory, they'll be able to reconnect the cable at the same time. Getting a mini's case open is only the first problem in working on it.

Once you get it open, you can compare your layout with the pictures online. You'll see 2 black wires wrapped together that go to the daughtercard (where the 2.5" hard drive and optical drive plugs into) from the motherboard. This controls the fans otherwise they'll be going full bore all the time.

Very few people have the ability to be patient. Very few people even know how to properly ground themselves! This is I recommended he see a dealer or other qualified (and patient) person. Are you offering to take responsibility if he fries his computer?

If you can't open a Mini maybe you shouldn't even get out of bed. A lobotomized chimp with Parkinson's could do it. If you can read that is. This was a typical Macster afraid of anything hardware related.
I work with motherboards all the time and never ground myself. I have yet to see any adverse affects. I don't dance around on the carpet of course. Its just common sense.

The only reason is dealer is recommended is to increase profitability for the dealer. Keeping the customer in the dark results in a better retail bottom line. Its the Apple way. And to be fair, probably the same for Gateway, Dell, HP, etc, as well.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Profanity is a sign that you've really got poor emotional control.

On usenet, I see no reason to be patient with nincompoops. You've been afforded a lot of useful information and wisdom from a number of people here and haven't recognised it.

That's no reason to express yourself like a 12 year old.

I know about heat sinks to the same extent that I know about how cars work. As someone with a physics degree, and from Imperial College at that, I can be relied upon to understand the basics of heat sinks. Friend Isaac obviously has a better detail knowledge of the theory, but then I never studied it from an engineering perspective, just from one of heat flow, and what heat is.

Exactly - no real world experience.

This thread, and other too, have been about the PRINCIPLES that underlie how heat sinks are used. To the extent that "real world experience" comes in, I'll go with the Apple engineers.

Actually if you look at the title and the thread that preceded it, its precisely about real world experience. Either someone has replaced it not. Obviously no one has, or very few.

That the Mac Pro's heat sinks are large is not at all interesting. They're just the end result of the design.

Not interesting to you because it substantiates my points.

Not interesting because irrelevant.

I see you ignore all things that disagree with you. Name a top end heat sink that's small. UNLIKE the heat sinks in the Mac Pro.

And by the way, increasing the surface area of something within the same dimensions is easy. You might try googling for "fractal solids surface area" or some such.

Well if it was easy, they wouldn't be always coming out LARGER models.

Who is this "they" you're talking about. Real world manufacturers use what is appropriate for the job. They don't go down the aftermarket store and, to use the car analogy again, add shiny chromium bolt-on goodies to make their car look better.

"They" are manufacturers of heat sinks of course. And its not about looks. Its about cooling and noise.

Larger models that people have difficulty both working with and mounting. Nobody wants a larger heat sink. But that's the only way of getting top notch cooling.

Not in general, as has been pointed out. And explained.

Point out ONE heat sink that is top rated that is not large.

But you're a physicist and know all that.

Yes that's right. But unlike you, I'm willing to be educated by the several people here who, also unlike you, actually DO have "real world experience".

But they are oddly silent when it comes to real world examples.

It's true that I didn't specifically say it in that post, but I will now: There is no demonstrable advantage at all to be had by using high-cost "high-end" audio cables -- other than bragging rights, that is.

More accurately: Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement. You'll eliminate crackling, hiss, dropouts, etc. This kind cabling is not expensive.

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life? Or are you still listening to that 8 track from the basement?

Upgrading from good cables to audiophile-cable may show an improvement on test equipment, but most people won't be able to hear the difference, and even if you can hear a difference, I doubt it's significant enough to justify the tremendous price involved.

That's because 'most' people listen on garbage. The getter your other components the more clarity and discernment you will be able to ascertain in your system. Time to retire the 8 track.

It's like when I was shopping for a home theater system. A $5000 set of speakers I auditioned definitely sounded better than the $1500 set I ended up buying, but it didn't sound $3500 worth of "better".

Well that's the problem. Home Theatre doesn't demand high end sound as much as pure music does. Try listening to acoustic jazz or just a single piano and the results will be a little more stark. The only way of getting high end speaker sound at a reasonable price is spending a few hundred dollars on good headphones. Or building a copy from something fantastic if you're able to source the same components which is usually impossible of course.

On 2007-07-05, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible? Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

Defined "worked better."

Duh......cooler?

Since you were talking about overclockers then the definition of better ought to be something like "allowed the system to run reliably at a higher clock rate than with less agressive cooling".

If you are going to be running your system at higher than normal clock rates then your CPU will consume more power and generate more heat. At some point it may become necessary to improve the cooling system in order to keep the CPU temperature within the allowed range. Also, at some point, you may reach a clock rate limit due to finite switching speeds, and that limit might be higher if the CPU temperature is decreased.

However, if you are running a bog standard Mac there is no advantage to beefing up the cooling system - it will not make it any quicker or more reliable - in other words it won't make it any better. At best it will give no benefit and if you do it by running more or faster fans it will just make the system noisier and use more power. The cooling is part of the design and if it needed more cooling it would have been designed with more cooling. Can we just dispense with all this meaningless "my CPU runs cooler than yours" bs?

Ian

On 4-Jul-2007, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

If you can't open a Mini maybe you shouldn't even get out of bed.

Would you mind calling the office for me and let them know that I should not be getting out of bed so I won't be in for work tomorrow.

A lobotomized chimp with Parkinson's could do it.

I guess that is my problem--I'm not a lobotomized chimp nor do I have Parkinson's.

If you can read that is.

I can.

This was a typical Macster afraid of anything hardware related.

I guess it depends partly on whether or not one is willing to take a chance on accidently ruining an expensive computer

I work with motherboards all the time and never ground myself.

A lobotomized chimp with Parkinson's know better than that.

I have yet to see any adverse affects.

Not yet, as you say.

I don't dance around on the carpet of course. Its just common sense.

Why not? Are you saying that everyone knows that dancing on the carpet while woking on a motherboard is risky?

The only reason is dealer is recommended is to increase profitability for the dealer.

Now your bias is coming through loud and clear. There are other reasons, and some of them are valid.

Keeping the customer in the dark results in a better retail bottom line.

Aha, so you are in the business of selling motherboards!

Its the Apple way. And to be fair, probably the same for Gateway, Dell, HP, etc, as well.

If you mean that taking pains to ground one's self when working on computer innards is the Apple way, that's true, and Gateway, Dell, HP etc. along with any other computer maker or responsible tech would say the same.

In article replytogroup-85E62E.20233504072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well the guy obviously doesn't have any real world experience in the audiophile world either.

Your answer for everything that disagrees with you is "no real world experience". Going by what you write here, I say that you have no real world experience and you have no theoretical knowledge either. You just plain do not know what you're talking about.

In article replytogroup-85E62E.20233504072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well the guy obviously doesn't have any real world experience in the audiophile world either. I've never met ANY audiophile that doesn't take care in his cables. Its because it does matter. Otherwise a few of them wouldn't bother.

You probably respond to those letters from the wives of deposed Nigerian despots, too, don't you?

In article 5f24ksF3b44mgU1@redacted.invalid, Ian Gregory foo@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-07-04, John Byrns byrnsj@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-35D654.09000204072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's the best possible place; that diode is on the same substrate with the rest of the CPU chip, and was fabricated along with the rest of it. FYI, a diode shows a "forward voltage drop" that is a predictable function of temperature. You just run a constant current through the thing, and measure the voltage across it.

Doesn't that assume that the constant current source and the voltage reference for the ADC that measures the voltage are not affected by temperature?

In fact, there are no "practical difficulties" at all, using well-understood semiconductor fabrication techniques. The problem is not even slightly difficult until you get to about the third decimal place, and determining the temperature of a microprocessor to three decimals is way more than good enough to decide when to turn on a fan.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-928454.20321504072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-70783F.22181803072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-38D186.21480703072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-903C77.15590703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible? Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

Defined "worked better." I expect what the prior poster was trying to get across to you is that heat dissipation isn't the only axis in real-world equations. More particularly, as you strive to maximize heat transfer you will hit a point where it's gratuitous...where the fact you happen to be running 3 degrees cooler isn't really gaining you anything that's worth the money you dissipated getting there.

Compare to "high-end" audio cables at a few dozen dollars a meter -- they're not better because they're bigger or more expensive.

Many audiophiles swear that changing the cables was one of the best investments they ever made in their system.

Note that the prior poster did not express that high-end cables weren't better. He just expressed that it wasn't the price or size that made them so. (And, relatedly, cost and size are thus not reliable predictors of quality.)

It's true that I didn't specifically say it in that post, but I will now:

There is no demonstrable advantage at all to be had by using high-cost "high-end" audio cables -- other than bragging rights, that is.

Isaac

Well I guess you're deaf or listening on a very sub standard system.
I'm not saying its worth it to spend $5000 on a 1 meter pair of cable.
But there are most definitely differences in the sound of cables.
Once again, no REAL WORLD experience.

Measure the differences. Show your work and show the quantitative differences as numbers. Then attempt to show that level of difference can be perceived by human ears.

I'll wait...

Isaac

In article replytogroup-F43CC4.20304104072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily. Other factors come into play, and "large" is ambiguous. All else being equal, increased surface area will generally help.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large.

So if you meant large by that definition - the displacement of the object if sealed in plastic wrap - then, no. A "large" heat sink is not necessarily better than a smaller one.

That's what you people keep saying and yet you can't give one example of a top end heat sink that is not large.

Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

No. Actually it's not. Didn't you get the demonstration in grade school where the teacher cut a hole in an 8.5x11 piece of paper large enough for him to walk through?

This, by the way, is equally important for brains. It's not volume that counts, it's surface area; and the size of the skull really has very little implication for the surface area of the brain jammed inside it.

Once again, they wouldn't keep getting bigger if they don't have to.
Wrong again. Basic theory just doesn't seem to work in computer cooling. Not in the REAL WORLD.

Bzzzzt! Wrong. The physics of heat flow is very well understood indeed -- no black magic at all.

"Basic theory" as you call it, always works, so long as the theory is well understood (but frequently it is not) and correctly applied (but frequently it is not). Do not blame Mother Nature for your inability to understand and follow Her rules.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-A29758.20303604072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-FC4CE6.22132503072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-903C77.15590703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

"Transferring maximum heat" is not the issue. Any heat sink, regardless of size, will, in every case, transfer all of the heat being generated by the active device to the air. What changes, and what you can control, is the temperature difference between the sink and the air for that to happen -- small sink, large differential, and vice-versa.

Most CPU-like devices are perfectly happy with a chip temperature of 100 C or so; simpler devices like power transistors can be operated up to maybe 150 C. Note that is NOT the package temp; it's the temperature of the chip inside that package.

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible?

Whenever you want/need a smaller and/or less expensive unit -- which is to say, nearly all the time, so far as manufacturers are concerned. And understand, there is NO PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE from running it cooler.

Overclockers (with the pinnacle of performance standards) know the cooler it runs the better - hence their little adventure into sub freezing temperatures. It allowed them to reach performance levels never attained before. That's the REAL WORLD.

NONE. It is possible that a lower temperature might increase the statistically likely lifetime, but that is rarely a design requirement,

Rubbish. Its done because it works. Wake up and read.

as operation at the rated temperature gives an operating lifetime longer than the useful lifetime anyway (who cares that there are a lot of Intel 80286 systems that get really hot but still work just fine?).

Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

As I said, overclocking is a special case. Processors are timed by a "clock", but the amount of time required to execute individual instructions (actually, the propagation delay of the gates), varies with temperature; warmer means things take longer. As long as every operation has time to complete before the next "tick", everything works perfectly, and it does not matter how long before that next tick an operation completes, because the speed of operation is entirely controlled by that clock.

Wrong again. You bring the temps down by a quality heat sink so you have a quieter computer.

Overclocking changes all that. There is no need to have a set of design parameters that will allow a manufacturer to make a large number of units with the expectation that all of them will perform as intended. All the overclocker wants is to extract the maximum possible performance (which universally means the highest clock rate) from one, individual device -- the one he has his hands on.

I mentioned overclocking because its the extreme. If you want to learn about something, it pays to go the edge. What works for them trickles down to everybody else. The principles are vital.

So for an overclocker, "works better" means one thing and one thing only -- maximum clock speed.

Its called performance, in whatever they're doing. Whether it be playing a silly game or working with video or Photoshop or whatever your needs.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Nope; the amount of heat transferred is always the same; only the temperature is different.

Whatever. Semantics. Show me a small heat sink that cools as well as a large, top rated one.

I think you are confusing "semantics" with physics.

See - you can't name a SINGLE heat sink that is top rated that is not large.

I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

"High end" heat sinks are never small because they are after-market items, bought mostly by individuals for whom the clue-meter reads very low. IOW, they're big because that's what people who know nothing about proper device cooling will pay for. That, and the "mine's bigger than yours" strategy of marketing.

OK - list even one heat sink that cools as well as the Scythe Ninja, a very large unit.

You persist in thinking that there's something important about "cools as well"; overclocking excepted, there's simply not.

Ditto - no real world experience.

Well, without getting into a big contest here, I would just ask how many commercial computers and similar products you have designed personally, starting with the basic components? (A pre-built motherboard is NOT a "basic component; the individual parts that go on one are, however).

If the number is not considerably greater than zero (which I'd guess is the number you've actually done), then my "real world experience" is quite a bit greater than yours.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-F4B160.20435004072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Profanity is a sign that you've really got poor emotional control.

On usenet, I see no reason to be patient with nincompoops. You've been afforded a lot of useful information and wisdom from a number of people here and haven't recognised it.

That's no reason to express yourself like a 12 year old.

In your case there most certainly is. How else would I communicate with you?

I know about heat sinks to the same extent that I know about how cars work. As someone with a physics degree, and from Imperial College at that, I can be relied upon to understand the basics of heat sinks. Friend Isaac obviously has a better detail knowledge of the theory, but then I never studied it from an engineering perspective, just from one of heat flow, and what heat is.

Exactly - no real world experience.

This thread, and other too, have been about the PRINCIPLES that underlie how heat sinks are used. To the extent that "real world experience" comes in, I'll go with the Apple engineers.

Actually if you look at the title and the thread that preceded it, its precisely about real world experience. Either someone has replaced it not. Obviously no one has, or very few.

This thread started off as a specific question from you, but after a few posts it moved to the principles of heat flow etc. And you haven't absorbed a single thing from all the good quality information posted here by others.

That the Mac Pro's heat sinks are large is not at all interesting. They're just the end result of the design.

Not interesting to you because it substantiates my points.

Not interesting because irrelevant.

I see you ignore all things that disagree with you. Name a top end heat sink that's small. UNLIKE the heat sinks in the Mac Pro.

Since, unlike you, I am not a subscriber to "Heat SInks Monthly", I neither know what a "top end" heat sink is in your terms, nor care. To everyone following this thread, except you, a top heat sink is one that does the job it is designed for, such as in the Mac pro and so on.

The antics and toys of a few overclockers are of no interest to the millions of Mac owners whose heat sinks work just fine.

In article replytogroup-63A601.20383804072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article steve-4E9D8F.23294703072007@redacted.invalid, Steven Fisher steve@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-8BB36C.18233101072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well then blame Steve Jobs and the Apple factory for that, my Mac mini has never been worked on by me or anyone else since it first left the Apple store, I don't even have a clue how to open the box. Speaking of that how do you open the box, I assume it takes some kind of special tool? I would like to add more memory and an airport card as I did with my iBook.

It happens sometimes. Don't worry about it.

If you get a local dealer to install the memory, they'll be able to reconnect the cable at the same time. Getting a mini's case open is only the first problem in working on it.

Once you get it open, you can compare your layout with the pictures online. You'll see 2 black wires wrapped together that go to the daughtercard (where the 2.5" hard drive and optical drive plugs into) from the motherboard. This controls the fans otherwise they'll be going full bore all the time.

Very few people have the ability to be patient. Very few people even know how to properly ground themselves! This is I recommended he see a dealer or other qualified (and patient) person. Are you offering to take responsibility if he fries his computer?

If you can't open a Mini maybe you shouldn't even get out of bed. A lobotomized chimp with Parkinson's could do it. If you can read that is. This was a typical Macster afraid of anything hardware related.

Pot, meet kettle.

In article replytogroup-D77681.20540904072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's true that I didn't specifically say it in that post, but I will now: There is no demonstrable advantage at all to be had by using high-cost "high-end" audio cables -- other than bragging rights, that is.

More accurately: Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement. You'll eliminate crackling, hiss, dropouts, etc. This kind cabling is not expensive.

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life?

Have you read a post for content in your entire life? You just argued with something that wasn't actually said.

Or are you still listening to that 8 track from the basement?

Hey, until I can find an uncut version of Allan Sherman's rendition of the "Twelve Gifts of Christmas" on modern media, that 8-track is all I've got.

G

In article replytogroup-F43CC4.20304104072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily. Other factors come into play, and "large" is ambiguous. All else being equal, increased surface area will generally help.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large.

So if you meant large by that definition - the displacement of the object if sealed in plastic wrap - then, no. A "large" heat sink is not necessarily better than a smaller one.

That's what you people keep saying and yet you can't give one example of a top end heat sink that is not large.

You've confused the anecdotal reality that common heat sinks today are large with the notion that large heat sinks are inherently superior. I can easily show you a large heat sink that's terrible.

In article replytogroup-85E62E.20233504072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible? Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

Defined "worked better."

Duh......cooler?

Duh. Believe it or not, that's not a given. That's why I asked for clarification.

I expect what the prior poster was trying to get across to you is that heat dissipation isn't the only axis in real-world equations. More particularly, as you strive to maximize heat transfer you will hit a point where it's gratuitous...where the fact you happen to be running 3 degrees cooler isn't really gaining you anything that's worth the money you dissipated getting there.

Once again, totally irrelevant.

No, not totally irrelevant.

Good cooling results in dramatically reduced temps.

Yeah, that pretty much goes without saying. But what you missed - and apparently are quite determined to ignore - is that further heat reductions don't necessarily gain you something that justifies the expense required to achieve them.

You need some real world experience.

Got some, thanks.

Some of you are so brainwashed by Apple you don't have a clue as to what the market is doing.

You've just lost the debate. You've shown that you're completely and irrevocably out of your league if the only way you can reconcile disagreement with the foolish things you're saying is to make the unfounded and false assumption that no-one you're talking to has any experience outside of Apple's product lines.

Many audiophiles swear that changing the cables was one of the best investments they ever made in their system.

Note that the prior poster did not express that high-end cables weren't better. He just expressed that it wasn't the price or size that made them so. (And, relatedly, cost and size are thus not reliable predictors of quality.)

Well the guy obviously doesn't have any real world experience in the audiophile world either. I've never met ANY audiophile that doesn't take care in his cables. Its because it does matter. Otherwise a few of them wouldn't bother.

Jeez, are you unable to read or just unwilling? How are you conflating quality with price or with user care?

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hey, until I can find an uncut version of Allan Sherman's rendition of the "Twelve Gifts of Christmas" on modern media, that 8-track is all I've got

Do it yourself: http://dmdb.org/lyrics/sherman.swingin.html#10

In article michelle-9EABDC.19195304072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-85E62E.20233504072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well the guy obviously doesn't have any real world experience in the audiophile world either.

Your answer for everything that disagrees with you is "no real world experience". Going by what you write here, I say that you have no real world experience and you have no theoretical knowledge either. You just plain do not know what you're talking about.

You know Michelle, you keep saying I don't know what I'm talking about yet you fail, time and time again, to demonstrate validity to that point. Someone that speaks in vague generalities is saying nothing at all. That shows your lack of expertise in this area. Why not just stick to software. Its something you're good at. You're a total waste of space in this conversation.

In article isw-1B1256.23415904072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-928454.20321504072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-70783F.22181803072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-38D186.21480703072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-903C77.15590703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible? Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

Defined "worked better." I expect what the prior poster was trying to get across to you is that heat dissipation isn't the only axis in real-world equations. More particularly, as you strive to maximize heat transfer you will hit a point where it's gratuitous...where the fact you happen to be running 3 degrees cooler isn't really gaining you anything that's worth the money you dissipated getting there.

Compare to "high-end" audio cables at a few dozen dollars a meter

they're not better because they're bigger or more expensive.

Many audiophiles swear that changing the cables was one of the best investments they ever made in their system.

Note that the prior poster did not express that high-end cables weren't better. He just expressed that it wasn't the price or size that made them so. (And, relatedly, cost and size are thus not reliable predictors of quality.)

It's true that I didn't specifically say it in that post, but I will now:

There is no demonstrable advantage at all to be had by using high-cost "high-end" audio cables -- other than bragging rights, that is.

Isaac

Well I guess you're deaf or listening on a very sub standard system.
I'm not saying its worth it to spend $5000 on a 1 meter pair of cable.
But there are most definitely differences in the sound of cables.
Once again, no REAL WORLD experience.

Measure the differences. Show your work and show the quantitative differences as numbers. Then attempt to show that level of difference can be perceived by human ears.

I'll wait...

Isaac

The differences, as noticed by anyone that is listening on good equipment and isn't totally deaf, are readily apparent. Only a fool would buy something on specifications alone. A prudent buyer purchases that what gives them pleasure. Things like resolution (the ability to hear detail at the lowest volumes possible), imaging extending way beyond the edges of the speakers going very deep with focus of the image within an inch in depth, width and height, bass that is raw, tight and extremely fast down to around 15 hz, highs that are not fatiguing, but seem infinitely extended......these are some of the things one notices, among many others, when listening to good equipment. The Absolute Sound, Stereophile and several others can open your eyes/ears to what is possible with reproduced sound.

In article isw-48C8B5.23475504072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-F43CC4.20304104072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily. Other factors come into play, and "large" is ambiguous. All else being equal, increased surface area will generally help.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large.

So if you meant large by that definition - the displacement of the object if sealed in plastic wrap - then, no. A "large" heat sink is not necessarily better than a smaller one.

That's what you people keep saying and yet you can't give one example of a top end heat sink that is not large.

Its rather hard to dramatically increase surface area and keep the overall dimensions the same.

No. Actually it's not. Didn't you get the demonstration in grade school where the teacher cut a hole in an 8.5x11 piece of paper large enough for him to walk through?

This, by the way, is equally important for brains. It's not volume that counts, it's surface area; and the size of the skull really has very little implication for the surface area of the brain jammed inside it.

Once again, they wouldn't keep getting bigger if they don't have to.
Wrong again. Basic theory just doesn't seem to work in computer cooling. Not in the REAL WORLD.

Bzzzzt! Wrong. The physics of heat flow is very well understood indeed -- no black magic at all.

"Basic theory" as you call it, always works, so long as the theory is well understood (but frequently it is not) and correctly applied (but frequently it is not). Do not blame Mother Nature for your inability to understand and follow Her rules.

Isaac

Isaac, you sure excel in non-specifics.

In article isw-312DA4.23581404072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-A29758.20303604072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-FC4CE6.22132503072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-903C77.15590703072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Here again airflow is coming into play. Well, unless you don't care about noise, airflow is simply not a factor unless noise is not a factor. Its rather hard, in any design, to have high airflow without significant noise. So if you care about noise, you cannot depend on fans to take care of cooling that the heat sink is not doing.

You seem to be under the misconception that the heat sink is doing any cooling at all. It's not. The heat sink is being passively heated by the component. The airflow is effectively doing ALL the cooling (radiation to the environment is not significant); the heat sink itself is just a middleman.

The point is you need a large, well designed heat sink to get that heat away from the heat generator. The better the heat sink, the less airflow you need.

This is untrue and underpins your lack of understanding of this subject.

Tim, what exactly was untrue about what I said?

Isaac said, correctly, that the heat sink is providing an impedance matching between the chip (which is small) and the air (which ultimately carries the heat away). As with any impedance matching device, it has an optimum size.

Only economically speaking to save money on materials.

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

"Transferring maximum heat" is not the issue. Any heat sink, regardless of size, will, in every case, transfer all of the heat being generated by the active device to the air. What changes, and what you can control, is the temperature difference between the sink and the air for that to happen -- small sink, large differential, and vice-versa.

Most CPU-like devices are perfectly happy with a chip temperature of 100 C or so; simpler devices like power transistors can be operated up to maybe 150 C. Note that is NOT the package temp; it's the temperature of the chip inside that package.

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible?

Whenever you want/need a smaller and/or less expensive unit -- which is to say, nearly all the time, so far as manufacturers are concerned. And understand, there is NO PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE from running it cooler.

Overclockers (with the pinnacle of performance standards) know the cooler it runs the better - hence their little adventure into sub freezing temperatures. It allowed them to reach performance levels never attained before. That's the REAL WORLD.

NONE. It is possible that a lower temperature might increase the statistically likely lifetime, but that is rarely a design requirement,

Rubbish. Its done because it works. Wake up and read.

as operation at the rated temperature gives an operating lifetime longer than the useful lifetime anyway (who cares that there are a lot of Intel 80286 systems that get really hot but still work just fine?).

Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

As I said, overclocking is a special case. Processors are timed by a "clock", but the amount of time required to execute individual instructions (actually, the propagation delay of the gates), varies with temperature; warmer means things take longer. As long as every operation has time to complete before the next "tick", everything works perfectly, and it does not matter how long before that next tick an operation completes, because the speed of operation is entirely controlled by that clock.

Wrong again. You bring the temps down by a quality heat sink so you have a quieter computer.

Overclocking changes all that. There is no need to have a set of design parameters that will allow a manufacturer to make a large number of units with the expectation that all of them will perform as intended. All the overclocker wants is to extract the maximum possible performance (which universally means the highest clock rate) from one, individual device -- the one he has his hands on.

I mentioned overclocking because its the extreme. If you want to learn about something, it pays to go the edge. What works for them trickles down to everybody else. The principles are vital.

So for an overclocker, "works better" means one thing and one thing only -- maximum clock speed.

Its called performance, in whatever they're doing. Whether it be playing a silly game or working with video or Photoshop or whatever your needs.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Nope; the amount of heat transferred is always the same; only the temperature is different.

Whatever. Semantics. Show me a small heat sink that cools as well as a large, top rated one.

I think you are confusing "semantics" with physics.

See - you can't name a SINGLE heat sink that is top rated that is not large.

I noticed you didn't bother answering a question that I asked you twice......namely, "Name a high end heat sink that is small."

"High end" heat sinks are never small because they are after-market items, bought mostly by individuals for whom the clue-meter reads very low. IOW, they're big because that's what people who know nothing about proper device cooling will pay for. That, and the "mine's bigger than yours" strategy of marketing.

OK - list even one heat sink that cools as well as the Scythe Ninja, a very large unit.

You persist in thinking that there's something important about "cools as well"; overclocking excepted, there's simply not.

Ditto - no real world experience.

Well, without getting into a big contest here, I would just ask how many commercial computers and similar products you have designed personally, starting with the basic components? (A pre-built motherboard is NOT a "basic component; the individual parts that go on one are, however).

If the number is not considerably greater than zero (which I'd guess is the number you've actually done), then my "real world experience" is quite a bit greater than yours.

Isaac

So how come you have nothing to contribute so far? Been sleeping at the job?

In article tim.streater-2C3801.12013005072007@redacted.invalid, Tim Streater tim.streater@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-F4B160.20435004072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Profanity is a sign that you've really got poor emotional control.

On usenet, I see no reason to be patient with nincompoops. You've been afforded a lot of useful information and wisdom from a number of people here and haven't recognised it.

That's no reason to express yourself like a 12 year old.

In your case there most certainly is. How else would I communicate with you?

I know about heat sinks to the same extent that I know about how cars work. As someone with a physics degree, and from Imperial College at that, I can be relied upon to understand the basics of heat sinks. Friend Isaac obviously has a better detail knowledge of the theory, but then I never studied it from an engineering perspective, just from one of heat flow, and what heat is.

Exactly - no real world experience.

This thread, and other too, have been about the PRINCIPLES that underlie how heat sinks are used. To the extent that "real world experience" comes in, I'll go with the Apple engineers.

Actually if you look at the title and the thread that preceded it, its precisely about real world experience. Either someone has replaced it not. Obviously no one has, or very few.

This thread started off as a specific question from you, but after a few posts it moved to the principles of heat flow etc. And you haven't absorbed a single thing from all the good quality information posted here by others.

That the Mac Pro's heat sinks are large is not at all interesting. They're just the end result of the design.

Not interesting to you because it substantiates my points.

Not interesting because irrelevant.

I see you ignore all things that disagree with you. Name a top end heat sink that's small. UNLIKE the heat sinks in the Mac Pro.

Since, unlike you, I am not a subscriber to "Heat SInks Monthly", I neither know what a "top end" heat sink is in your terms, nor care. To everyone following this thread, except you, a top heat sink is one that does the job it is designed for, such as in the Mac pro and so on.

The antics and toys of a few overclockers are of no interest to the millions of Mac owners whose heat sinks work just fine.

That's because Mac owners are rarely interested in hardware excellence. And that's precisely why they are satisfied with the hardware flushed on them by Apple.

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-D77681.20540904072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's true that I didn't specifically say it in that post, but I will now: There is no demonstrable advantage at all to be had by using high-cost "high-end" audio cables -- other than bragging rights, that is.

More accurately: Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement. You'll eliminate crackling, hiss, dropouts, etc. This kind cabling is not expensive.

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life?

Have you read a post for content in your entire life? You just argued with something that wasn't actually said.

Really? He commented on cable improvement. Saying that: "Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement".
I replied that improvement in cables has nothing to do with "crackling, hiss, and dropouts". Where did I err?

In article uce-4CF49C.10392105072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-F43CC4.20304104072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily. Other factors come into play, and "large" is ambiguous. All else being equal, increased surface area will generally help.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large.

So if you meant large by that definition - the displacement of the object if sealed in plastic wrap - then, no. A "large" heat sink is not necessarily better than a smaller one.

That's what you people keep saying and yet you can't give one example of a top end heat sink that is not large.

You've confused the anecdotal reality that common heat sinks today are large with the notion that large heat sinks are inherently superior. I can easily show you a large heat sink that's terrible.

Of course you can. But unfortunately that's not what I said. I said show me a top end heat sink that is NOT large. And no one has.
Because size matters.

Actually, the "optimum" heat sink is the one which brings the active device to the proper operating temperature and no lower.

I don't understand this last statement. Since when isn't it advantageous to run a CPU at the lowest temperature possible? Some overclockers were using liquids to bring the temp below freezing and it worked better than anything they had tried previously.

Defined "worked better."

Duh......cooler?

Duh. Believe it or not, that's not a given. That's why I asked for clarification.

Sometimes most of you sound so intelligent. Sometimes not.

I expect what the prior poster was trying to get across to you is that heat dissipation isn't the only axis in real-world equations. More particularly, as you strive to maximize heat transfer you will hit a point where it's gratuitous...where the fact you happen to be running 3 degrees cooler isn't really gaining you anything that's worth the money you dissipated getting there.

Once again, totally irrelevant.

No, not totally irrelevant.

Are you asleep today? Can't read?

Good cooling results in dramatically reduced temps.

Yeah, that pretty much goes without saying. But what you missed - and apparently are quite determined to ignore - is that further heat reductions don't necessarily gain you something that justifies the expense required to achieve them.

I love it....once the Macster is cornered showing his hardware's inferiorities, he defends it by saying "I don't need anything better".
Incredible.

You need some real world experience.

Got some, thanks.

You've been fooling me all along. Great masquerade.

Some of you are so brainwashed by Apple you don't have a clue as to what the market is doing.

You've just lost the debate. You've shown that you're completely and irrevocably out of your league if the only way you can reconcile disagreement with the foolish things you're saying is to make the unfounded and false assumption that no-one you're talking to has any experience outside of Apple's product lines.

IF they did, they'd have something to contribute to this thread. Like SPECIFIC things. Not sweeping generalities foisted upon the group from people that really have nothing to contribute except to blindly defend something not worth defending.

In article michelle-B65945.08290005072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hey, until I can find an uncut version of Allan Sherman's rendition of the "Twelve Gifts of Christmas" on modern media, that 8-track is all I've got

Do it yourself: http://dmdb.org/lyrics/sherman.swingin.html#10

And that is Michelle's most profound contribution to this thread.......lol. Well done Michelle! Keep up the good work.

On 2007-07-05 13:44:11 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

The antics and toys of a few overclockers are of no interest to the millions of Mac owners whose heat sinks work just fine.

That's because Mac owners are rarely interested in hardware excellence. And that's precisely why they are satisfied with the hardware flushed on them by Apple.

...or maybe it's because Mac users are more interested in getting productive work done than they are in spending every waking moment tweaking every little thing they can get their hands on, and as a result, getting nothing productive done.

In article 2007070514215516807-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-07-05 13:44:11 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

The antics and toys of a few overclockers are of no interest to the millions of Mac owners whose heat sinks work just fine.

That's because Mac owners are rarely interested in hardware excellence. And that's precisely why they are satisfied with the hardware flushed on them by Apple.

...or maybe it's because Mac users are more interested in getting productive work done than they are in spending every waking moment tweaking every little thing they can get their hands on, and as a result, getting nothing productive done.

That........is a very good point! :)

In article replytogroup-2AA054.13441105072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

That's because Mac owners are rarely interested in hardware excellence. And that's precisely why they are satisfied with the hardware flushed on them by Apple.

Actually, we are interested in hardware excellence; that's one reason we bought Macs in the first place.

And we're satisfied with Apple's hardware because the hardware is excellent, and not like the crap that you would design.

In article replytogroup-E2D34F.13410205072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

The Absolute Sound, Stereophile and several others can open your eyes/ears to what is possible with reproduced sound.

I doubt that you have ever read an issue of either of those in your life.

In article replytogroup-789FC0.13333905072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

You know Michelle, you keep saying I don't know what I'm talking about yet you fail, time and time again, to demonstrate validity to that point.

Many of us have repeatedly demonstrated the validity of that point, but you keep repeating the same old crap, and accusing anyone of disagreeing with you of having no real-world experience.

You're a total waste of space in this conversation.

You are a total waste of space, period. You are a fraud, a liar, and a fool with delusions of adequacy.

In article replytogroup-27D2F6.13480605072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-4CF49C.10392105072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-F43CC4.20304104072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No, the optimum size is that which, for the given conditions, transfers the maximum heat to the cooling stream.

The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?

Not necessarily. Other factors come into play, and "large" is ambiguous. All else being equal, increased surface area will generally help.

When something barely fits into some cases, its large.

So if you meant large by that definition - the displacement of the object if sealed in plastic wrap - then, no. A "large" heat sink is not necessarily better than a smaller one.

That's what you people keep saying and yet you can't give one example of a top end heat sink that is not large.

You've confused the anecdotal reality that common heat sinks today are large with the notion that large heat sinks are inherently superior. I can easily show you a large heat sink that's terrible.

Of course you can. But unfortunately that's not what I said. I said show me a top end heat sink that is NOT large.

Actually, what you said was, "The maximum heat transferred is always going to come about using a large heat sink though, right?"

It's right up there, just a couple of inches. Look. No, really, go look. See? The response to that query/assertion is "not necessarily" but you don't seem to want to believe that.

Because size matters.

Of course it matters. It's one of several factors that come into play. It's not such a dominant factor that it trumps every other one, though, and that's where your argument falls to bits.

In article replytogroup-59D3E2.13464505072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-D77681.20540904072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's true that I didn't specifically say it in that post, but I will now: There is no demonstrable advantage at all to be had by using high-cost "high-end" audio cables -- other than bragging rights, that is.

More accurately: Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement. You'll eliminate crackling, hiss, dropouts, etc. This kind cabling is not expensive.

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life?

Have you read a post for content in your entire life? You just argued with something that wasn't actually said.

Really? He commented on cable improvement. Saying that: "Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement".
I replied that improvement in cables has nothing to do with "crackling, hiss, and dropouts". Where did I err?

By apparently rejecting the notion that the elimination of "crackling, hiss, and dropouts" might count as "improvement" in some peoples' estimation.

Now look carefully what you wrote. You wrote "there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement." That reads to me an awful lot like "improved cabling will eliminate such presentation defects as crackling, hiss, and dropouts." And that sounds an awful lot like a simple restatement of the assertion with which you were arguing.

In article replytogroup-8D210B.13524105072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

I expect what the prior poster was trying to get across to you is that heat dissipation isn't the only axis in real-world equations. More particularly, as you strive to maximize heat transfer you will hit a point where it's gratuitous...where the fact you happen to be running 3 degrees cooler isn't really gaining you anything that's worth the money you dissipated getting there.

Once again, totally irrelevant.

No, not totally irrelevant.

Are you asleep today? Can't read?

Wide awake and reading fine. Now if you're not writing what you mean to say, that's on you. Do you not understand that spending more resources to cool something than are justified by the results of that cooling might not count as a win for some people?

Good cooling results in dramatically reduced temps.

Yeah, that pretty much goes without saying. But what you missed - and apparently are quite determined to ignore - is that further heat reductions don't necessarily gain you something that justifies the expense required to achieve them.

I love it....once the Macster is cornered showing his hardware's inferiorities, he defends it by saying "I don't need anything better".
Incredible.

Um. I never said anything of the sort. I said that diminishing returns would eventually argue against continuing to pursue perfect cooling. And I'm not a Macster. I think. Frankly I'm not even sure what a Macster is, having never heard the word before. But what I think you probably mean doesn't apply.

I'll repeat, since you seem to have missed the implications:

You've shown that you're completely and irrevocably out of your league if the only way you can reconcile disagreement with the foolish things you're saying is to make the unfounded and false assumption that no-one you're talking to has any experience outside of Apple's product lines.

And since you're being so dense I'll ask the central question in more direct terms: What exactly is the benefit to superfluous cooling? Certainly you don't do it for the sake of doing it. Most people have better things to do with their time and money than spending them on a task that gains them nothing. So what does it gain you? What benefit do you perceive in trying to bring arbitrarily close to ambient temperature a component that has greater environmental tolerance than you do? And don't come back with something circular like "Good cooling results in dramatically reduced temps." What_is_the_benefit?

G

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid writes:

More accurately: Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement. You'll eliminate crackling, hiss, dropouts, etc. This kind cabling is not expensive.

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life? Or are you still listening to that 8 track from the basement?

Do you read what you reply to?

I explicity said "garbage". By which I mean the tangled mess of old cabling that everybody has lying around in their closets. Stuff that lots of people use, even though the quality is lousy.

If you read "garbage" as "brand new consumer-grade", that's your problem, not mine.

Perhaps you should read what people write, instead of what you think they should have been writing.

-- David

The New Guy wrote:

the reason the manufacturer wants to use smaller heat sinks is to save material costs. Aluminum and copper are very expensive.

Now youve gone and made me spit my beer on the monitor. Thats just bloody hilarious. Are you really serious?

Kurt Ullman wrote:

All of this brings up an interesting question. The Widget on my MBP says the CPU A temperature diode is 145.4 degrees F. Is this a good place to measure temps that might cause a problem and is this a good temperature?

Processor temperatures are usually measured in °C, from what Ive read.

For comparison with your processor, my Prescott is about 50°C when idle& 47°C on a good day. I dont know how hot Core 2 Duos run, or if your system was really idle when you measured the temperature, but your 63°C may be a bit hotter than average.

But as Jolly Roger points out, 63°C is perfectly healthy.

The New Guy wrote:

You really don't have a clue, do you? Profanity is a sign that you've really got poor emotional control. On usenet, I see no reason to be patient with nincompoops. You've been afforded a lot of useful information and wisdom from a number of people here and haven't recognised it.

That's no reason to express yourself like a 12 year old.

You dont seem to require any yourself.

I know about heat sinks to the same extent that I know about how cars work. As someone with a physics degree, and from Imperial College at that, I can be relied upon to understand the basics of heat sinks. Friend Isaac obviously has a better detail knowledge of the theory, but then I never studied it from an engineering perspective, just from one of heat flow, and what heat is. Exactly - no real world experience. This thread, and other too, have been about the PRINCIPLES that underlie how heat sinks are used. To the extent that "real world experience" comes in, I'll go with the Apple engineers.

Actually if you look at the title and the thread that preceded it, its precisely about real world experience. Either someone has replaced it not. Obviously no one has, or very few.

What you have isnt real-world experience. Its real-world ignorance.

That the Mac Pro's heat sinks are large is not at all interesting. They're just the end result of the design. Not interesting to you because it substantiates my points. Not interesting because irrelevant.

I see you ignore all things that disagree with you. Name a top end heat sink that's small. UNLIKE the heat sinks in the Mac Pro.

Name a top-end heat sink, period. Just because a company makes a product and puts an impressive price tag on it, and just because there are idiots out there who will actually fork over the dough for it, doesnt mean that its actually top end. For heat sinks, there shouldnt be grades of performance anyway. Theres appropriate and theres inappropriate.

Putting an aftermarket heatsink on a processor is like putting an aftermarket spoiler on a Honda Civic. Sure, it generates more downforce, which in a Ferrari or a formula one racecar would improve traction, but its completely pointless for the Honda Civic.

And by the way, increasing the surface area of something within the same dimensions is easy. You might try googling for "fractal solids surface area" or some such. Well if it was easy, they wouldn't be always coming out LARGER models. Who is this "they" you're talking about. Real world manufacturers use what is appropriate for the job. They don't go down the aftermarket store and, to use the car analogy again, add shiny chromium bolt-on goodies to make their car look better.

"They" are manufacturers of heat sinks of course. And its not about looks. Its about cooling and noise.

No, its about making money. The custom heatsink manufacturers know that there are plenty of people with clear cases who actually want to buy a heatsink for looks, and plenty more who are just too ignorant, stupid, or paranoid to understand that their processors original heatsink is adequate for the job.

Larger models that people have difficulty both working with and mounting. Nobody wants a larger heat sink. But that's the only way of getting top notch cooling. Not in general, as has been pointed out. And explained.

Point out ONE heat sink that is top rated that is not large.

Point out one credible source for heat sink ratings.

But you're a physicist and know all that. Yes that's right. But unlike you, I'm willing to be educated by the several people here who, also unlike you, actually DO have "real world experience".

But they are oddly silent when it comes to real world examples.

Which real world examples would those be, aside from those of you being ham-fisted and ignorant?

The New Guy wrote:

In article tim.streater-2C3801.12013005072007@redacted.invalid, Tim Streater tim.streater@redacted.invalid wrote:

The antics and toys of a few overclockers are of no interest to the millions of Mac owners whose heat sinks work just fine.

That's because Mac owners are rarely interested in hardware excellence. And that's precisely why they are satisfied with the hardware flushed on them by Apple.

Excellence being your mommy and daddy buy you a cheap PC to stop your whining, and you scraping the nickels and dimes from your paper route together to buy an aftermarket heatsink, so your l33t overclocking skillz dont fry your processor?

In article iDpji.38227$HP3.247840@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

the reason the manufacturer wants to use smaller heat sinks is to save material costs. Aluminum and copper are very expensive.

Now youve gone and made me spit my beer on the monitor. Thats just bloody hilarious. Are you really serious?

As "The New Guy" demonstrates: it's not what you don't know that hurts you; it's what you know for certain that ain't so.

NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

All of this brings up an interesting question. The Widget on my MBP says the CPU A temperature diode is 145.4 degrees F. Is this a good place to measure temps that might cause a problem and is this a good temperature?

Processor temperatures are usually measured in °C, from what I've read.

For comparison with your processor, my Prescott is about 50°C when idle& 47°C on a good day. I don't know how hot Core 2 Duos run, or if your system was really idle when you measured the temperature, but your 63°C may be a bit hotter than average.

My MacMini with a 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo processor is about 50°C when idle (about 23°C room temp.), and the fan speed then is about 1500 rpm. The temp of the outgoing air is about 45°C.

The highest processor temperature I've seen on this machine, after several hours of nearly 100% load, is 81°C. The fan speed was about 2500 rpm, and the temp of the outgoing air was 56°C.

By the way, the noise of the fan is well below the background noise ( < 35 dBA), even when it's running at high speed.

But as Jolly Roger points out, 63°C is perfectly healthy.

NRen2k5 wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

All of this brings up an interesting question. The Widget on my MBP says the CPU A temperature diode is 145.4 degrees F. Is this a good place to measure temps that might cause a problem and is this a good temperature?

Processor temperatures are usually measured in °C, from what Ive read.

For comparison with your processor, my Prescott is about 50°C when idle& 47°C on a good day. I dont know how hot Core 2 Duos run, or if your system was really idle when you measured the temperature, but your 63°C may be a bit hotter than average.

But as Jolly Roger points out, 63°C is perfectly healthy.

58-59°C here with a dual 1GHz G4.

In article replytogroup-59D3E2.13464505072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life?

Have you read a post for content in your entire life? You just argued with something that wasn't actually said.

Really? He commented on cable improvement. Saying that: "Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement".
I replied that improvement in cables has nothing to do with "crackling, hiss, and dropouts". Where did I err?

In that you're wrong. Bad cables are common cause of crackling and dropouts at least.

In article replytogroup-63A601.20383804072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

If you can't open a Mini maybe you shouldn't even get out of bed. A lobotomized chimp with Parkinson's could do it. If you can read that is. This was a typical Macster afraid of anything hardware related.
I work with motherboards all the time and never ground myself. I have yet to see any adverse affects. I don't dance around on the carpet of course. Its just common sense.

I've opened close to 60 Macs (40 of them in one sitting). In that time, one of them was damaged. (Ironically, it was one I took every reasonable precaution on - a Quadra 840. I'm still not entirely convinced I fried it, and it wasn't a coincidental failure)

You shouldn't be recommending major surgery to a user with unknown technical skills on a Mini, MacBook (Pro), PowerBook or iBook. Because you need a LOT more skill and knowledge than that chimp, and for all you know the person you're telling to do it has even less skill. Unless, as I asked, you're willing to foot the repair bill?

On 2007-07-07 09:20:39 -0500, Steven Fisher steve@redacted.invalid said:

In article replytogroup-63A601.20383804072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

If you can't open a Mini maybe you shouldn't even get out of bed. A lobotomized chimp with Parkinson's could do it. If you can read that is. This was a typical Macster afraid of anything hardware related. I work with motherboards all the time and never ground myself. I have yet to see any adverse affects. I don't dance around on the carpet of course. Its just common sense.

I've opened close to 60 Macs (40 of them in one sitting). In that time, one of them was damaged. (Ironically, it was one I took every reasonable precaution on - a Quadra 840. I'm still not entirely convinced I fried it, and it wasn't a coincidental failure)

You shouldn't be recommending major surgery to a user with unknown technical skills on a Mini, MacBook (Pro), PowerBook or iBook. Because you need a LOT more skill and knowledge than that chimp, and for all you know the person you're telling to do it has even less skill. Unless, as I asked, you're willing to foot the repair bill?

I whole-heartedly agree. It's irresponsible to assume others have the same level of knowledge and experience as yourself when offering advise in this forum.

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid writes:

I see you ignore all things that disagree with you. Name a top end heat sink that's small. UNLIKE the heat sinks in the Mac Pro.

I think that you should go ahead and replace the heat sink. I think that you need a heat sink at least as big as a piano. Probably bigger, but that would probably be big enough, provided it is water cooled. Of course liquid nitrogen would be better, but it's probably not necessary.

I think that you should go ahead and do it. When you've finished, then come back and report how much better it works.

In article michelle-4DE5EB.13165405072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-E2D34F.13410205072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

The Absolute Sound, Stereophile and several others can open your eyes/ears to what is possible with reproduced sound.

I doubt that you have ever read an issue of either of those in your life.

I've read tons of them. Almost all of the TAS mags up to when I escaped from high end audio. (It was very addicting.) I had to read them. It was my work/business at the time. Its a fascinating hobby though. Many, Stereophile issues too. It didn't have the reputation it has now though. TAS ruled back then. I got out when the Genesis One and Goldmund Reference were the state of the art. Harry Pearson really did lay the foundation for most of the way audio reviewers perceived recorded music. His ability to accurately portray the "soundstage" has been respected as a milestone in audiophile circles, as before that, that aspect of music reproduction was largely ignored.
Yet it makes huge differences in the emotion of the music. Why, I'm not sure. It just seems that equipment that was better able to convey the emotion, was also better able to convey accurate spatial information. That's only one aspect of music reproduction quality of course, but he was noted as a pioneer for bringing attention to it.
And rightly so.

But you're right........I've never read an issue...........lol.
You're priceless! :)

If you can't open a Mini maybe you shouldn't even get out of bed. A lobotomized chimp with Parkinson's could do it. If you can read that is. This was a typical Macster afraid of anything hardware related.
I work with motherboards all the time and never ground myself. I have yet to see any adverse affects. I don't dance around on the carpet of course. Its just common sense.

I've opened close to 60 Macs (40 of them in one sitting). In that time, one of them was damaged. (Ironically, it was one I took every reasonable precaution on - a Quadra 840. I'm still not entirely convinced I fried it, and it wasn't a coincidental failure)

You shouldn't be recommending major surgery to a user with unknown technical skills on a Mini, MacBook (Pro), PowerBook or iBook. Because you need a LOT more skill and knowledge than that chimp, and for all you know the person you're telling to do it has even less skill. Unless, as I asked, you're willing to foot the repair bill?

I didn't recommend major surgery. Just how to pop the top off. Its not difficult especially with all the online guides to help. Mac people try to make hardware so intimidating. I'm trying to encourage people to take things apart (slowly, enjoying the process, noting where everything went along the way) to better appreciate a design's strengths and weaknesses. Also, it'll save a pile in ram upgrade costs! And for those lucky people with Intel Mini's they can use a full size Sata cable connecting a full size external Sata drive and sell off that pokey slow, weakest link of the system, notebook hard drive. Consider how cheap DDR2 ram is now! It may not be that way for long. Many in the industry think prices will rise once again in September. Some of it is selling for 25% of the price a few months ago! I'm not up on notebook DDR2 ram, but it must have fallen as well. So its time to up that ram and get that Intel Mini pimped. :)

In article 2007070712060975249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-07-07 09:20:39 -0500, Steven Fisher steve@redacted.invalid said:

In article replytogroup-63A601.20383804072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

If you can't open a Mini maybe you shouldn't even get out of bed. A lobotomized chimp with Parkinson's could do it. If you can read that is. This was a typical Macster afraid of anything hardware related. I work with motherboards all the time and never ground myself. I have yet to see any adverse affects. I don't dance around on the carpet of course. Its just common sense.

I've opened close to 60 Macs (40 of them in one sitting). In that time, one of them was damaged. (Ironically, it was one I took every reasonable precaution on - a Quadra 840. I'm still not entirely convinced I fried it, and it wasn't a coincidental failure)

You shouldn't be recommending major surgery to a user with unknown technical skills on a Mini, MacBook (Pro), PowerBook or iBook. Because you need a LOT more skill and knowledge than that chimp, and for all you know the person you're telling to do it has even less skill. Unless, as I asked, you're willing to foot the repair bill?

I whole-heartedly agree. It's irresponsible to assume others have the same level of knowledge and experience as yourself when offering advise in this forum.

99% of you think I'm a brainless idiot that just babbles incoherently via a keyboard. So to think some users have less knowledge and experience than me, is a frightening thought indeed.

So slow, use lots of space, don't let anyone interrupt you, and follow the online guides carefully. You'll be great.

I see you ignore all things that disagree with you. Name a top end heat sink that's small. UNLIKE the heat sinks in the Mac Pro.

I think that you should go ahead and replace the heat sink. I think that you need a heat sink at least as big as a piano. Probably bigger, but that would probably be big enough, provided it is water cooled. Of course liquid nitrogen would be better, but it's probably not necessary.

I think that you should go ahead and do it. When you've finished, then come back and report how much better it works.

At least someone here has a sense of humor! :) Thanks William!
And I believe you meant not just any piano, but a grand piano. And not just any grand piano but a 9'+ concert grand piano.

In article uce-7AD725.18280105072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-59D3E2.13464505072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-D77681.20540904072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

It's true that I didn't specifically say it in that post, but I will now: There is no demonstrable advantage at all to be had by using high-cost "high-end" audio cables -- other than bragging rights, that is.

More accurately: Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement. You'll eliminate crackling, hiss, dropouts, etc. This kind cabling is not expensive.

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life?

Have you read a post for content in your entire life? You just argued with something that wasn't actually said.

Really? He commented on cable improvement. Saying that: "Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement".
I replied that improvement in cables has nothing to do with "crackling, hiss, and dropouts". Where did I err?

By apparently rejecting the notion that the elimination of "crackling, hiss, and dropouts" might count as "improvement" in some peoples' estimation.

Now look carefully what you wrote. You wrote "there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement." That reads to me an awful lot like "improved cabling will eliminate such presentation defects as crackling, hiss, and dropouts." And that sounds an awful lot like a simple restatement of the assertion with which you were arguing.

To make a very simple concept even simpler so it can be grasped by some microscopic mentalities here:

When you upgrade your cabling, you may hear many improvements.

But if you have Crackling, Hiss and Dropouts, your audio system isn't functioning properly in the first place. Get it fixed, then listen for audio improvements. Its like test driving a new sports car and the tires all inflated at widely differentiating levels. Or it needs a tune up, etc.

First your system has to be working well. Then you change one thing.
Then you decide whether you hear a difference. And if that difference is an improvement or not. Many differences are not improvements!
Maybe you won't hear improvements, and that will save you money!

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

99% of you think I'm a brainless idiot that just babbles incoherently via a keyboard.

I can't speak for others, of course, but I've been under the impression that you're actually quite intelligent but you're also 15 or thereabouts years old and think you know everything, as is typical of people your age.

In article replytogroup-35B62C.19004108072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote: ....

At least someone here has a sense of humor! :) Thanks William!
And I believe you meant not just any piano, but a grand piano. And not just any grand piano but a 9'+ concert grand piano.

He meant a 9' water cooled concert grand. They present the best sound stage.

I expect what the prior poster was trying to get across to you is that heat dissipation isn't the only axis in real-world equations. More particularly, as you strive to maximize heat transfer you will hit a point where it's gratuitous...where the fact you happen to be running 3 degrees cooler isn't really gaining you anything that's worth the money you dissipated getting there.

Once again, totally irrelevant.

No, not totally irrelevant.

Are you asleep today? Can't read?

Wide awake and reading fine. Now if you're not writing what you mean to say, that's on you. Do you not understand that spending more resources to cool something than are justified by the results of that cooling might not count as a win for some people?

Well this comes back to the beginning. I believe exhausted hot air is a sign of poor cooling, whereas most of the people here would not agree with that. So when an iMac is idling and the exhausted air is not, that worries me because its going to get a lot hotter when that machine is taxed. Just my opinion.

Good cooling results in dramatically reduced temps.

Yeah, that pretty much goes without saying. But what you missed - and apparently are quite determined to ignore - is that further heat reductions don't necessarily gain you something that justifies the expense required to achieve them.

I love it....once the Macster is cornered showing his hardware's inferiorities, he defends it by saying "I don't need anything better".
Incredible.

Um. I never said anything of the sort. I said that diminishing returns would eventually argue against continuing to pursue perfect cooling. And I'm not a Macster. I think. Frankly I'm not even sure what a Macster is, having never heard the word before. But what I think you probably mean doesn't apply.

Macster is just a word I thought up of someone that takes Apple's word as gospel. And that never would consider disassembling their Mac for curiosity. Basically out of fear of the unknown. There are other slang words for that type of person but I thought Macster showed a little more respect than some of the others.

And since you're being so dense I'll ask the central question in more direct terms: What exactly is the benefit to superfluous cooling?

Longer lifespan of components and less airflow needed to cool to the same temperature. Heat sinks have been discussed ad nauseum before here.

Certainly you don't do it for the sake of doing it. Most people have better things to do with their time and money than spending them on a task that gains them nothing. So what does it gain you? What benefit do you perceive in trying to bring arbitrarily close to ambient temperature a component that has greater environmental tolerance than you do? And don't come back with something circular like "Good cooling results in dramatically reduced temps." What_is_the_benefit?

Cooling is all in the heat sinks. With a great heat sink you need very low rpm's to cool it which means you arrive at your goal with near zero noise.

I'm also looking to the future. Raid 0 is being used more and more as many people feel the hard drive is compromising the performance of many systems and this can be dramatically improved by bringing 2 or more drives together in Raid 0. With more drives come more heat and way more noise. Noise from hard drives is harder to quieten in most situations due to its penetrating "whine". 10k drives are much noisier but they are necessary for high performance. More noise.
What we really need is a hard drive enclosure built to specifically house multiple hard drives (with removable options for backup and large capacity video work) that cools the hard drives adequately (Google proved that its most definitely isn't advantageous to cool below room temperature) and absorbs all the noise.

Raid 0 has tremendous potential. 36 gb 10,000 rpm WD Raptors go very cheap these days (many prices are under $50 used). Most of us could good do well with 144 gb's (4 36gb drives) of very high performance space available for the OS, Apps and our more resource intensive work.
4 pipes of Raid 0 is seriously fast. All the other data can go on dirt cheap 7200 rpm Sata 2 drives. Its a prudent scenario. And don't forget that backup procedure!

On 2007-07-08 18:59:01 -0500, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid said:

you think I'm a brainless idiot

I don't think you are stupid, but I do think you're a know-it-all.

In article m2hcoi1c5e.fsf@redacted.invalid, shamino@redacted.invalid (David C.) wrote:

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid writes:

More accurately: Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement. You'll eliminate crackling, hiss, dropouts, etc. This kind cabling is not expensive.

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life? Or are you still listening to that 8 track from the basement?

Do you read what you reply to?

I explicity said "garbage". By which I mean the tangled mess of old cabling that everybody has lying around in their closets. Stuff that lots of people use, even though the quality is lousy.

If you read "garbage" as "brand new consumer-grade", that's your problem, not mine.

Perhaps you should read what people write, instead of what you think they should have been writing.

-- David

But David, do you think that anyone that has 20 year old $2 cabling in a jumbled mass behind their audio rig is going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on interconnects? I don't understand that connection. The typical person is the guy getting into high end audio, listening to quality for the first time in his life. Its going to take him a while to get used to that level of reproduction. His equipment has probably cost him at least a couple thousand, so if he drops a couple hundred on his first interconnect upgrade, its not so big a deal, especially if he thinks he really hears a difference. The people that drop a lot of money usualy already have more than 10 grand into their system. Often its many times that. Many types of audio equipment does not devalue at all as long as you buy it used. You can use it for years and sell it for the same price if you bought cautiously. There are other areas of audio that appreciate as well.
There's not many hobbies you can say that about.

I hope that clarifies things.

I see you ignore all things that disagree with you. Name a top end heat sink that's small. UNLIKE the heat sinks in the Mac Pro.

Name a top-end heat sink, period.

www.silentpcreview.com is one of the most respected hardware sites in this area. Their favorite is the Scythe Ninja (which I've mentioned several times here but I guess you missed that), but there are several others. The one thing you'll notice is they are all large. And its pretty hard making a large aluminum heat sink and pricing it cheap because aluminum (and the copper that is used at the base) is very expensive. So naturally manufacturers are going to shy away from this style if they can convince the public that "they don't need it".
Saves them piles of money.

Just because a company makes a product and puts an impressive price tag on it, and just because there are idiots out there who will actually fork over the dough for it, doesnt mean that its actually top end. For heat sinks, there shouldnt be grades of performance anyway. Theres appropriate and theres inappropriate.

From a real expert, wow....:) If you play with heat sinks you will find that the better the heat sinks, the less airflow is needed to cool it to the same temperature.
Which means a good heat sink results in a quiet computer. Or a better heat sink results in quieter computer. I've already mentioned several times that I'm sensitive to noise. So my standards may be higher than most.

And by the way, increasing the surface area of something within the same dimensions is easy. You might try googling for "fractal solids surface area" or some such.

Well if it was easy, they wouldn't be always coming out with LARGER models.

Who is this "they" you're talking about. Real world manufacturers use what is appropriate for the job. They don't go down the aftermarket store and, to use the car analogy again, add shiny chromium bolt-on goodies to make their car look better.

"They" are manufacturers of heat sinks of course. And its not about looks. Its about cooling and noise.

No, its about making money.

Finally you nailed it. Cheaper parts results in a better bottom line.
Everybody wants to save manufacturing costs. Its what I've been saying all along.

The custom heatsink manufacturers know that there are plenty of people with clear cases who actually want to buy a heatsink for looks, and plenty more who are just too ignorant, stupid, or paranoid to understand that their processors original heatsink is adequate for the job.

I've never, ever, signaled out appearance as a basis for a product's worth. If you've been reading here you'd know that. In fact its appearance that has doomed the potential of the Mac Mini so far.
Their insane infatuation with "tiny".

Larger models that people have difficulty both working with and mounting. Nobody wants a larger heat sink. But that's the only way of getting top notch cooling.

Not in general, as has been pointed out. And explained.

Point out ONE heat sink that is top rated that is not large.

Point out one credible source for heat sink ratings.

Mentioned above. Toms Hardware as well. There are so many reviewers online.

But you're a physicist and know all that. Yes that's right. But unlike you, I'm willing to be educated by the several people here who, also unlike you, actually DO have "real world experience".

But they are oddly silent when it comes to real world examples.

Which real world examples would those be, aside from those of you being ham-fisted and ignorant?

For days now I have challenged someone to come up with a highly rated heat sink that is small. And not one of you has met the challenge.

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid writes:

In article m2hcoi1c5e.fsf@redacted.invalid, shamino@redacted.invalid (David C.) wrote:

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid writes:

More accurately: Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement. You'll eliminate crackling, hiss, dropouts, etc. This kind cabling is not expensive.

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life? Or are you still listening to that 8 track from the basement?

Do you read what you reply to?

I explicity said "garbage". By which I mean the tangled mess of old cabling that everybody has lying around in their closets. Stuff that lots of people use, even though the quality is lousy.

If you read "garbage" as "brand new consumer-grade", that's your problem, not mine.

Perhaps you should read what people write, instead of what you think they should have been writing.

-- David

But David, do you think that anyone that has 20 year old $2 cabling in a jumbled mass behind their audio rig is going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on interconnects? I don't understand that connection. The typical person is the guy getting into high end audio, listening to quality for the first time in his life. Its going to take him a while to get used to that level of reproduction. His equipment has probably cost him at least a couple thousand, so if he drops a couple hundred on his first interconnect upgrade, its not so big a deal, especially if he thinks he really hears a difference. The people that drop a lot of money usualy already have more than 10 grand into their system. Often its many times that. Many types of audio equipment does not devalue at all as long as you buy it used. You can use it for years and sell it for the same price if you bought cautiously. There are other areas of audio that appreciate as well.
There's not many hobbies you can say that about.

I hope that clarifies things.

Sure. It shows that you ignored everything I wrote, and posted an entire paragraph of off-topic material in response.

Since it's obvious that you don't read anything you reply to, any futher discussion would just be a waste of my time.

Welcome to my killfile. Please don't change your e-mail address. I don't want to have to do this again.

-- David

In article replytogroup-3F70D8.18590108072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 2007070712060975249-jollyroger@redacted.invalid, Jolly Roger jollyroger@redacted.invalid wrote:

On 2007-07-07 09:20:39 -0500, Steven Fisher steve@redacted.invalid said:

In article replytogroup-63A601.20383804072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

If you can't open a Mini maybe you shouldn't even get out of bed. A lobotomized chimp with Parkinson's could do it. If you can read that is. This was a typical Macster afraid of anything hardware related. I work with motherboards all the time and never ground myself. I have yet to see any adverse affects. I don't dance around on the carpet of course. Its just common sense.

I've opened close to 60 Macs (40 of them in one sitting). In that time, one of them was damaged. (Ironically, it was one I took every reasonable precaution on - a Quadra 840. I'm still not entirely convinced I fried it, and it wasn't a coincidental failure)

You shouldn't be recommending major surgery to a user with unknown technical skills on a Mini, MacBook (Pro), PowerBook or iBook. Because you need a LOT more skill and knowledge than that chimp, and for all you know the person you're telling to do it has even less skill. Unless, as I asked, you're willing to foot the repair bill?

I whole-heartedly agree. It's irresponsible to assume others have the same level of knowledge and experience as yourself when offering advise in this forum.

99% of you think I'm a brainless idiot that just babbles incoherently via a keyboard. So to think some users have less knowledge and experience than me, is a frightening thought indeed.

So slow, use lots of space, don't let anyone interrupt you, and follow the online guides carefully. You'll be great.

That should be GO slow.........I try to proofread but some tidbits get through. Sorry.

In article m24pkecsz6.fsf@redacted.invalid, shamino@redacted.invalid (David C.) wrote:

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid writes:

In article m2hcoi1c5e.fsf@redacted.invalid, shamino@redacted.invalid (David C.) wrote:

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid writes:

More accurately: Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement. You'll eliminate crackling, hiss, dropouts, etc. This kind cabling is not expensive.

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life? Or are you still listening to that 8 track from the basement?

Do you read what you reply to?

I explicity said "garbage". By which I mean the tangled mess of old cabling that everybody has lying around in their closets. Stuff that lots of people use, even though the quality is lousy.

If you read "garbage" as "brand new consumer-grade", that's your problem, not mine.

Perhaps you should read what people write, instead of what you think they should have been writing.

-- David

But David, do you think that anyone that has 20 year old $2 cabling in a jumbled mass behind their audio rig is going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on interconnects? I don't understand that connection. The typical person is the guy getting into high end audio, listening to quality for the first time in his life. Its going to take him a while to get used to that level of reproduction. His equipment has probably cost him at least a couple thousand, so if he drops a couple hundred on his first interconnect upgrade, its not so big a deal, especially if he thinks he really hears a difference. The people that drop a lot of money usualy already have more than 10 grand into their system. Often its many times that. Many types of audio equipment does not devalue at all as long as you buy it used. You can use it for years and sell it for the same price if you bought cautiously. There are other areas of audio that appreciate as well.
There's not many hobbies you can say that about.

I hope that clarifies things.

Sure. It shows that you ignored everything I wrote, and posted an entire paragraph of off-topic material in response.

Since it's obvious that you don't read anything you reply to, any futher discussion would just be a waste of my time.

Welcome to my killfile. Please don't change your e-mail address. I don't want to have to do this again.

-- David

I guess you won't see this, but it would have been nice if you replied to my point that people that have old, cheap cabling aren't going to upgrade to hideously priced cabling. The rest was just some keyboard exercise.

It sure would be great if more people would draw up a counterpoint instead of some blanket, broad, sweeping statement, steeped in generalities.

If you don't agree with someone, just bring up what they said, and say why.

And some of you are being a little aggressive with the trimming of posts. Sometimes you're trimming the substance of the conversation.
Go easy, please.

In article replytogroup-5BFABF.19205208072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

I love it....once the Macster is cornered showing his hardware's inferiorities, he defends it by saying "I don't need anything better".
Incredible.

Um. I never said anything of the sort. I said that diminishing returns would eventually argue against continuing to pursue perfect cooling. And I'm not a Macster. I think. Frankly I'm not even sure what a Macster is, having never heard the word before. But what I think you probably mean doesn't apply.

Macster is just a word I thought up of someone that takes Apple's word as gospel.

Then it doesn't apply to me. Or most of the other people responding to you in this thread.

And that never would consider disassembling their Mac for curiosity.

Every piece of computing hardware in my house has been down to components, regardless of brand.

Basically out of fear of the unknown.

Or, simply, that curiosity isn't enough of a drive to take away time from actually getting things done.

There are other slang words for that type of person but I thought Macster showed a little more respect than some of the others.

And since you're being so dense I'll ask the central question in more direct terms: What exactly is the benefit to superfluous cooling?

Longer lifespan of components ...

And if the lifespan of those components with the stock cooling solution is 5 times the projected usable life of the system?

G

In article replytogroup-ED3975.19062908072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now look carefully what you wrote. You wrote "there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement." That reads to me an awful lot like "improved cabling will eliminate such presentation defects as crackling, hiss, and dropouts." And that sounds an awful lot like a simple restatement of the assertion with which you were arguing.

But if you have Crackling, Hiss and Dropouts, your audio system isn't functioning properly in the first place.

Such as, perhaps, crap cabling?

G

In article replytogroup-E8AFA9.19373108072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

"They" are manufacturers of heat sinks of course. And its not about looks. Its about cooling and noise.

No, its about making money.

Finally you nailed it. Cheaper parts results in a better bottom line.
Everybody wants to save manufacturing costs. Its what I've been saying all along.

And yet the person to whom you're responding was talking about the other end of the market. The people who pay insane prices for something that actually doesn't gain them anything except aesthetics or misplaced warm fuzzies.

I've never, ever, signaled out appearance as a basis for a product's worth. If you've been reading here you'd know that. In fact its appearance that has doomed the potential of the Mac Mini so far.
Their insane infatuation with "tiny".

The size of the mini is more than appearance. For some applications and environments, size is a salient feature. One of the machines in my house is a mini. If the mini was larger, I wouldn't have bought it because it wouldn't fit where I needed it.

You might recall that that primary market for the mini was individuals that already had machines but did not have Macs. The size, in that circumstance, is important because it was expected to join an existing setup, not necessarily supplant any machines. Almost everyone has room to add a mini on/near their desk. Far fewer people have room to add, for example, a Shuttle.

G

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hey, until I can find an uncut version of Allan Sherman's rendition of the "Twelve Gifts of Christmas" on modern media, that 8-track is all I've got

Greg, I don't know about 'uncut', but there's what appears to be a full version of this tune on Dr. Demento's Christmas Album. It's cut #4. The full title is 'Dr. Dememto presents The Greatest Christmas Novelty CD Of All Time'. My favorite is cut #9, 'I Yust Go Nuts At Christmas' by Yogi Yorgesson.

--Fred

In article replytogroup-41DA26.19271608072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

The typical person is the guy getting into high end audio, listening to quality for the first time in his life. Its going to take him a while to get used to that level of reproduction. His equipment has probably cost him at least a couple thousand,

If he's getting into high end audio, his equipment cost him a heck of a lot more than a couple thousand.

In article uce-3F6E16.21275708072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-ED3975.19062908072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now look carefully what you wrote. You wrote "there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement." That reads to me an awful lot like "improved cabling will eliminate such presentation defects as crackling, hiss, and dropouts." And that sounds an awful lot like a simple restatement of the assertion with which you were arguing.

But if you have Crackling, Hiss and Dropouts, your audio system isn't functioning properly in the first place.

Such as, perhaps, crap cabling?

G

If you have crackling, hiss and dropouts you simply have a non-functioning system. We're talking about cable quality - not cables that are partially broken. Sort of like a monitor with one corner that is always black. Its not working. You get it fixed then you compare things.

In article replytogroup-B83D06.18460108072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

I doubt that you have ever read an issue of either of those in your life.

I've read tons of them. Almost all of the TAS mags up to when I escaped from high end audio. (It was very addicting.) I had to read them. It was my work/business at the time. Its a fascinating hobby though. Many, Stereophile issues too. It didn't have the reputation it has now though. TAS ruled back then. I got out when the Genesis One and Goldmund Reference were the state of the art. Harry Pearson really did lay the foundation for most of the way audio reviewers perceived recorded music. His ability to accurately portray the "soundstage" has been respected as a milestone in audiophile circles, as before that, that aspect of music reproduction was largely ignored. Yet it makes huge differences in the emotion of the music.
Why, I'm not sure. It just seems that equipment that was better able to convey the emotion, was also better able to convey accurate spatial information. That's only one aspect of music reproduction quality of course, but he was noted as a pioneer for bringing attention to it. And rightly so.

But you're right........I've never read an issue...........lol.
You're priceless! :)

Someone who has never read an issue of any of those magazines, but who has read about them, could have written the above.

In article uce-0C38B9.21384808072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-E8AFA9.19373108072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

"They" are manufacturers of heat sinks of course. And its not about looks. Its about cooling and noise.

No, its about making money.

Finally you nailed it. Cheaper parts results in a better bottom line.
Everybody wants to save manufacturing costs. Its what I've been saying all along.

And yet the person to whom you're responding was talking about the other end of the market. The people who pay insane prices for something that actually doesn't gain them anything except aesthetics or misplaced warm fuzzies.

I've never, ever, signaled out appearance as a basis for a product's worth. If you've been reading here you'd know that. In fact its appearance that has doomed the potential of the Mac Mini so far.
Their insane infatuation with "tiny".

The size of the mini is more than appearance. For some applications and environments, size is a salient feature. One of the machines in my house is a mini. If the mini was larger, I wouldn't have bought it because it wouldn't fit where I needed it.

You might recall that that primary market for the mini was individuals that already had machines but did not have Macs. The size, in that circumstance, is important because it was expected to join an existing setup, not necessarily supplant any machines. Almost everyone has room to add a mini on/near their desk. Far fewer people have room to add, for example, a Shuttle.

G

The odd thing here is why not design it to work vertically? Another poster has documented cooler temps when vertical. It would take up much less desk space. Now you can use it vertically, but you have to rig up some feet for it. No problem. But its strange why Apple wouldn't offer the public a choice of horizontal or vertical operation.

Imagine this: A bracket on the back of the 20" & 23" LCD Apple monitors to plop your Mini.

In article michelle-6CE72E.21062308072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-41DA26.19271608072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

The typical person is the guy getting into high end audio, listening to quality for the first time in his life. Its going to take him a while to get used to that level of reproduction. His equipment has probably cost him at least a couple thousand,

If he's getting into high end audio, his equipment cost him a heck of a lot more than a couple thousand.

Do you see the words "getting into high end audio"? Its a starter system. If he's using good headphones he could save a lot on speakers and still have respectable sound for 2 grand if he bought carefully used. Also maybe he's using vinyl for his source. That might save him some as well if the moving coil cartridge was bought used as they often go for 30% of their new price as long as the cantilever is still good. Maybe he's got an electronics background and can take older tube amps, regulate the power supplies and replace all the caps and resistors with newer ones for better performance, especially in the high frequencies. Lots of options.

In article replytogroup-1DC27C.23173708072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

If he's getting into high end audio, his equipment cost him a heck of a lot more than a couple thousand.

Do you see the words "getting into high end audio"? Its a starter system.

Do you see that I used those same words? If it's a 2-grand starter system, he's not into high end; he's not even at the bottom of high end.
He's in upper mid fi at best.

I once owned a $600 tone arm (in mid 1970s prices), but I bought it while in Japan for about $200.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:11:09 -0400, Mike Rosenberg wrote (in article 1i0y7zv.3ij0axrt5pfuN%mikePOST@redacted.invalid):

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

99% of you think I'm a brainless idiot that just babbles incoherently via a keyboard.

I can't speak for others, of course, but I've been under the impression that you're actually quite intelligent but you're also 15 or thereabouts years old and think you know everything, as is typical of people your age.

I think that he's read one copy too many of CPU or Maximum PC. I also thingk that I'd just love to watch him try to take apart a classic Mac, or a first generation iMac, or an eMac. I've still got my MacCracker and my extra-long T-handled TORX screwdriver, not that he'd have clue one about either.

In article uce-0C38B9.21384808072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

....... Almost everyone has room to add a mini on/near their desk. Far fewer people have room to add, for example, a Shuttle.

Too true. I picked up an old space shuttle the other day but it would only fit in the garage.

In article fmoore-383443.21540908072007@redacted.invalid, Fred Moore fmoore@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hey, until I can find an uncut version of Allan Sherman's rendition of the "Twelve Gifts of Christmas" on modern media, that 8-track is all I've got

Greg, I don't know about 'uncut', but there's what appears to be a full version of this tune on Dr. Demento's Christmas Album. It's cut #4. The full title is 'Dr. Dememto presents The Greatest Christmas Novelty CD Of All Time'. My favorite is cut #9, 'I Yust Go Nuts At Christmas' by Yogi Yorgesson.

Thanks for the pointer. If the clip at Amazon is accurate, this is the edited version, though. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that day 5 had to be sanitized.

G

In article replytogroup-E8AFA9.19373108072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

For days now I have challenged someone to come up with a highly rated heat sink that is small. And not one of you has met the challenge.

You keep making the mistake of imagining we care. In fact it's a matter of complete indifference to me, at least.

What counts is whether actual heat sinks in actual computers work. And they do.

Still, this has been the most amusing and witty thread for a while. Keep it going.

The New Guy wrote:

I see you ignore all things that disagree with you. Name a top end heat sink that's small. UNLIKE the heat sinks in the Mac Pro. Name a top-end heat sink, period.

www.silentpcreview.com is one of the most respected hardware sites in this area.

Respected by who, aside from other basement-geek-wannabe know-nothings?

Their favorite is the Scythe Ninja (which I've mentioned several times here but I guess you missed that), but there are several others. The one thing you'll notice is they are all large. And its pretty hard making a large aluminum heat sink and pricing it cheap because aluminum (and the copper that is used at the base) is very expensive.

No, they arent. Copper costs about $3 per pound, aluminum is about $3.50. See for yourself.

So naturally manufacturers are going to shy away from this style if they can convince the public that "they don't need it". Saves them piles of money.

No. They are going to avoid overkill because its just good business sense.

Just because a company makes a product and puts an impressive price tag on it, and just because there are idiots out there who will actually fork over the dough for it, doesnt mean that its actually top end. For heat sinks, there shouldnt be grades of performance anyway. Theres appropriate and theres inappropriate.

From a real expert, wow....:) If you play with heat sinks you will find that the better the heat sinks, the less airflow is needed to cool it to the same temperature. Which means a good heat sink results in a quiet computer. Or a better heat sink results in quieter computer. I've already mentioned several times that I'm sensitive to noise. So my standards may be higher than most.

So, thats your preference.

"They" are manufacturers of heat sinks of course. And its not about looks. Its about cooling and noise. No, its about making money.

Finally you nailed it. Cheaper parts results in a better bottom line. Everybody wants to save manufacturing costs. Its what I've been saying all along.

You missed it completely. Like many other items people buy, aftermarket heatsinks arent needed. But that doesnt stop people from wanting them. And the manufacturers and vendors are more than happy to take your money.

The custom heatsink manufacturers know that there are plenty of people with clear cases who actually want to buy a heatsink for looks, and plenty more who are just too ignorant, stupid, or paranoid to understand that their processors original heatsink is adequate for the job.

I've never, ever, signaled out appearance as a basis for a product's worth. If you've been reading here you'd know that. In fact its appearance that has doomed the potential of the Mac Mini so far. Their insane infatuation with "tiny".

Tiny is fine if you can make it work. Which Apple does.

NRen2k5 wrote:

Copper costs about $3 per pound, aluminum is about $3.50. See for yourself.

I duffed up. Aluminum is about $1.30 per pound.

Bjarne Bäckström wrote:

My MacMini with a 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo processor is about 50°C when idle (about 23°C room temp.), and the fan speed then is about 1500 rpm. The temp of the outgoing air is about 45°C.

The highest processor temperature I've seen on this machine, after several hours of nearly 100% load, is 81°C. The fan speed was about 2500 rpm, and the temp of the outgoing air was 56°C.

By the way, the noise of the fan is well below the background noise ( < 35 dBA), even when it's running at high speed.

But as Jolly Roger points out, 63°C is perfectly healthy.

Yes, there is plenty of headroom left.

Nice.

I have to admit I plopped a Prescott in a case that was never meant for it. I only keep the temps that I do with my fans set to run constantly at e3000 RPM. Its&&& a bit noisy. :|

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

In article replytogroup-59D3E2.13464505072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

That's funny. In the real world, there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement. Have you even listened to high quality recorded music in your entire life? Have you read a post for content in your entire life? You just argued with something that wasn't actually said. Really? He commented on cable improvement. Saying that: "Upgrading from garbage to good quality stuff will show a strong improvement".
I replied that improvement in cables has nothing to do with "crackling, hiss, and dropouts". Where did I err?

In that you're wrong. Bad cables are common cause of crackling and dropouts at least.

This is true. But anything better than dollar-store cables will be fine.

The New Guy wrote:

In article uce-3F6E16.21275708072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-ED3975.19062908072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now look carefully what you wrote. You wrote "there is no crackling, hiss, dropouts with cable improvement." That reads to me an awful lot like "improved cabling will eliminate such presentation defects as crackling, hiss, and dropouts." And that sounds an awful lot like a simple restatement of the assertion with which you were arguing. But if you have Crackling, Hiss and Dropouts, your audio system isn't functioning properly in the first place. Such as, perhaps, crap cabling?

G

If you have crackling, hiss and dropouts you simply have a non-functioning system. We're talking about cable quality - not cables that are partially broken. Sort of like a monitor with one corner that is always black. Its not working. You get it fixed then you compare things.

Nope. Bad cabling can cause all those problems. It may depend whether theyre being used to carry an analog signal or a digital one, though.

Gregory Weston wrote:

In article fmoore-383443.21540908072007@redacted.invalid, Fred Moore fmoore@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hey, until I can find an uncut version of Allan Sherman's rendition of the "Twelve Gifts of Christmas" on modern media, that 8-track is all I've got Greg, I don't know about 'uncut', but there's what appears to be a full version of this tune on Dr. Demento's Christmas Album. It's cut #4. The full title is 'Dr. Dememto presents The Greatest Christmas Novelty CD Of All Time'. My favorite is cut #9, 'I Yust Go Nuts At Christmas' by Yogi Yorgesson.

Thanks for the pointer. If the clip at Amazon is accurate, this is the edited version, though. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that day 5 had to be sanitized.

Sanitized? How?

The New Guy wrote:

Many types of audio equipment does not devalue at all as long as you buy it used. You can use it for years and sell it for the same price if you bought cautiously. There are other areas of audio that appreciate as well. There's not many hobbies you can say that about.

I hope that clarifies things.

Hmm. True. Its about the same for traditional archery tackle like mine. I bought a Martin Hatfield (a $700 bow) from someone on eBay for $400. And I can tell from certain design features that this bow is between 5 and 10 years old. If I keep it in good shape, I can get $400 for it too. If I can bear to part with it.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

In article replytogroup-41DA26.19271608072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

The typical person is the guy getting into high end audio, listening to quality for the first time in his life. Its going to take him a while to get used to that level of reproduction. His equipment has probably cost him at least a couple thousand,

If he's getting into high end audio, his equipment cost him a heck of a lot more than a couple thousand.

Theres a distinction to be made between high end and just plain extravagant. High end sounds amazing and can be had for a few thousand dollars. Just plain extravagant is something that sounds amazing and can shake your house off its foundation.

The New Guy wrote:

You've just lost the debate. You've shown that you're completely and irrevocably out of your league if the only way you can reconcile disagreement with the foolish things you're saying is to make the unfounded and false assumption that no-one you're talking to has any experience outside of Apple's product lines.

IF they did, they'd have something to contribute to this thread. Like SPECIFIC things. Not sweeping generalities foisted upon the group from people that really have nothing to contribute except to blindly defend something not worth defending.

The actual physics of the matter are very specific as are the tolerances of the hardware. Its pure and simple fact that the Mac Minis cooling is adequate.

The New Guy wrote:

Basic theory just doesn't seem to work in computer cooling. Not in the REAL WORLD.

Bzzzzt! Wrong. The physics of heat flow is very well understood indeed -- no black magic at all.

"Basic theory" as you call it, always works, so long as the theory is well understood (but frequently it is not) and correctly applied (but frequently it is not). Do not blame Mother Nature for your inability to understand and follow Her rules.

Isaac, you sure excel in non-specifics.

And you in willful ignorance. I thought nobody could beat creationists at that. That was before I encountered you.

In article RKpki.590$eO2.124377@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Theres a distinction to be made between high end and just plain extravagant. High end sounds amazing and can be had for a few thousand dollars.

Well, I do know that the high end of mid fi sounds amazing to those used to low fi or even mid mid fi. But compared to true high end, it sounds muddy.

Back when I could afford it, and when my hearing had not suffered from age and abuse, I bought the best I could afford (which sometimes sounded better than stuff more expensive), but lamented that I could not afford stuff that sounded even better than that.

Now I'm satisfied with a 7.1 system for movie tracks that also doubles as a stereo for music. Satisfied because I know that even with my hearing aids, anything better would be wasted on my ears. (and I do turn on closed captioning ).

Yet, I remember how it used to was.

In article Qypki.588$eO2.124033@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Gregory Weston wrote:

In article fmoore-383443.21540908072007@redacted.invalid, Fred Moore fmoore@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hey, until I can find an uncut version of Allan Sherman's rendition of the "Twelve Gifts of Christmas" on modern media, that 8-track is all I've got Greg, I don't know about 'uncut', but there's what appears to be a full version of this tune on Dr. Demento's Christmas Album. It's cut #4. The full title is 'Dr. Dememto presents The Greatest Christmas Novelty CD Of All Time'. My favorite is cut #9, 'I Yust Go Nuts At Christmas' by Yogi Yorgesson.

Thanks for the pointer. If the clip at Amazon is accurate, this is the edited version, though. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that day 5 had to be sanitized.

Sanitized? How?

The original version (1963) is

"A statue of a naked lady with a clock where her stomach ought to be."

Virtually every release since then has the word naked clumsily edited out. I don't actually have it on 8-track. I have it on 45 and I know where I can get a turntable to grab it, but I don't know when I can get the few minutes it'll take. Apparently an Allan Sherman boxed set was released a couple of years ago with the original version but, considering the only other song of his I really like is "You Went The Wrong Way Old King Louis," $100 or more is a bit steep.

In article uce-C548F6.08512309072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Apparently an Allan Sherman boxed set was released a couple of years ago with the original version but, considering the only other song of his I really like is "You Went The Wrong Way Old King Louis," $100 or more is a bit steep.

I like Harvey and Sheila.

In article michelle-940C32.06071309072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-C548F6.08512309072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Apparently an Allan Sherman boxed set was released a couple of years ago with the original version but, considering the only other song of his I really like is "You Went The Wrong Way Old King Louis," $100 or more is a bit steep.

I like Harvey and Sheila.

Have a naglia, have two naglia, have three nagila, they're very small

In article michelle-186D44.05422809072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now I'm satisfied with a 7.1 system for movie tracks that also doubles as a stereo for music. Satisfied because I know that even with my hearing aids, anything better would be wasted on my ears. (and I do turn on closed captioning ).

I hate 5.1, I truly do. That middle channel destroys the dialogue tracks in a movie when it's played back on a 2.0 mix (what we used to call "the 2-track"). You very rarely get a 2.0 on a DVD these days, and it's not mixed "by hand" anyway.

5.1 is great in the Leicester Square Odeon, but simple consumers have been conned into running wires around their living room for "surround" that has nothing much in it most of the time outside of Star Trek, with systems that they paid 99.99 for at Costco. "Ya hear that rumble, Thelma? That's what I'm talkin about."

How does your music sound? Do you set it to "stereo" when you play, say, Joni Mitchell's "Dog Eat Dog" (probably the best-produced rock/jazz album ever)? Maybe she should remix it in 5.1

In article 469238be$0$26896$c3e8da3@redacted.invalid, Warren Oates warren.oates@redacted.invalid wrote:

Now I'm satisfied with a 7.1 system for movie tracks that also doubles as a stereo for music. Satisfied because I know that even with my hearing aids, anything better would be wasted on my ears.
(and I do turn on closed captioning ).

I hate 5.1, I truly do. That middle channel destroys the dialogue tracks in a movie when it's played back on a 2.0 mix (what we used to call "the 2-track"). You very rarely get a 2.0 on a DVD these days, and it's not mixed "by hand" anyway.

Many DVDs give you the option of 2.0 or 5.1, and a few give you the option of 7.1 or 6.1 instead of5.1

How does your music sound? Do you set it to "stereo" when you play, say, Joni Mitchell's "Dog Eat Dog" (probably the best-produced rock/jazz album ever)? Maybe she should remix it in 5.1

My stereo sounds great, but I probably wouldn't have said that about this system 30 or 40 years ago, when my ears were better.

Charlie Byrd's white album is terrific, as is Lew Tabakin's "Summertime" album.

The only time I fiddle with the surround while playing vinyl is when I put on a quadraphonic record I bought in the 70s.

In article tomstiller-4DA935.09155309072007@redacted.invalid, Tom Stiller tomstiller@redacted.invalid wrote:

Have a naglia, have two naglia, have three nagila, they're very small

Way back when, I improvised, "Have a nagila, have a nagila, have two or three."

In article RKpki.590$eO2.124377@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Michelle Steiner wrote:

In article replytogroup-41DA26.19271608072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

The typical person is the guy getting into high end audio, listening to quality for the first time in his life. Its going to take him a while to get used to that level of reproduction. His equipment has probably cost him at least a couple thousand,

If he's getting into high end audio, his equipment cost him a heck of a lot more than a couple thousand.

Theres a distinction to be made between high end and just plain extravagant. High end sounds amazing and can be had for a few thousand dollars. Just plain extravagant is something that sounds amazing and can shake your house off its foundation.

Well quality audio reproduction has not much to do with shaking things. You sound like a home theatre enthusiast. Some people think its all about recreating the original musicians in front of you. But even that isn't it. What its really about is trying to put you back in the original musical event, with the original acoustics of the venue intact. That is a tall order indeed. But its thrilling when it occurs.

Theres a distinction to be made between high end and just plain extravagant. High end sounds amazing and can be had for a few thousand dollars.

Well, I do know that the high end of mid fi sounds amazing to those used to low fi or even mid mid fi. But compared to true high end, it sounds muddy.

Well muddy is a rather indescript term. But you bring up a vital point that its all relative. Its what you enjoy. That's why people that usually upgrade bit by bit usually extract more enjoyment from it than someone that upgrades in huge strides. They then appreciate and understand each step up the audio ladder.

Back when I could afford it, and when my hearing had not suffered from age and abuse, I bought the best I could afford (which sometimes sounded better than stuff more expensive), but lamented that I could not afford stuff that sounded even better than that.

Hence the importance of auditioning each and every component in an A-B scenario so you're isolating the item you're buying. Some components allow more information to pass through than others in certain areas.
So what you're using it with can determine what area you're going to upgrade next.

Now I'm satisfied with a 7.1 system for movie tracks that also doubles as a stereo for music. Satisfied because I know that even with my hearing aids, anything better would be wasted on my ears. (and I do turn on closed captioning ).

And that is an important point. Long periods of listening to even the highest quality of music reproduction at most popular music levels can be damaging to one's hearing. Too bad it takes so long to be noticed though. I don't know why your hearing is not as good as it used to be, but its a frightening thought for a music lover: the very passion that thrills him may also rob him later of the core of that passion - music.

There's one "specification" for speakers called resolution rarely used in audio circles. Its the ability of the component to resolve details at lower volumes. This was first noticed by HP of TAS with the Beverage and smaller Stax electrostatic. Michelle might remember this speaker when in Japan.
http://www.aca.gr/pop_faranda.htm (dark pic though) The Quad ESL-43 also excelled at this; even the old Quad did though it was a severely compromised design with no highs. Electrostatics seem to be the best at this, cone speakers next, and the Magneplanars (even with their glorious ribbon tweeters) were perhaps the worst, though this did improve year by year. Anyway, if more manufactures would have paid attention to this, people would have better hearing as they would hopefully have listened at lower levels. But there just wasn't much attention given to this (still isn't) so it continues. Such a shame.

In article uce-C548F6.08512309072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article Qypki.588$eO2.124033@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Gregory Weston wrote:

In article fmoore-383443.21540908072007@redacted.invalid, Fred Moore fmoore@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article uce-02BEA9.10391605072007@redacted.invalid, Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hey, until I can find an uncut version of Allan Sherman's rendition of the "Twelve Gifts of Christmas" on modern media, that 8-track is all I've got Greg, I don't know about 'uncut', but there's what appears to be a full version of this tune on Dr. Demento's Christmas Album. It's cut #4. The full title is 'Dr. Dememto presents The Greatest Christmas Novelty CD Of All Time'. My favorite is cut #9, 'I Yust Go Nuts At Christmas' by Yogi Yorgesson.

Thanks for the pointer. If the clip at Amazon is accurate, this is the edited version, though. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that day 5 had to be sanitized.

Sanitized? How?

The original version (1963) is

"A statue of a naked lady with a clock where her stomach ought to be."

Virtually every release since then has the word naked clumsily edited out. I don't actually have it on 8-track. I have it on 45 and I know where I can get a turntable to grab it, but I don't know when I can get the few minutes it'll take. Apparently an Allan Sherman boxed set was released a couple of years ago with the original version but, considering the only other song of his I really like is "You Went The Wrong Way Old King Louis," $100 or more is a bit steep.

Okay, I just checked the Dr Demento version and 'naked' is indeed edited out. Never noticed that before.

--Fred

In article replytogroup-A8A291.10500509072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote: ......

There's one "specification" for speakers called resolution rarely used in audio circles. Its the ability of the component to resolve details at lower volumes.....

Advertisers want to get your attention so they increase the volume. We are constantly bombarded with more noise and few quiet areas. The mobile music market has abetted a culture of more personal noise battling external sources. Bah.

....

The Quad ESL-43 also excelled at this....

ESL-63?

The New Guy wrote:

Well quality audio reproduction has not much to do with shaking things. You sound like a home theatre enthusiast. Some people think its all about recreating the original musicians in front of you. But even that isn't it. What its really about is trying to put you back in the original musical event, with the original acoustics of the venue intact. That is a tall order indeed. But its thrilling when it occurs.

Actually I was thinking of how after a certain point with many enthusiasts it becomes less an matter of better and more a matter of more.

The New Guy wrote:

Well I guess you're deaf or listening on a very sub standard system. I'm not saying its worth it to spend $5000 on a 1 meter pair of cable. But there are most definitely differences in the sound of cables. Once again, no REAL WORLD experience.

Wrong. Cables are very simple beasts. Very good quality can be had very cheaply.

And yes, I do have real world experience. I have a college degree in electrical engineering technologies.

The New Guy wrote:

The differences, as noticed by anyone that is listening on good equipment and isn't totally deaf, are readily apparent. Only a fool would buy something on specifications alone. A prudent buyer purchases that what gives them pleasure. Things like resolution (the ability to hear detail at the lowest volumes possible), imaging extending way beyond the edges of the speakers going very deep with focus of the image within an inch in depth, width and height, bass that is raw, tight and extremely fast down to around 15 hz, highs that are not fatiguing, but seem infinitely extended......these are some of the things one notices, among many others, when listening to good equipment. The Absolute Sound, Stereophile and several others can open your eyes/ears to what is possible with reproduced sound.

And all that is trivial with a decent cable. All said cable needs is good conductivity, low capacitance, low inductance, and some good shielding. All of which can be had for much, much less than $5000.

If you have a problem with a $30 cable, the problem probably lies in your system or how its configured.

In article replytogroup-5BFABF.19205208072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well this comes back to the beginning. I believe exhausted hot air is a sign of poor cooling, whereas most of the people here would not agree with that. So when an iMac is idling and the exhausted air is not, that worries me because its going to get a lot hotter when that machine is taxed. Just my opinion.

And you know what they say about opinions.

Longer lifespan of components and less airflow needed to cool to the same temperature.

There's only two ways to reduce airflow while keeping the temperature the same at the chip. One is to reduce the temperature of the incoming air, which is not under the control of the system designer. And the other is to get better coupling between the air and the component -- which means the exhausted air will be hotter, which you've claimed is a bad thing.

There's one "specification" for speakers called resolution rarely used in audio circles. Its the ability of the component to resolve details at lower volumes..... The Quad ESL-43 also excelled at this....

ESL-63?

Oops......right. :)

In article pfuki.52904$MY2.192495@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

Well I guess you're deaf or listening on a very sub standard system. I'm not saying its worth it to spend $5000 on a 1 meter pair of cable. But there are most definitely differences in the sound of cables. Once again, no REAL WORLD experience.

Wrong. Cables are very simple beasts. Very good quality can be had very cheaply.

And yes, I do have real world experience. I have a college degree in electrical engineering technologies.

Another example of a lack of real world experience. Real world experience is listening to a wide variety of high quality gear, changing one thing at a time to ascertain the exact differences. No degree gives you that. Its odd, but most highly educated "technical" people are profoundly ignorant of most things audiophile. I'm not lopping you in that group, but its an observation I've seen time and time. Probably because they lean on their theory and knowledge more than their ears. You should buy something because it sounds better, not because it has more impressive specifications.

Longer lifespan of components and less airflow needed to cool to the same temperature.

There's only two ways to reduce airflow while keeping the temperature the same at the chip. One is to reduce the temperature of the incoming air, which is not under the control of the system designer. And the other is to get better coupling between the air and the component -- which means the exhausted air will be hotter, which you've claimed is a bad thing.

Well if that was true, why do large well designed heat sinks run so much cooler, everything else being equal?

The typical person is the guy getting into high end audio, listening to quality for the first time in his life. Its going to take him a while to get used to that level of reproduction. His equipment has probably cost him at least a couple thousand,

If he's getting into high end audio, his equipment cost him a heck of a lot more than a couple thousand.

ThereÄôs a distinction to be made between Äúhigh endÄù and Äújust plain extravagantÄù. ÄúHigh endÄù sounds amazing and can be had for a few thousand dollars. ÄúJust plain extravagantÄù is something that sounds amazing and can shake your house off itÄôs foundation.

That's a really good explanation!

It most definitely can be had for a few thousand CAREFULLY SPENT dollars!

IF they did, they'd have something to contribute to this thread. Like SPECIFIC things. Not sweeping generalities foisted upon the group from people that really have nothing to contribute except to blindly defend something not worth defending.

The actual physics of the matter are very specific as are the tolerances of the hardware. ItÄôs pure and simple fact that the Mac MiniÄôs cooling is adequate.

Well I guess it depends on if you do resource demanding tasks. I often do and the noise of my PPC CPU fan is bothersome. Many others have the same problem. Hopefully they've improved it in the Intel Mini as those CPU's run quite a bit cooler I believe. I'm shopping around for one so hopefully I'll see for myself soon. And hopefully I can swap out the CPU for an upgraded one too. Combined with a full size 7200 rpm Sata2 drive and 2 gb's of 667 mhz ram, it should make a great improvement. After that, perhaps overclocking the CPU with a heat sink replacement will be possible.

In article replytogroup-AD44D0.15392512072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Longer lifespan of components and less airflow needed to cool to the same temperature.

There's only two ways to reduce airflow while keeping the temperature the same at the chip. One is to reduce the temperature of the incoming air, which is not under the control of the system designer. And the other is to get better coupling between the air and the component -- which means the exhausted air will be hotter, which you've claimed is a bad thing.

Well if that was true, why do large well designed heat sinks run so much cooler, everything else being equal?

Glad to see this thread is still going. Excellent. Keep it up chaps.

In article replytogroup-EE36F1.15380612072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article pfuki.52904$MY2.192495@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

Well I guess you're deaf or listening on a very sub standard system. I'm not saying its worth it to spend $5000 on a 1 meter pair of cable. But there are most definitely differences in the sound of cables. Once again, no REAL WORLD experience.

Wrong. Cables are very simple beasts. Very good quality can be had very cheaply.

And yes, I do have real world experience. I have a college degree in electrical engineering technologies.

Another example of a lack of real world experience. Real world experience is listening to a wide variety of high quality gear, changing one thing at a time to ascertain the exact differences. No degree gives you that. Its odd, but most highly educated "technical" people are profoundly ignorant of most things audiophile.

Erm.

Do you have any idea what kind of practical experience it takes to get an EE degree?

I'm not lopping you in that group, ...

What an odd thing to say, considering you started off by asserting the prior poster's lack of experience.

G

Well I guess you're deaf or listening on a very sub standard system. I'm not saying its worth it to spend $5000 on a 1 meter pair of cable. But there are most definitely differences in the sound of cables. Once again, no REAL WORLD experience.

Wrong. Cables are very simple beasts. Very good quality can be had very cheaply.

And yes, I do have real world experience. I have a college degree in electrical engineering technologies.

Another example of a lack of real world experience. Real world experience is listening to a wide variety of high quality gear, changing one thing at a time to ascertain the exact differences. No degree gives you that. Its odd, but most highly educated "technical" people are profoundly ignorant of most things audiophile.

Erm.

Do you have any idea what kind of practical experience it takes to get an EE degree?

That does not help when judging music reproduction quality. Only listening does. Real world experience. Just as listening to music would not help much in writing a paper in electrical engineering technologies. Remember we're talking about the ability to perceive audio differences, not designing equipment.

In article replytogroup-4F8318.10214413072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Well I guess you're deaf or listening on a very sub standard system. I'm not saying its worth it to spend $5000 on a 1 meter pair of cable. But there are most definitely differences in the sound of cables. Once again, no REAL WORLD experience.

Wrong. Cables are very simple beasts. Very good quality can be had very cheaply.

And yes, I do have real world experience. I have a college degree in electrical engineering technologies.

Another example of a lack of real world experience. Real world experience is listening to a wide variety of high quality gear, changing one thing at a time to ascertain the exact differences. No degree gives you that. Its odd, but most highly educated "technical" people are profoundly ignorant of most things audiophile.

Erm.

Do you have any idea what kind of practical experience it takes to get an EE degree?

That does not help when judging music reproduction quality. Only listening does. Real world experience. Just as listening to music would not help much in writing a paper in electrical engineering technologies. Remember we're talking about the ability to perceive audio differences, not designing equipment.

We're not only talking about the ability to perceive those differences, but also the much more important subjective reaction to them. And I'm fairly certain that the majority of the world population does, in fact, have real-world experience in hearing.

Gregory Weston uce@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-4F8318.10214413072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote: [...]

Erm.

Do you have any idea what kind of practical experience it takes to get an EE degree?

That does not help when judging music reproduction quality. Only listening does. Real world experience. Just as listening to music would not help much in writing a paper in electrical engineering technologies. Remember we're talking about the ability to perceive audio differences, not designing equipment.

We're not only talking about the ability to perceive those differences, but also the much more important subjective reaction to them.

The New Guy wrote:

Another example of a lack of real world experience. Real world experience is listening to a wide variety of high quality gear, changing one thing at a time to ascertain the exact differences. No degree gives you that. Its odd, but most highly educated "technical" people are profoundly ignorant of most things audiophile. I'm not lopping you in that group, but its an observation I've seen time and time. Probably because they lean on their theory and knowledge more than their ears. You should buy something because it sounds better, not because it has more impressive specifications.

No. ÄúAudiophilesÄù are just not very objective, and so are very susceptible to placebo effect.

Gregory Weston wrote:

In article replytogroup-EE36F1.15380612072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article pfuki.52904$MY2.192495@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Cables are very simple beasts. Very good quality can be had very cheaply.

And yes, I do have real world experience. I have a college degree in electrical engineering technologies. Another example of a lack of real world experience. Real world experience is listening to a wide variety of high quality gear, changing one thing at a time to ascertain the exact differences. No degree gives you that. Its odd, but most highly educated "technical" people are profoundly ignorant of most things audiophile.

Erm.

Do you have any idea what kind of practical experience it takes to get an EE degree?

An EET doesnÄôt take much. A few hundred hoursÄô lab time maybe. ;)

The New Guy wrote:

That does not help when judging music reproduction quality. Only listening does. Real world experience. Just as listening to music would not help much in writing a paper in electrical engineering technologies. Remember we're talking about the ability to perceive audio differences, not designing equipment.

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

The New Guy wrote:

The typical person is the guy getting into high end audio, listening to quality for the first time in his life. Its going to take him a while to get used to that level of reproduction. His equipment has probably cost him at least a couple thousand,

If he's getting into high end audio, his equipment cost him a heck of a lot more than a couple thousand. ThereÄôs a distinction to be made between Äúhigh endÄù and Äújust plain extravagantÄù. ÄúHigh endÄù sounds amazing and can be had for a few thousand dollars. ÄúJust plain extravagantÄù is something that sounds amazing and can shake your house off itÄôs foundation.

That's a really good explanation!

It most definitely can be had for a few thousand CAREFULLY SPENT dollars!

Oh, I forgot. ÄúJust plain extravagantÄù also replicates frequencies only your dog can hear. As well as frequencies that even he canÄôt. ;)

In article Tkfmi.18395$Fa7.209977@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

The following, which supports you, is from the article, "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio" from The Audio Critic magazine:

1. The Cable Lie Logically this is not the lie to start with because cables are accessories, not primary audio components. But it is the hugest, dirtiest, most cynical, most intelligence-insulting and, above all, most fraudulently profitable lie in audio, and therefore must go to the head of the list.

The lie is that high-priced speaker cables and interconnects sound better than the standard, run-of-the-mill (say, Radio Shack) ones. It is a lie that has been exposed, shamed, and refuted over and over again by every genuine authority under the sun, but the tweako audio cultists hate authority and the innocents canÄôt distinguish it from self-serving charlatanry.

The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies. The signal has no idea whether it is being transmitted through cheap or expensive RLC. Yes, you have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, in- sulation, etc., to avoid reliability prob- lems, and you have to pay attention to resistance in longer connections. In basic electrical performance, however, a nice pair of straightened-out wire coat hangers with the ends scraped is not a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whiz miracle cable. Nor is 16-gauge lamp cord at 18¢ a foot. Ultrahigh-priced cables are the biggest scam in con- sumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publica- tions to the pressures of the cable mar- keters is truly depressing to behold.

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:40:38 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid):

In article Tkfmi.18395$Fa7.209977@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

The following, which supports you, is from the article, "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio" from The Audio Critic magazine:

1. The Cable Lie Logically this is not the lie to start with because cables are accessories, not primary audio components. But it is the hugest, dirtiest, most cynical, most intelligence-insulting and, above all, most fraudulently profitable lie in audio, and therefore must go to the head of the list.

The lie is that high-priced speaker cables and interconnects sound better than the standard, run-of-the-mill (say, Radio Shack) ones. It is a lie that has been exposed, shamed, and refuted over and over again by every genuine authority under the sun, but the tweako audio cultists hate authority and the innocents canÄôt distinguish it from self-serving charlatanry.

The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies. The signal has no idea whether it is being transmitted through cheap or expensive RLC. Yes, you have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, in- sulation, etc., to avoid reliability prob- lems, and you have to pay attention to resistance in longer connections. In basic electrical performance, however, a nice pair of straightened-out wire coat hangers with the ends scraped is not a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whiz miracle cable. Nor is 16-gauge lamp cord at 18¢ a foot. Ultrahigh-priced cables are the biggest scam in con- sumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publica- tions to the pressures of the cable mar- keters is truly depressing to behold.

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:08:51 -0400, NRen2k5 wrote (in article Tkfmi.18395$Fa7.209977@redacted.invalid):

The New Guy wrote:

That does not help when judging music reproduction quality. Only listening does. Real world experience. Just as listening to music would not help much in writing a paper in electrical engineering technologies. Remember we're talking about the ability to perceive audio differences, not designing equipment.

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

It's called the Spell of the Removal of the Money From the Suckers.

NRen2k5 wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

That does not help when judging music reproduction quality. Only listening does. Real world experience. Just as listening to music would not help much in writing a paper in electrical engineering technologies. Remember we're talking about the ability to perceive audio differences, not designing equipment.

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

It generally involves (in no particular order) gold plated connectors, a large investment in the advertising budget, flashy packaging and the gullibility of those with more money than sense.

HTH.

That does not help when judging music reproduction quality. Only listening does. Real world experience. Just as listening to music would not help much in writing a paper in electrical engineering technologies. Remember we're talking about the ability to perceive audio differences, not designing equipment.

So tell me, what sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

As I said before, I never got into cable comparisons. I do know that the same people that heard the same differences in equipment that I did in other areas assured me that their expenditures in cables were well warranted. What I didn't understand though, was what about that bit of wire going from the board to the jacks? I always reasoned that that should have been replaced with the same cable as well. Or hard wire it right to the board on one end. Cables are sort of the end of the road. And I'm sure there are more "snake oil" sellers in that area than any other. Hence the need to make sure you really hear the differences you're going to have to pay for. A smart buyer might investigate the precise type of wiring used, then buy it them self, hard wiring it board to board.

The typical person is the guy getting into high end audio, listening to quality for the first time in his life. Its going to take him a while to get used to that level of reproduction. His equipment has probably cost him at least a couple thousand,

If he's getting into high end audio, his equipment cost him a heck of a lot more than a couple thousand.

ThereÄôs a distinction to be made between Äúhigh endÄù and Äújust plain extravagantÄù. ÄúHigh endÄù sounds amazing and can be had for a few thousand dollars. ÄúJust plain extravagantÄù is something that sounds amazing and can shake your house off itÄôs foundation.

That's a really good explanation! It most definitely can be had for a few thousand CAREFULLY SPENT dollars!

Oh, I forgot. ÄúJust plain extravagantÄù also replicates frequencies only your dog can hear. As well as frequencies that even he canÄôt. ;)

Something else that is interesting in this area: often when equipment reproduces very high frequencies (far higher than we can actually hear), it replicates our audible frequencies with more ease, or less distortion. One sign of good audio reproduction is ease: the music sounds effortless. No strain, no struggle.

In article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

The following, which supports you, is from the article, "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio" from The Audio Critic magazine:

1. The Cable Lie Logically this is not the lie to start with because cables are accessories, not primary audio components. But it is the hugest, dirtiest, most cynical, most intelligence-insulting and, above all, most fraudulently profitable lie in audio, and therefore must go to the head of the list.

The lie is that high-priced speaker cables and interconnects sound better than the standard, run-of-the-mill (say, Radio Shack) ones. It is a lie that has been exposed, shamed, and refuted over and over again by every genuine authority under the sun, but the tweako audio cultists hate authority and the innocents canÄôt distinguish it from self-serving charlatanry.

The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies. The signal has no idea whether it is being transmitted through cheap or expensive RLC. Yes, you have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, in- sulation, etc., to avoid reliability prob- lems, and you have to pay attention to resistance in longer connections. In basic electrical performance, however, a nice pair of straightened-out wire coat hangers with the ends scraped is not a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whiz miracle cable. Nor is 16-gauge lamp cord at 18¢ a foot. Ultrahigh-priced cables are the biggest scam in con- sumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publica- tions to the pressures of the cable mar- keters is truly depressing to behold.

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. Well done! LOL!!!! Are you going to be next posting information from the computer information era from 1991 also?

You're losing it. You're really losing it.

In article 0001HW.C2BF065400AABAACF0284648@redacted.invalid, J.J. O'Shea try.not.to@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:40:38 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid):

In article Tkfmi.18395$Fa7.209977@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

The following, which supports you, is from the article, "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio" from The Audio Critic magazine:

1. The Cable Lie Logically this is not the lie to start with because cables are accessories, not primary audio components. But it is the hugest, dirtiest, most cynical, most intelligence-insulting and, above all, most fraudulently profitable lie in audio, and therefore must go to the head of the list.

The lie is that high-priced speaker cables and interconnects sound better than the standard, run-of-the-mill (say, Radio Shack) ones. It is a lie that has been exposed, shamed, and refuted over and over again by every genuine authority under the sun, but the tweako audio cultists hate authority and the innocents can??t distinguish it from self-serving charlatanry.

The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies. The signal has no idea whether it is being transmitted through cheap or expensive RLC. Yes, you have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, in- sulation, etc., to avoid reliability prob- lems, and you have to pay attention to resistance in longer connections. In basic electrical performance, however, a nice pair of straightened-out wire coat hangers with the ends scraped is not a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whiz miracle cable. Nor is 16-gauge lamp cord at 18¢ a foot. Ultrahigh-priced cables are the biggest scam in con- sumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publica- tions to the pressures of the cable mar- keters is truly depressing to behold.

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

That does not help when judging music reproduction quality. Only listening does. Real world experience. Just as listening to music would not help much in writing a paper in electrical engineering technologies. Remember we're talking about the ability to perceive audio differences, not designing equipment.

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

It generally involves (in no particular order) gold plated connectors, a large investment in the advertising budget, flashy packaging and the gullibility of those with more money than sense.

Like I said, there are more scams in the cable area than any other.
Just means, like anything in audio, you should make sure you are really paying for an improvement, and not just a change. Use your ears to judge. Then you won't make mistakes. And if you don't hear any substantial difference, rejoice. You're just saved some money.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 08:11:19 -0400, The New Guy wrote (in article replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid):

In article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

The following, which supports you, is from the article, "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio" from The Audio Critic magazine:

1. The Cable Lie Logically this is not the lie to start with because cables are accessories, not primary audio components. But it is the hugest, dirtiest, most cynical, most intelligence-insulting and, above all, most fraudulently profitable lie in audio, and therefore must go to the head of the list.

The lie is that high-priced speaker cables and interconnects sound better than the standard, run-of-the-mill (say, Radio Shack) ones. It is a lie that has been exposed, shamed, and refuted over and over again by every genuine authority under the sun, but the tweako audio cultists hate authority and the innocents canÄôt distinguish it from self-serving charlatanry.

The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies. The signal has no idea whether it is being transmitted through cheap or expensive RLC. Yes, you have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, in- sulation, etc., to avoid reliability prob- lems, and you have to pay attention to resistance in longer connections. In basic electrical performance, however, a nice pair of straightened-out wire coat hangers with the ends scraped is not a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whiz miracle cable. Nor is 16-gauge lamp cord at 18¢ a foot. Ultrahigh-priced cables are the biggest scam in con- sumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publica- tions to the pressures of the cable mar- keters is truly depressing to behold.

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago.

Which is still accurate.

Well done! LOL!!!! Are you going to be next posting information from the computer information era from 1991 also?

People have asked questions about such equipment. I have answered some of them. So has she.

You're losing it. You're really losing it.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 08:12:33 -0400, The New Guy wrote (in article replytogroup-383B42.07123315072007@redacted.invalid):

In article 0001HW.C2BF065400AABAACF0284648@redacted.invalid, J.J. O'Shea try.not.to@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:40:38 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid):

In article Tkfmi.18395$Fa7.209977@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

The following, which supports you, is from the article, "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio" from The Audio Critic magazine:

1. The Cable Lie Logically this is not the lie to start with because cables are accessories, not primary audio components. But it is the hugest, dirtiest, most cynical, most intelligence-insulting and, above all, most fraudulently profitable lie in audio, and therefore must go to the head of the list.

The lie is that high-priced speaker cables and interconnects sound better than the standard, run-of-the-mill (say, Radio Shack) ones. It is a lie that has been exposed, shamed, and refuted over and over again by every genuine authority under the sun, but the tweako audio cultists hate authority and the innocents can??t distinguish it from self-serving charlatanry.

The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies. The signal has no idea whether it is being transmitted through cheap or expensive RLC. Yes, you have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, in- sulation, etc., to avoid reliability prob- lems, and you have to pay attention to resistance in longer connections. In basic electrical performance, however, a nice pair of straightened-out wire coat hangers with the ends scraped is not a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whiz miracle cable. Nor is 16-gauge lamp cord at 18¢ a foot. Ultrahigh-priced cables are the biggest scam in con- sumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publica- tions to the pressures of the cable mar- keters is truly depressing to behold.

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

I have. I just don't think that you know any more about audio than you do about heat sinks, and you know zippo about heat sinks.

In article replytogroup-383B42.07123315072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

The Audio Critic blows them out of the water, and backs up its opinions with solid science and math. Give it a try.

In article replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. Well done! LOL!!!! Are you going to be next posting information from the computer information era from 1991 also?

Are you saying that basic physics and math has changed in the past sixteen years? Oh, and please do not bring up relativity, quantum mechanics, and the like because they do not apply in this scenario.

Your failure to refute those articles indicates that you are unable to refute them.

In article 4699e4b5$0$12843$5a62ac22@redacted.invalid, Andy nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:

It generally involves (in no particular order) gold plated connectors, a large investment in the advertising budget, flashy packaging and the gullibility of those with more money than sense.

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson)

In article replytogroup-4BB84A.07080515072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Something else that is interesting in this area: often when equipment reproduces very high frequencies (far higher than we can actually hear), it replicates our audible frequencies with more ease, or less distortion. One sign of good audio reproduction is ease: the music sounds effortless. No strain, no struggle.

What the fuck does that gobble-de-gook all mean? You going to start going on about "spritual harmonics" next? If you can't hear it, it's because you can't hear it. You're not "feeling" it in your aura.

In article replytogroup-4BB84A.07080515072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote: ....

Something else that is interesting in this area: often when equipment reproduces very high frequencies (far higher than we can actually hear), it replicates our audible frequencies with more ease, or less distortion. One sign of good audio reproduction is ease: the music sounds effortless. No strain, no struggle.

Ideally one could identify specific measurable quantities that correspond to differences that people hear in double blind experiments. There are a wide variety of listeners, so one cannot easily create a double blind study that proves a negative.

Some music, for example a cymbal crash, has a frequency distribution that peaks well above the audible range. Music is full of peaks that contain many high frequencies that are nominally above the audible range. It is easy to see that very accurate reproduction of the highest audible frequencies including phase properties could be very important for high fidelity.

In article replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. ....

Research might progress over time, but basic human physiology doesn't. This solid work proceeds from idenifying measureable quantities: "There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur." This is the sort of assertion that is very difficult to prove.

In article f7dh9t$kha$1@redacted.invalid, pack@redacted.invalid (Daniel Packman) wrote:

In article replytogroup-4BB84A.07080515072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote: ....

Something else that is interesting in this area: often when equipment reproduces very high frequencies (far higher than we can actually hear), it replicates our audible frequencies with more ease, or less distortion. One sign of good audio reproduction is ease: the music sounds effortless. No strain, no struggle.

Ideally one could identify specific measurable quantities that correspond to differences that people hear in double blind experiments. There are a wide variety of listeners, so one cannot easily create a double blind study that proves a negative.

Some music, for example a cymbal crash, has a frequency distribution that peaks well above the audible range. Music is full of peaks that contain many high frequencies that are nominally above the audible range. It is easy to see that very accurate reproduction of the highest audible frequencies including phase properties could be very important for high fidelity.

"Could be" very important, but in fact have never been demonstrated to actually be important, or even audible.

Tests have been done using quality microphones and spectrum analyzers that show no "supersonic" components at all from any "standard" musical instrument (i.e. one used for any reasonable sort of musical performance). The conclusion was that the 22 kHz response of audio CDs was entirely adequate to capture everything a musical group could put out.

It was a while ago that I read about those tests, and I suppose things could have changed; do you have any more recent references to back up your statement? I'd like to study them.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-08E177.07142715072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

That does not help when judging music reproduction quality. Only listening does. Real world experience. Just as listening to music would not help much in writing a paper in electrical engineering technologies. Remember we're talking about the ability to perceive audio differences, not designing equipment.

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

It generally involves (in no particular order) gold plated connectors, a large investment in the advertising budget, flashy packaging and the gullibility of those with more money than sense.

Like I said, there are more scams in the cable area than any other.
Just means, like anything in audio, you should make sure you are really paying for an improvement, and not just a change. Use your ears to judge. Then you won't make mistakes. And if you don't hear any substantial difference, rejoice. You're just saved some money.

Your ears are very close to the worst possible instrument to use in judging. They are very fallible and can mislead you time and again. No amount of training can permit you to ignore their defects and work around them.

Surely you've seen optical illusions -- images that make you think things are there which most certainly are not. Even after you understand the illusions entirely, they still fool your visual system every time you look at them; there's no way to "train" yourself to not see them.

There are also sonic illusions, and they work similarly to "fool" our auditory system.

One such illusion is the illusion that a set of ears (any set) is able to detect artifacts that well-engineered test gear cannot.

Isaac

Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

Oh, and please do not bring up relativity, quantum mechanics, and the like because they do not apply in this scenario.

What about a time-travelling industrial rock band? That would seem to be highly relevant to this discussion. Or is that just a Phantasy?

In article isw-8E7F4F.10104815072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

...... It is easy to see that very accurate reproduction of the highest audible frequencies including phase properties could be very important for high fidelity.

"Could be" very important, but in fact have never been demonstrated to actually be important, or even audible.

Right. But it is important that listening is the ultimate yardstick and measurements are only used to extend the analysis. I remember a fascinating lecture I went to years ago about fourier analysis of vibrations induced in fine violins. The lecturer identified a certain signature common to these instruments, but never managed to quantify how this correlated with actual perception of "better" in the instruments.

Tests have been done using quality microphones and spectrum analyzers that show no "supersonic" components at all from any "standard" musical instrument (i.e. one used for any reasonable sort of musical performance). The conclusion was that the 22 kHz response of audio CDs was entirely adequate to capture everything a musical group could put out.

It was a while ago that I read about those tests, and I suppose things could have changed; do you have any more recent references to back up your statement? I'd like to study them.

I don't know of any such tests. But tests with negative results are not definitive of no effect.

In article isw-D8E207.10211315072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote: .....

Your ears are very close to the worst possible instrument to use in judging. They are very fallible and can mislead you time and again. No amount of training can permit you to ignore their defects and work around them.

They are the ultimate arbiter here. If you really prefer the sound of one set of equipment over another, there is no point in trying to measure something that proves your preference wrong. If the test gear says something else, let the test gear listen to the music.

.....

One such illusion is the illusion that a set of ears (any set) is able to detect artifacts that well-engineered test gear cannot.

Certainly if the ears are not consistently able to hear something. But if a repeatable listening test shows that people can actually hear a difference you need to come up with better test gear.

In article michelle-11A216.06364815072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-383B42.07123315072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

The Audio Critic blows them out of the water, and backs up its opinions with solid science and math. Give it a try.

TAS has had 10 times the impact on the audio world than the Audio Critic ever did. If you've been through high end audio you'd know
that. TAS has influenced publications in Asia as well as Europe. And by TAS, it was really Harry Pearson who spearheaded it all. The guy was an innovator. If it wasn't for him, you probably wouldn't have seen such ground breaking products as the Infinity IRS (from the QRS-1D put together by HP) and later the Genesis One when Arnie left Infinity. Not to mention the Goldmund Studio turntable which ushered in a whole generation of post Linn LP-12 products that broke new ground. He also encouraged high gain tube preamps for low output (for sub .3 mv moving coils) so pre-preamps could be banished. The guy's influence was vast. Audiophiles owe him much.

As for science and math.......what a joke. Does science and math make something sound better? If you're paying for science and math without it sounding better, you just got suckerpunched by your neighborhood slick audio salesman. If you can't hear the difference, don't pay for the difference.

In article michelle-2619B9.06424115072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. Well done! LOL!!!! Are you going to be next posting information from the computer information era from 1991 also?

Are you saying that basic physics and math has changed in the past sixteen years? Oh, and please do not bring up relativity, quantum mechanics, and the like because they do not apply in this scenario.

Your failure to refute those articles indicates that you are unable to refute them.

We're talking about sound. You keep on getting distracted. Because I guess you never were really into high end sound. Otherwise you'd talk the talk. No REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE? Is there an echo here? LOL...

In article michelle-894EA7.06455215072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 4699e4b5$0$12843$5a62ac22@redacted.invalid, Andy nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:

It generally involves (in no particular order) gold plated connectors, a large investment in the advertising budget, flashy packaging and the gullibility of those with more money than sense.

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson)

IF it sounds better buy it. If it doesn't, don't. The end.

You people make things so complicated because either your hearing or perception is so lousy you can't discern smaller differences or you're listening on associated equipment that is obscuring said differences.
Name your poison.

Something else that is interesting in this area: often when equipment reproduces very high frequencies (far higher than we can actually hear), it replicates our audible frequencies with more ease, or less distortion. One sign of good audio reproduction is ease: the music sounds effortless. No strain, no struggle.

What does that gobble-de-gook all mean? You going to start going on about "spritual harmonics" next? If you can't hear it, it's because you can't hear it. You're not "feeling" it in your aura.

(Brainless profanity removed.) Its called audio terminology. If you're into audio, you'd relate. If you're not you won't. We all learn terminology in our specific interests. Most of you have picked up piles of computer terminology that the average person wouldn't have a clue about.

In article f7di56$n3r$1@redacted.invalid, pack@redacted.invalid (Daniel Packman) wrote:

In article replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. ....

Research might progress over time, but basic human physiology doesn't. This solid work proceeds from idenifying measureable quantities: "There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur." This is the sort of assertion that is very difficult to prove.

You can't measure emotional enjoyment from music. And that's what you're paying for. Unless you are an emotionless stone.

In article isw-8E7F4F.10104815072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article f7dh9t$kha$1@redacted.invalid, pack@redacted.invalid (Daniel Packman) wrote:

In article replytogroup-4BB84A.07080515072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote: ....

Something else that is interesting in this area: often when equipment reproduces very high frequencies (far higher than we can actually hear), it replicates our audible frequencies with more ease, or less distortion. One sign of good audio reproduction is ease: the music sounds effortless. No strain, no struggle.

Ideally one could identify specific measurable quantities that correspond to differences that people hear in double blind experiments. There are a wide variety of listeners, so one cannot easily create a double blind study that proves a negative.

Some music, for example a cymbal crash, has a frequency distribution that peaks well above the audible range. Music is full of peaks that contain many high frequencies that are nominally above the audible range. It is easy to see that very accurate reproduction of the highest audible frequencies including phase properties could be very important for high fidelity.

"Could be" very important, but in fact have never been demonstrated to actually be important, or even audible.

Tests have been done using quality microphones and spectrum analyzers that show no "supersonic" components at all from any "standard" musical instrument (i.e. one used for any reasonable sort of musical performance). The conclusion was that the 22 kHz response of audio CDs was entirely adequate to capture everything a musical group could put out.

It was a while ago that I read about those tests, and I suppose things could have changed; do you have any more recent references to back up your statement? I'd like to study them.

Isaac

More idiotic tests. Hey Isaac. Do you have your Mommy buy your sound system for you? Do you only buy what some test tells you? Do you people ever think for yourselves? This is getting positively pathetic.

In article isw-D8E207.10211315072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-08E177.07142715072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

That does not help when judging music reproduction quality. Only listening does. Real world experience. Just as listening to music would not help much in writing a paper in electrical engineering technologies. Remember we're talking about the ability to perceive audio differences, not designing equipment.

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

It generally involves (in no particular order) gold plated connectors, a large investment in the advertising budget, flashy packaging and the gullibility of those with more money than sense.

Like I said, there are more scams in the cable area than any other.
Just means, like anything in audio, you should make sure you are really paying for an improvement, and not just a change. Use your ears to judge. Then you won't make mistakes. And if you don't hear any substantial difference, rejoice. You're just saved some money.

Your ears are very close to the worst possible instrument to use in judging. They are very fallible and can mislead you time and again. No amount of training can permit you to ignore their defects and work around them.

Well Einstein, if it doesn't sound better, why would you spend more money on something? Just how stupid would that be?

Surely you've seen optical illusions -- images that make you think things are there which most certainly are not. Even after you understand the illusions entirely, they still fool your visual system every time you look at them; there's no way to "train" yourself to not see them.

There are also sonic illusions, and they work similarly to "fool" our auditory system.

One such illusion is the illusion that a set of ears (any set) is able to detect artifacts that well-engineered test gear cannot.

You see, some people have better hearing than others. Some of those people listen a lot, training their ears over long periods of time to detect small differences that others would miss. Now individually each of those differences is not important. But put a several
together and the difference is substantial. That is, in essence, high end audio. But some of you can't think or listen for yourself. You are drones, programmed by some magazine that is controlled by the media it sells advertising space to. Well done. You deserve the sound you get.

In article replytogroup-06E133.04451016072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-11A216.06364815072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-383B42.07123315072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

The Audio Critic blows them out of the water, and backs up its opinions with solid science and math. Give it a try.

TAS has had 10 times the impact on the audio world than the Audio Critic ever did.

Because the "audio world" is full of wankers.

As for science and math.......what a joke. Does science and math make something sound better?

Errm, actually it does. You take the maths and the science, and you apply it.

In about 1983, I added a $150 BSR CD player to my Shure V15 cartridge, SME arm, Thorens turntable, Quad amp/preamp, Quad FM tuner, and IMF Studio Monitors. It sounded just as good as the $1400 Philips CD player that the local "audio buffs" were trying to foist on me.

The Quad amp, by the way, was serviced by the Quad rep in Daly City at age 15 years (he said it was within manufacturers spec, no work needed), and by Quad at Huntingdon when I returned to the UK, at age 30 years, when they replaced the large caps. Other than that, it all still works fine, with the Quad nearly 40 years old and the speakers over 30 years old (and well travelled). By good kit and it will last - and give you as good a sound a s you need.

Your ears are very close to the worst possible instrument to use in judging. They are very fallible and can mislead you time and again. No amount of training can permit you to ignore their defects and work around them.

They are the ultimate arbiter here. If you really prefer the sound of one set of equipment over another, there is no point in trying to measure something that proves your preference wrong. If the test gear says something else, let the test gear listen to the music.

Finally someone that thinks. Amen.

But remember the cause and effect. We pay for what we enjoy more.
Nothing else makes any sense. Unless you're buying some showpiece to display to your dullard friends. Then of course you'll get ripped off because little research and listening will be used before a buying decision is made. The real work in audio is not the purchase. Its the time spend listening and adjudicating. For audio lovers its time well enjoyed. But it is time and it takes many years for most people.

One such illusion is the illusion that a set of ears (any set) is able to detect artifacts that well-engineered test gear cannot.

Certainly if the ears are not consistently able to hear something. But if a repeatable listening test shows that people can actually hear a difference you need to come up with better test gear.

And you'd be an idiot to pay for something that doesn't sound better to your own ears. Why would anyone in their right mind buy something that pleases a magazine and not themselves? It makes absolutely no sense.

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

The Audio Critic blows them out of the water, and backs up its opinions with solid science and math. Give it a try.

TAS has had 10 times the impact on the audio world than the Audio Critic ever did.

Because the "audio world" is full of wankers.

Wow - what a response. I'll have to print that and frame it. Well done. I'm speechless. Not.

As for science and math.......what a joke. Does science and math make something sound better?

Errm, actually it does. You take the maths and the science, and you apply it.

So you would buy something that is SUPPOSED to sound better in theory but actually sounds the same to your own ears as compared to your existing equipment? If so, you're even stupider than I thought. No wonder scammers can sell some cables for thousands of dollars that sound no better than $2 Radio Shack junk.

In about 1983, I added a $150 BSR CD player to my Shure V15 cartridge, SME arm, Thorens turntable, Quad amp/preamp, Quad FM tuner, and IMF Studio Monitors. It sounded just as good as the $1400 Philips CD player that the local "audio buffs" were trying to foist on me.

Then you're deaf. Or the equipment was very poorly set up. First of all, you'd have to be deaf to put up with the horrible CD sound in 1983, whether from BSR or Phillips! That was a disgrace. Next, if you'd listened much, you'd never have chosen such a rolled off disaster as the V15. The SME was a joke with anything but moving magnet cartridges which were nothing compared to the moving coils of the day. Knife edge support caused rampant chattering. Was the Thorens a TD-125? Did you remove the foam from the springs? If not, it was very susceptible to acoustic feedback, especially if you had big IMF's with the KEF B139 woofers that were usually used in transmission line enclosures. They went down very low. Hopefully you had placed them at least 6 feet from the rear walls on rigid spiked stands, not towed in with the grills off and the tweeters precisely at ear level. Otherwise you wouldn't have heard even part of their potential. Quad amp: the 303? No matter, they never made any decent electronics back then. The 33 was one of the worst preamps ever made.
Putrid gain, narrow soundstage, poor high frequencies.....etc. What was a good Quad piece of equipment was the Quad 22 tube amps if you regulated the power supplies and replaced all the caps and resistors with modern equivalents. But then again it had very little power so you were very limited to only very efficient speakers.

The Quad amp, by the way, was serviced by the Quad rep in Daly City at age 15 years (he said it was within manufacturers spec, no work needed), and by Quad at Huntingdon when I returned to the UK, at age 30 years, when they replaced the large caps. Other than that, it all still works fine, with the Quad nearly 40 years old and the speakers over 30 years old (and well travelled). By good kit and it will last - and give you as good a sound a s you need.

Clean your ears......... Even the original Quad electrostatics were horrible unless you got them well out from the back walls (minimum 8 feet, preferable far more), remove the felt on the back and use them without grills with the speaker perfectly flat towards the listener which required some bizarre speaker support and risk of electrocution due to the extremely high voltage used in the panels. Of course they never suggested that because it would be visually disruptive. Much like Apple. Style over function so often. Such a waste. Compromise, compromise.

In article replytogroup-697292.04501916072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Something else that is interesting in this area: often when equipment reproduces very high frequencies (far higher than we can actually hear), it replicates our audible frequencies with more ease, or less distortion. One sign of good audio reproduction is ease: the music sounds effortless. No strain, no struggle.

What does that gobble-de-gook all mean? You going to start going on about "spritual harmonics" next? If you can't hear it, it's because you can't hear it. You're not "feeling" it in your aura.

(Brainless profanity removed.) Its called audio terminology. If you're into audio, you'd relate. If you're not you won't. We all learn terminology in our specific interests. Most of you have picked up piles of computer terminology that the average person wouldn't have a clue about.

I don't recognize any audio terminology in that fucking gobble-de-gook (mindless profanity re-inserted in the best Usenet fashion).

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:31:34 -0400, Daniel Packman wrote (in article f7di56$n3r$1@redacted.invalid):

In article replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. ....

Research might progress over time, but basic human physiology doesn't. This solid work proceeds from idenifying measureable quantities: "There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur." This is the sort of assertion that is very difficult to prove.

If i say that 'There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur', you can disprove quite easily... produce such a mechanism.

I once encountered an 'audiophile' who swore that he could tell the difference between not merely vinyl LPs but between CDs and high-bit-rate AAC and Ogg Vorbis copies. (He insisted that Ogg gave 'purer' sound.) After I set up a little test suite involving LPs, CDs, DAT, and AAC and Ogg, and he could not tell the diff between the LPs and the DAT, and he thought that the AAC copy was better than either the CD original or the Ogg copy, he insisted that it was because my 'crap system' wasn't capable of 'true reproduction' and that he'd be able to make better judgements if I used a 'real, quality' system. I offered to repeat the test using his setup. He didn't have time just then. That was over a year ago. Several times I've offered to repeat the test, using his system. He's never had time. Gee. I wonder why.

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

[...]

More idiotic tests. Hey Isaac. Do you have your Mommy buy your sound system for you? Do you only buy what some test tells you? Do you people ever think for yourselves? This is getting positively pathetic.

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

[...]

As for science and math.......what a joke.

In article replytogroup-760F20.05210516072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

The Audio Critic blows them out of the water, and backs up its opinions with solid science and math. Give it a try.

TAS has had 10 times the impact on the audio world than the Audio Critic ever did.

Because the "audio world" is full of wankers.

Wow - what a response. I'll have to print that and frame it. Well done. I'm speechless. Not.

Yes, feel free. Glad you like it.

As for science and math.......what a joke. Does science and math make something sound better?

Errm, actually it does. You take the maths and the science, and you apply it.

So you would buy something that is SUPPOSED to sound better in theory but actually sounds the same to your own ears as compared to your existing equipment? If so, you're even stupider than I thought. No wonder scammers can sell some cables for thousands of dollars that sound no better than $2 Radio Shack junk.

It's nothing to do with me buying stuff, nincompoop. It's to do with engineers designing stuff.

In about 1983, I added a $150 BSR CD player to my Shure V15 cartridge, SME arm, Thorens turntable, Quad amp/preamp, Quad FM tuner, and IMF Studio Monitors. It sounded just as good as the $1400 Philips CD player that the local "audio buffs" were trying to foist on me.

Then you're deaf. Or the equipment was very poorly set up. First of all, you'd have to be deaf to put up with the horrible CD sound in 1983, whether from BSR or Phillips!

No. The buffs had two Phillips units, both top-loaders. One was $700, the other $1400. The buffs' audio store had a proper sound room with walls 3 foot thick, but I was unable to tell any difference between these two, so I went of and bought a cheap unit that sounded just as good.

[snip audio-anorak opinionated unsubstantiated drivel]

By the way, this thread now has 333 posts. Keep it up. We'd love you to reach 666.

In article replytogroup-88EF03.04462616072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. Well done! LOL!!!! Are you going to be next posting information from the computer information era from 1991 also?

Are you saying that basic physics and math has changed in the past sixteen years? Oh, and please do not bring up relativity, quantum mechanics, and the like because they do not apply in this scenario.

Your failure to refute those articles indicates that you are unable to refute them.

We're talking about sound. You keep on getting distracted.

In other words, you are full of hot air.

Because I guess you never were really into high end sound.

You guess wrong yet again. You're batting .000 so far.

Interesting how you refer to and quote magazines, but when a magazine disagrees with your uninformed opinion, you start screaming, "No real world experience!" I doubt that you have had any real-world experience yourself.

In article replytogroup-9A3FEC.04532716072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-8E7F4F.10104815072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article f7dh9t$kha$1@redacted.invalid, pack@redacted.invalid (Daniel Packman) wrote:

In article replytogroup-4BB84A.07080515072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote: ....

Something else that is interesting in this area: often when equipment reproduces very high frequencies (far higher than we can actually hear), it replicates our audible frequencies with more ease, or less distortion. One sign of good audio reproduction is ease: the music sounds effortless. No strain, no struggle.

Ideally one could identify specific measurable quantities that correspond to differences that people hear in double blind experiments. There are a wide variety of listeners, so one cannot easily create a double blind study that proves a negative.

Some music, for example a cymbal crash, has a frequency distribution that peaks well above the audible range. Music is full of peaks that contain many high frequencies that are nominally above the audible range. It is easy to see that very accurate reproduction of the highest audible frequencies including phase properties could be very important for high fidelity.

"Could be" very important, but in fact have never been demonstrated to actually be important, or even audible.

Tests have been done using quality microphones and spectrum analyzers that show no "supersonic" components at all from any "standard" musical instrument (i.e. one used for any reasonable sort of musical performance). The conclusion was that the 22 kHz response of audio CDs was entirely adequate to capture everything a musical group could put out.

It was a while ago that I read about those tests, and I suppose things could have changed; do you have any more recent references to back up your statement? I'd like to study them.

Isaac

More idiotic tests. Hey Isaac. Do you have your Mommy buy your sound system for you? Do you only buy what some test tells you? Do you people ever think for yourselves? This is getting positively pathetic.

When they can't disprove a person's statements, some folks resort to a personal attack (it's called "shoot the messenger"), and hope people don't notice. Usually it doesn't work.

How many pieces of high-performance audio gear have you designed (not just copied from a magazine) and built with your own hands?

Isaac

In article replytogroup-46A894.04480216072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-894EA7.06455215072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 4699e4b5$0$12843$5a62ac22@redacted.invalid, Andy nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:

It generally involves (in no particular order) gold plated connectors, a large investment in the advertising budget, flashy packaging and the gullibility of those with more money than sense.

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson)

IF it sounds better buy it. If it doesn't, don't. The end.

You people make things so complicated because either your hearing or perception is so lousy you can't discern smaller differences or you're listening on associated equipment that is obscuring said differences.
Name your poison.

Did you know that a very small difference in level -- well under a dB, and not noticeable as an actual difference -- will cause most people to choose the slightly louder source as "sounding better"? It's a trick used all the time by less-than-ethical salesmen to turn customers towards the high-profit-margin choice.

It can happen when attempting to do a "fair" test, too, if you don't know what you're doing. Without using instrumentation, it is impossible to get two audio systems matched well enough in level to avoid the effect.

Isaac

In article isw-686A07.09015216072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-9A3FEC.04532716072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-8E7F4F.10104815072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article f7dh9t$kha$1@redacted.invalid, pack@redacted.invalid (Daniel Packman) wrote:

In article replytogroup-4BB84A.07080515072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote: ....

Something else that is interesting in this area: often when equipment reproduces very high frequencies (far higher than we can actually hear), it replicates our audible frequencies with more ease, or less distortion. One sign of good audio reproduction is ease: the music sounds effortless. No strain, no struggle.

Ideally one could identify specific measurable quantities that correspond to differences that people hear in double blind experiments. There are a wide variety of listeners, so one cannot easily create a double blind study that proves a negative.

Some music, for example a cymbal crash, has a frequency distribution that peaks well above the audible range. Music is full of peaks that contain many high frequencies that are nominally above the audible range. It is easy to see that very accurate reproduction of the highest audible frequencies including phase properties could be very important for high fidelity.

"Could be" very important, but in fact have never been demonstrated to actually be important, or even audible.

Tests have been done using quality microphones and spectrum analyzers that show no "supersonic" components at all from any "standard" musical instrument (i.e. one used for any reasonable sort of musical performance). The conclusion was that the 22 kHz response of audio CDs was entirely adequate to capture everything a musical group could put out.

It was a while ago that I read about those tests, and I suppose things could have changed; do you have any more recent references to back up your statement? I'd like to study them.

Isaac

More idiotic tests. Hey Isaac. Do you have your Mommy buy your sound system for you? Do you only buy what some test tells you? Do you people ever think for yourselves? This is getting positively pathetic.

When they can't disprove a person's statements, some folks resort to a personal attack (it's called "shoot the messenger"), and hope people don't notice. Usually it doesn't work.

How many pieces of high-performance audio gear have you designed (not just copied from a magazine) and built with your own hands?

I don't know why you ask this, Isaac. We all know he's got no REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE (tm).

In article replytogroup-06E133.04451016072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-11A216.06364815072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-383B42.07123315072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

The Audio Critic blows them out of the water, and backs up its opinions with solid science and math. Give it a try.

TAS has had 10 times the impact on the audio world than the Audio Critic ever did. If you've been through high end audio you'd know
that. TAS has influenced publications in Asia as well as Europe. And by TAS, it was really Harry Pearson who spearheaded it all. The guy was an innovator.

Oh, yeah. "Stunning" differences in the sounds of various pieces of wire. OFHC (Oxygen-Free high Conductivity) cables. The Tice Clock. Those wooden discs you put on your speakers. Putting green marker on the edge of CDs. Freezing CDs. Belt-driven CD players. Breaking in your speaker cables.

And by giving credence to those and other totally absurd audio devices instead of giving them the debunking they so richly deserve, it is certainly true that The Absurd Sound and Stereofool have had a major impact on "high-end" audio -- sadly, though, not for the better.

And you know, the funny thing is, if you happen to have a decent grounding in science and audio technology, you can easily see the flaw in the explanations for all of those.

Isaac

In article 0001HW.C2C0D3C70116E36DF0284648@redacted.invalid, J.J. O'Shea no.body@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:31:34 -0400, Daniel Packman wrote (in article f7di56$n3r$1@redacted.invalid):

In article replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. ....

Research might progress over time, but basic human physiology doesn't. This solid work proceeds from idenifying measureable quantities: "There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur." This is the sort of assertion that is very difficult to prove.

If i say that 'There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur', you can disprove quite easily... produce such a mechanism.

The fundamental point is to prove that an audible difference exists. We might be smart enough to find the corresponding mechanism, but the audible difference remains (assuming proper blind testing, etc.).

I once encountered an 'audiophile' who swore that he could tell the difference between not merely vinyl LPs but between CDs and high-bit-rate AAC and Ogg Vorbis copies. (He insisted that Ogg gave 'purer' sound.) After I set up a little test suite involving LPs, CDs, DAT, and AAC and Ogg, and he could not tell the diff between the LPs and the DAT, and he thought that the AAC copy was better than either the CD original or the Ogg copy, he insisted that it was because my 'crap system' wasn't capable of 'true reproduction' and that he'd be able to make better judgements if I used a 'real, quality' system. I offered to repeat the test using his setup. He didn't have time just then. That was over a year ago. Several times I've offered to repeat the test, using his system. He's never had time. Gee. I wonder why.

Perhaps, as you suggest, he didn't want to know that he couldn't tell the difference. Perhaps he couldn't. In any case, his ability doesn't prove a universal truth about audible differences.

In article replytogroup-46A894.04480216072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-894EA7.06455215072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 4699e4b5$0$12843$5a62ac22@redacted.invalid, Andy nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:

It generally involves (in no particular order) gold plated connectors, a large investment in the advertising budget, flashy packaging and the gullibility of those with more money than sense.

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson)

IF it sounds better buy it. If it doesn't, don't. The end.

..... In this case, buy it if it will preserve the better sound by avoiding corrosion. It isn't quite that simple.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. Well done! LOL!!!! Are you going to be next posting information from the computer information era from 1991 also?

Are you saying that basic physics and math has changed in the past sixteen years? Oh, and please do not bring up relativity, quantum mechanics, and the like because they do not apply in this scenario.

Your failure to refute those articles indicates that you are unable to refute them.

We're talking about sound. You keep on getting distracted.

In other words, you are full of hot air.

Because I guess you never were really into high end sound.

You guess wrong yet again. You're batting .000 so far.

Interesting how you refer to and quote magazines, but when a magazine disagrees with your uninformed opinion, you start screaming, "No real world experience!" I doubt that you have had any real-world experience yourself.

You say you were into high end audio yet you have contributed nothing substantive to support that. Tell us about the strengths and weaknesses of your system and what it comprised please.

In article isw-A00C48.09094616072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-46A894.04480216072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-894EA7.06455215072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 4699e4b5$0$12843$5a62ac22@redacted.invalid, Andy nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:

It generally involves (in no particular order) gold plated connectors, a large investment in the advertising budget, flashy packaging and the gullibility of those with more money than sense.

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson)

IF it sounds better buy it. If it doesn't, don't. The end.

You people make things so complicated because either your hearing or perception is so lousy you can't discern smaller differences or you're listening on associated equipment that is obscuring said differences.
Name your poison.

Did you know that a very small difference in level -- well under a dB, and not noticeable as an actual difference -- will cause most people to choose the slightly louder source as "sounding better"? It's a trick used all the time by less-than-ethical salesmen to turn customers towards the high-profit-margin choice.

It can happen when attempting to do a "fair" test, too, if you don't know what you're doing. Without using instrumentation, it is impossible to get two audio systems matched well enough in level to avoid the effect.

Isaac

Yes - that's very basic stuff you learn when first getting into audio as is phasing tricks. I do hope we're a little beyond that. Man this is getting pedestrian. Any audiophile with more than a few brain cells won't get fooled by stuff like that.

In article isw-922D12.09342116072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-06E133.04451016072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-11A216.06364815072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-383B42.07123315072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

The Audio Critic blows them out of the water, and backs up its opinions with solid science and math. Give it a try.

TAS has had 10 times the impact on the audio world than the Audio Critic ever did. If you've been through high end audio you'd know
that. TAS has influenced publications in Asia as well as Europe. And by TAS, it was really Harry Pearson who spearheaded it all. The guy was an innovator.

Oh, yeah. "Stunning" differences in the sounds of various pieces of wire. OFHC (Oxygen-Free high Conductivity) cables. The Tice Clock. Those wooden discs you put on your speakers. Putting green marker on the edge of CDs. Freezing CDs. Belt-driven CD players. Breaking in your speaker cables.

And by giving credence to those and other totally absurd audio devices instead of giving them the debunking they so richly deserve, it is certainly true that The Absurd Sound and Stereofool have had a major impact on "high-end" audio -- sadly, though, not for the better.

And you know, the funny thing is, if you happen to have a decent grounding in science and audio technology, you can easily see the flaw in the explanations for all of those.

Isaac

Its hilarious. We're talking about sound differences. And you're saying " if you happen to have a decent grounding in science and audio technology, you can easily see the flaw in the explanations for all of those."

Isaac - I guess you're not much of a listener. It doesn't matter that your education or background is. An audio enthusiast should only buy what sounds better. Specs don't make a component sound better. They don't thrill you. They just comfort a lame mentalities that can't think for themselves.

If you only buy what sounds better, you can't go wrong. No slick salesman or magazine will convince you otherwise. THEN and only then will you enjoy the things you worked so hard for. Doesn't that make sense to you "scientists"?

In article replytogroup-E851AC.13354916072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-922D12.09342116072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-06E133.04451016072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-11A216.06364815072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-383B42.07123315072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No wonder The New Guy doesn't know about those articles. He wasn't yet born when they came out and he hasn't gone through back articles of audio magazines to get info. Why should he, when he already knows it all? In his not-humble-at-all opinion, anyway?

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

The Audio Critic blows them out of the water, and backs up its opinions with solid science and math. Give it a try.

TAS has had 10 times the impact on the audio world than the Audio Critic ever did. If you've been through high end audio you'd know
that. TAS has influenced publications in Asia as well as Europe. And by TAS, it was really Harry Pearson who spearheaded it all. The guy was an innovator.

Oh, yeah. "Stunning" differences in the sounds of various pieces of wire. OFHC (Oxygen-Free high Conductivity) cables. The Tice Clock. Those wooden discs you put on your speakers. Putting green marker on the edge of CDs. Freezing CDs. Belt-driven CD players. Breaking in your speaker cables.

And by giving credence to those and other totally absurd audio devices instead of giving them the debunking they so richly deserve, it is certainly true that The Absurd Sound and Stereofool have had a major impact on "high-end" audio -- sadly, though, not for the better.

And you know, the funny thing is, if you happen to have a decent grounding in science and audio technology, you can easily see the flaw in the explanations for all of those.

Isaac

Its hilarious. We're talking about sound differences. And you're saying " if you happen to have a decent grounding in science and audio technology, you can easily see the flaw in the explanations for all of those."

Isaac - I guess you're not much of a listener. It doesn't matter that your education or background is. An audio enthusiast should only buy what sounds better. That's true for anybody. What's so special about "audio enthusiasts"? These are precisely the ones who are most likely to be taken to the cleaners by the "Special wire" sellers. You know - high end spec stuff - what you specialise in.

In article replytogroup-70ABAD.13291616072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

You say you were into high end audio yet you have contributed nothing substantive to support that.

Pot, kettle, black.

Tell us about the strengths and weaknesses of your system and what it comprised please.

You first. On second thought, don't bother; all you will do is find some components on the internet and claim that they make up your system.

In article replytogroup-E851AC.13354916072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Its hilarious. We're talking about sound differences. And you're saying " if you happen to have a decent grounding in science and audio technology, you can easily see the flaw in the explanations for all of those."

You are claiming that there are sound differences, yet you offer nothing to show that those differences actually exist. Meanwhile others are offering evidence to show that any perceived differences are merely illusionary.

In article michelle-64EDBE.14510316072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

You are claiming that there are sound differences, yet you offer nothing to show that those differences actually exist. Meanwhile others are offering evidence to show that any perceived differences are merely illusionary.

That's why it's called psycho-acoustics.

http://www.hoertechnik-audiologie.de/web/file/Links/psylab.php

"The New Guy" replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote in message news:replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. Well done! LOL!!!! Are you going to be next posting information from the computer information era from 1991 also?

Did the laws of physics change in the last 16 years? If so, I missed the memo.

You're losing it. You're really losing it.

Ironic coming from the guy who thinks the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics has changed sometime during his formative years.

Greg

In article replytogroup-2CC064.13310916072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-A00C48.09094616072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-46A894.04480216072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-894EA7.06455215072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 4699e4b5$0$12843$5a62ac22@redacted.invalid, Andy nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:

It generally involves (in no particular order) gold plated connectors, a large investment in the advertising budget, flashy packaging and the gullibility of those with more money than sense.

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson)

IF it sounds better buy it. If it doesn't, don't. The end.

You people make things so complicated because either your hearing or perception is so lousy you can't discern smaller differences or you're listening on associated equipment that is obscuring said differences.
Name your poison.

Did you know that a very small difference in level -- well under a dB, and not noticeable as an actual difference -- will cause most people to choose the slightly louder source as "sounding better"? It's a trick used all the time by less-than-ethical salesmen to turn customers towards the high-profit-margin choice.

It can happen when attempting to do a "fair" test, too, if you don't know what you're doing. Without using instrumentation, it is impossible to get two audio systems matched well enough in level to avoid the effect.

Isaac

Yes - that's very basic stuff you learn when first getting into audio as is phasing tricks. I do hope we're a little beyond that. Man this is getting pedestrian. Any audiophile with more than a few brain cells won't get fooled by stuff like that.

well, that's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

Isaac

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:17:47 -0400, Daniel Packman wrote (in article f7gcob$blj$1@redacted.invalid):

In article 0001HW.C2C0D3C70116E36DF0284648@redacted.invalid, J.J. O'Shea no.body@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:31:34 -0400, Daniel Packman wrote (in article f7di56$n3r$1@redacted.invalid):

In article replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. ....

Research might progress over time, but basic human physiology doesn't. This solid work proceeds from idenifying measureable quantities: "There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur." This is the sort of assertion that is very difficult to prove.

If i say that 'There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur', you can disprove quite easily... produce such a mechanism.

The fundamental point is to prove that an audible difference exists. We might be smart enough to find the corresponding mechanism, but the audible difference remains (assuming proper blind testing, etc.).

Not in my experience. All someone has to do is to

1 show me a difference

2 show me how to replicate that difference.

If that can be done, then you have something. If it cannot be done, then you have nothing. A difference which cannot be detected is simply not a difference of any significance.

I once encountered an 'audiophile' who swore that he could tell the difference between not merely vinyl LPs but between CDs and high-bit-rate AAC and Ogg Vorbis copies. (He insisted that Ogg gave 'purer' sound.) After I set up a little test suite involving LPs, CDs, DAT, and AAC and Ogg, and he could not tell the diff between the LPs and the DAT, and he thought that the AAC copy was better than either the CD original or the Ogg copy, he insisted that it was because my 'crap system' wasn't capable of 'true reproduction' and that he'd be able to make better judgements if I used a 'real, quality' system. I offered to repeat the test using his setup. He didn't have time just then. That was over a year ago. Several times I've offered to repeat the test, using his system. He's never had time. Gee. I wonder why.

Perhaps, as you suggest, he didn't want to know that he couldn't tell the difference. Perhaps he couldn't. In any case, his ability doesn't prove a universal truth about audible differences.

M'man thought that a DAT was an LP and the LP was a DAT. He thought that the AAC recording was the CD. He thought the CD was the Ogg. He thought the Ogg was AAC. He didn't get one right. (Well, he did detect the difference between the digital recordings and the LP, except that he thought the LP was a digital recording. And made a big deal over the 'harshness' of the 'hard-edged' digital sound, how it hurt his oh-so-sensitive ears after the smoothness of the analog sound from the LP... Pretentious boob.)

In article 0001HW.C2C1BC2B014D5BDCF0284648@redacted.invalid, J.J. O'Shea no.body@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:17:47 -0400, Daniel Packman wrote (in article f7gcob$blj$1@redacted.invalid):

In article 0001HW.C2C0D3C70116E36DF0284648@redacted.invalid, J.J. O'Shea no.body@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:31:34 -0400, Daniel Packman wrote (in article f7di56$n3r$1@redacted.invalid): ...... The fundamental point is to prove that an audible difference exists. We might be smart enough to find the corresponding mechanism, but the audible difference remains (assuming proper blind testing, etc.).

Not in my experience. All someone has to do is to

1 show me a difference

2 show me how to replicate that difference.

If that can be done, then you have something. If it cannot be done, then you have nothing. A difference which cannot be detected is simply not a difference of any significance.

Exactly. Lately I have more experience listening to different violins in blind tests to see which is better. Normally several of us can easily tell the different instruments apart aurally as well as what we like or dislike about each range in each instrument. Critical listening takes work and one pretentious boob with tin ears does not prove any general point except that such boobs exist.

You say you were into high end audio yet you have contributed nothing substantive to support that.

Pot, kettle, black.

Tell us about the strengths and weaknesses of your system and what it comprised please.

You first. On second thought, don't bother; all you will do is find some components on the internet and claim that they make up your system.

I've been talking audio for several posts. You haven't been. If you want to contribute to this thread, jump in. But so far, all you do is try to put me down. So let's discuss the good and bad points of your equipment if you want. Of course you'll just claim that I copied everything off the internet.......lol.

Its hilarious. We're talking about sound differences. And you're saying " if you happen to have a decent grounding in science and audio technology, you can easily see the flaw in the explanations for all of those."

You are claiming that there are sound differences, yet you offer nothing to show that those differences actually exist. Meanwhile others are offering evidence to show that any perceived differences are merely illusionary.

So when you were in Japan, you spent all that money on equipment that sounded no better than what you were using before? Didn't you say you spent $600 on a tonearm?

Its funny. People claim that small differences don't exist. But when they go over to some audiophile's place and listen to some recording they are familiar with, most are floored by the difference. It used to happen at my place all the time. From people that just listen to music as background noise. The point here is a whole bunch of small improvements make a huge improvement. Trained ears can discern small differences. But it takes years to train them. Lots equipment that measures better doesn't sound better or may actually sound worse. All that means is that our ears and brain put higher priority on things that we may not be measuring at the moment. Nobody in their right mind would buy something because its SUPPOSED to sound better. We pay for something that IS better. To us, not some magazine reviewer.

Incidentally, the way to use magazines is to find a reviewer with the same listening tastes as yourself. If not, why would you enjoy the same equipment as much as the reviewer that just gushed over it? Few people prioritize their reading that way.

In article 0001HW.C2C1BC2B014D5BDCF0284648@redacted.invalid, J.J. O'Shea try.not.to@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:17:47 -0400, Daniel Packman wrote (in article f7gcob$blj$1@redacted.invalid):

In article 0001HW.C2C0D3C70116E36DF0284648@redacted.invalid, J.J. O'Shea no.body@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:31:34 -0400, Daniel Packman wrote (in article f7di56$n3r$1@redacted.invalid):

In article replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. ....

Research might progress over time, but basic human physiology doesn't. This solid work proceeds from idenifying measureable quantities: "There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur." This is the sort of assertion that is very difficult to prove.

If i say that 'There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur', you can disprove quite easily... produce such a mechanism.

The fundamental point is to prove that an audible difference exists. We might be smart enough to find the corresponding mechanism, but the audible difference remains (assuming proper blind testing, etc.).

Not in my experience. All someone has to do is to

1 show me a difference

2 show me how to replicate that difference.

If that can be done, then you have something. If it cannot be done, then you have nothing. A difference which cannot be detected is simply not a difference of any significance.

I once encountered an 'audiophile' who swore that he could tell the difference between not merely vinyl LPs but between CDs and high-bit-rate AAC and Ogg Vorbis copies. (He insisted that Ogg gave 'purer' sound.) After I set up a little test suite involving LPs, CDs, DAT, and AAC and Ogg, and he could not tell the diff between the LPs and the DAT, and he thought that the AAC copy was better than either the CD original or the Ogg copy, he insisted that it was because my 'crap system' wasn't capable of 'true reproduction' and that he'd be able to make better judgements if I used a 'real, quality' system. I offered to repeat the test using his setup. He didn't have time just then. That was over a year ago. Several times I've offered to repeat the test, using his system. He's never had time. Gee. I wonder why.

Perhaps, as you suggest, he didn't want to know that he couldn't tell the difference. Perhaps he couldn't. In any case, his ability doesn't prove a universal truth about audible differences.

M'man thought that a DAT was an LP and the LP was a DAT. He thought that the AAC recording was the CD. He thought the CD was the Ogg. He thought the Ogg was AAC. He didn't get one right. (Well, he did detect the difference between the digital recordings and the LP, except that he thought the LP was a digital recording. And made a big deal over the 'harshness' of the 'hard-edged' digital sound, how it hurt his oh-so-sensitive ears after the smoothness of the analog sound from the LP... Pretentious boob.)

Well one thing is very important here. He was not used to your system's characteristics. He should only be doing comparisons on his system or one he listens to frequently.

BTY, eyeglass wearers, take note. Take off your glasses when listening. They obscure imaging, as they distort the sound as it gets to the ears. If you have a decent system you'll hear the difference, but only, of course, if your speakers are set up for good imaging.
Something that is rare unfortunately. (Max distance from the rear wall without getting a hole in the middle, grills off, tweeters at ear level, and NOT toed in. Only speakers with poor horizontal dispersion benefit from toeing in. Toeing in tends to result in a truncated soundstage where depth is more between the speakers than in the corners. Imaging detail is obscured as information is packed together.) And when you raise those speakers so the tweeters are at ear level, make sure they are on utterly rigid stands without a hint of wobble anchored through carpet to a hard surface below. That was something that Linn pioneered. Kind of woke the industry up.

In article replytogroup-B6AFF9.07364417072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

You are claiming that there are sound differences, yet you offer nothing to show that those differences actually exist. Meanwhile others are offering evidence to show that any perceived differences are merely illusionary.

So when you were in Japan, you spent all that money on equipment that sounded no better than what you were using before?

No; I spent money on equipment that sounded better than what I was using before. And after I got back to the states, I sold almost all of it and bought equipment that sounded even better than that.

Didn't you say you spent $600 on a tonearm?

No, I said that I bought a tone arm that sold for $600 in the states.
In Japan, it cost about $200.

Its funny. People claim that small differences don't exist.

Some people do, but no one in this discussion has claimed that.

I believe that you are a fraud and are merely regurgitating stuff that you have read, without actually understanding it.

You are claiming that there are sound differences, yet you offer nothing to show that those differences actually exist. Meanwhile others are offering evidence to show that any perceived differences are merely illusionary.

So when you were in Japan, you spent all that money on equipment that sounded no better than what you were using before?

No; I spent money on equipment that sounded better than what I was using before. And after I got back to the states, I sold almost all of it and bought equipment that sounded even better than that.

So you did perceive differences in how equipment sounds. Wonderful.
You have functioning auditory capacity.

Didn't you say you spent $600 on a tonearm?

No, I said that I bought a tone arm that sold for $600 in the states.
In Japan, it cost about $200.

And did it sound better than the one it replaced? Or did you buy it because of its compatibility with the new cartridge you bought at the time?

Its funny. People claim that small differences don't exist.

Some people do, but no one in this discussion has claimed that.

Guess you were sleeping. This whole discussion started on the differences people claim to perceive in cables. And as most of us know, cables are not going to make or break a system. That is if the connections are in proper working order.

I believe that you are a fraud and are merely regurgitating stuff that you have read, without actually understanding it.

Whatever. Instead of trying to put me down, just stick to the discussion. Like any mature, intelligent person would do. Like you normally do. For some odd reason you seem to really have a chip on your shoulder for everything I post. Its kind of pointless you know?

On 17-Jul-2007, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would buy something because its SUPPOSED to sound better. We pay for something that IS better.

I believe you mean "sounds better to your ears."

In the final analysis, nobody in their right mind would buy something because it sounds better to "trained ears" if it doesn't sound better to their own ears.

No matter how you slice it, there is always a subjective element even in "trained ears" that does not exist in equipment.

In article 964ni.14748$7R4.1868@redacted.invalid, "Little Sir Echo" <justwondering@redacted.invalid this.net> wrote:

On 17-Jul-2007, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Nobody in their right mind would buy something because its SUPPOSED to sound better. We pay for something that IS better.

I believe you mean "sounds better to your ears."

Exactly. Thanks. But it only is better for us if it sounds better to us.

In the final analysis, nobody in their right mind would buy something because it sounds better to "trained ears" if it doesn't sound better to their own ears.

You'd never know that by the comments posted here lately!

On 17-Jul-2007, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

BTY, eyeglass wearers, take note. Take off your glasses when listening. They obscure imaging, as they distort the sound as it gets to the ears. If you have a decent system you'll hear the difference, but only, of course, if your speakers are set up for good imaging. Something that is rare unfortunately. (Max distance from the rear wall without getting a hole in the middle, grills off, tweeters at ear level, and NOT toed in. Only speakers with poor horizontal dispersion benefit from toeing in. Toeing in tends to result in a truncated soundstage where depth is more between the speakers than in the corners. Imaging detail is obscured as information is packed together.) And when you raise those speakers so the tweeters are at ear level, make sure they are on utterly rigid stands without a hint of wobble anchored through carpet to a hard surface below. That was something that Linn pioneered. Kind of woke the industry up.

The above is sheer nonsense--especially "they distort the sound as it gets to the ears."

In article ic4ni.4014$Gx5.2873@redacted.invalid, "Little Sir Echo" <justwondering@redacted.invalid this.net> wrote:

On 17-Jul-2007, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

BTY, eyeglass wearers, take note. Take off your glasses when listening. They obscure imaging, as they distort the sound as it gets to the ears. If you have a decent system you'll hear the difference, but only, of course, if your speakers are set up for good imaging. Something that is rare unfortunately. (Max distance from the rear wall without getting a hole in the middle, grills off, tweeters at ear level, and NOT toed in. Only speakers with poor horizontal dispersion benefit from toeing in. Toeing in tends to result in a truncated soundstage where depth is more between the speakers than in the corners. Imaging detail is obscured as information is packed together.) And when you raise those speakers so the tweeters are at ear level, make sure they are on utterly rigid stands without a hint of wobble anchored through carpet to a hard surface below. That was something that Linn pioneered. Kind of woke the industry up.

The above is sheer nonsense--especially "they distort the sound as it gets to the ears."

Well I've heard the differences many times. And every one of my audiophile customers that wore glasses noticed the same things. Its all in how well the system is set up for imaging. Most people don't align the tweeters to the proper height (of course I'm referring to cone speakers as most people use them). And most people toe in their speakers, thereby destroying a lot of the depth available. And many people have their expensive speakers stands sitting on thick carpet nullifying any benefits of the stands. And having the speakers in the middle of the room is difficult in many living arrangements so they tend to get pushed too close to the back wall, destroying depth in the soundstage. It takes sacrifice and dedication. That's why few people bother.

In article replytogroup-8369F0.08395217072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No; I spent money on equipment that sounded better than what I was using before. And after I got back to the states, I sold almost all of it and bought equipment that sounded even better than that.

So you did perceive differences in how equipment sounds. Wonderful.
You have functioning auditory capacity.

Considering that no one has said that people can't perceive differences, your comment is meaningless.

No, I said that I bought a tone arm that sold for $600 in the states. In Japan, it cost about $200.

And did it sound better than the one it replaced? Or did you buy it because of its compatibility with the new cartridge you bought at the time?

Yes, it did sound better; and I did not buy a new cartridge at the time.
I bought a new cartridge a few months later, when I could afford it.

Its funny. People claim that small differences don't exist.

Some people do, but no one in this discussion has claimed that.

Guess you were sleeping.

Guess you have a reading-comprehension problem.

This whole discussion started on the differences people claim to perceive in cables.

True, but completely irrelevant to your statement that "people claim that small differences don't exist."

And as most of us know, cables are not going to make or break a system. That is if the connections are in proper working order.

Yeah, so?

I believe that you are a fraud and are merely regurgitating stuff that you have read, without actually understanding it.

Whatever. Instead of trying to put me down, just stick to the discussion.

Take your own advice.

Like any mature, intelligent person would do.

Take your own advice.

For some odd reason you seem to really have a chip on your shoulder for everything I post.

Not at all; as with just about everyone else who responds to you, I merely attempt to correct the misinformation that you spew.

No, I said that I bought a tone arm that sold for $600 in the states. In Japan, it cost about $200.

And did it sound better than the one it replaced? Or did you buy it because of its compatibility with the new cartridge you bought at the time?

Yes, it did sound better; and I did not buy a new cartridge at the time.
I bought a new cartridge a few months later, when I could afford it.

You do realize that many people will insist there are no audible differences between tonearms........:)

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:43:47 -0400, The New Guy wrote (in article replytogroup-E966A5.07434717072007@redacted.invalid):

In article 0001HW.C2C1BC2B014D5BDCF0284648@redacted.invalid, J.J. O'Shea try.not.to@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:17:47 -0400, Daniel Packman wrote (in article f7gcob$blj$1@redacted.invalid):

In article 0001HW.C2C0D3C70116E36DF0284648@redacted.invalid, J.J. O'Shea no.body@redacted.invalid wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:31:34 -0400, Daniel Packman wrote (in article f7di56$n3r$1@redacted.invalid):

In article replytogroup-D3BC45.07111915072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article michelle-74EED8.19403814072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. ....

Research might progress over time, but basic human physiology doesn't. This solid work proceeds from idenifying measureable quantities: "There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur." This is the sort of assertion that is very difficult to prove.

If i say that 'There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur', you can disprove quite easily... produce such a mechanism.

The fundamental point is to prove that an audible difference exists. We might be smart enough to find the corresponding mechanism, but the audible difference remains (assuming proper blind testing, etc.).

Not in my experience. All someone has to do is to

1 show me a difference

2 show me how to replicate that difference.

If that can be done, then you have something. If it cannot be done, then you have nothing. A difference which cannot be detected is simply not a difference of any significance.

I once encountered an 'audiophile' who swore that he could tell the difference between not merely vinyl LPs but between CDs and high-bit-rate AAC and Ogg Vorbis copies. (He insisted that Ogg gave 'purer' sound.) After I set up a little test suite involving LPs, CDs, DAT, and AAC and Ogg, and he could not tell the diff between the LPs and the DAT, and he thought that the AAC copy was better than either the CD original or the Ogg copy, he insisted that it was because my 'crap system' wasn't capable of 'true reproduction' and that he'd be able to make better judgements if I used a 'real, quality' system. I offered to repeat the test using his setup. He didn't have time just then. That was over a year ago. Several times I've offered to repeat the test, using his system. He's never had time. Gee. I wonder why.

Perhaps, as you suggest, he didn't want to know that he couldn't tell the difference. Perhaps he couldn't. In any case, his ability doesn't prove a universal truth about audible differences.

M'man thought that a DAT was an LP and the LP was a DAT. He thought that the AAC recording was the CD. He thought the CD was the Ogg. He thought the Ogg was AAC. He didn't get one right. (Well, he did detect the difference between the digital recordings and the LP, except that he thought the LP was a digital recording. And made a big deal over the 'harshness' of the 'hard-edged' digital sound, how it hurt his oh-so-sensitive ears after the smoothness of the analog sound from the LP... Pretentious boob.)

Well one thing is very important here. He was not used to your system's characteristics. He should only be doing comparisons on his system or one he listens to frequently.

Then why is he so hesitant at doing the test using his equipment? I think I know why. He DID NOT GET ONE RIGHT. Not one. He damned the LP for having 'harsh', 'hard-edged' digital sound, and he praised the DAT for having 'smooth' analog sound! He thought that an AAC recording made from the CD was the CD! In short, he had no fucking clue! I had a serious problem keeping my face straight while he bloviated!

BTY, eyeglass wearers, take note. Take off your glasses when listening. They obscure imaging, as they distort the sound as it gets to the ears. If you have a decent system you'll hear the difference, but only, of course, if your speakers are set up for good imaging.
Something that is rare unfortunately. (Max distance from the rear wall without getting a hole in the middle, grills off, tweeters at ear level, and NOT toed in. Only speakers with poor horizontal dispersion benefit from toeing in. Toeing in tends to result in a truncated soundstage where depth is more between the speakers than in the corners. Imaging detail is obscured as information is packed together.) And when you raise those speakers so the tweeters are at ear level, make sure they are on utterly rigid stands without a hint of wobble anchored through carpet to a hard surface below. That was something that Linn pioneered. Kind of woke the industry up.

I think I made a comment about a pretentious boob earlier. The above is the kind of crap I was thinking of when I made it. This is the kind of bullshit which was harpooned by Alan Sokol in his 'Social Text' hoax. His target was 'deconstructionist' pretentious boobs, who failed to notice that, among other things, his publication said straight out that gravity is a social construct, and that he had deliberately dropped in references that only an idiot would take seriously and that he was laughing his ass off at them while they were praising him for his 'insight'. See http://physics.nyu.edu/~as2/. 'Audiophile' pretentious boobs construct elaborate mountains of crap on even flimsier foundations than did the twits that Sokol dropped the hammer on.

One of my fav bits is from the publication where he revealed the hoax:

"For some years I've been troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American academic humanities. But I'm a mere physicist: if I find myself unable to make head or tail of jouissance and diff'erance, perhaps that just reflects my own inadequacy.

So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies --- whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross --- publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions?

The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Interested readers can find my article, Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,'' in the Spring/Summer 1996 issue of _Social_Text_. It appears in a special number of the magazine devoted to the Science Wars.''"

'Audiophile' pretentious boobs think that a DAT is an LP and vice versa... and blame the equipment for their error, and then run away when its suggested that trying other equipment might be a good idea.

If an 'audiophile' can't demostrate the difference between two systems to a non-'audiophile' I strongly suspect that there is no difference. And that the 'audiophile' is a pretentious boob.

"Harsh", "hard-edged", digital sound, my ass.

In article replytogroup-D2D956.12112117072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

And did it sound better than the one it replaced? Or did you buy it because of its compatibility with the new cartridge you bought at the time?

Yes, it did sound better; and I did not buy a new cartridge at the time. I bought a new cartridge a few months later, when I could afford it.

You do realize that many people will insist there are no audible differences between tonearms........:)

Sure, but their being wrong about that does not invalidate the fact that there is no audible difference between audio cables.

(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

Issue 16 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_16_r.pdf The article starts at print page 51, or PDF page 37

Issue 17 is at http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf The article starts at print page 50, or PDF page 42.

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. ....

Research might progress over time, but basic human physiology doesn't. This solid work proceeds from idenifying measureable quantities: "There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur." This is the sort of assertion that is very difficult to prove.

If i say that 'There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur', you can disprove quite easily... produce such a mechanism.

The fundamental point is to prove that an audible difference exists. We might be smart enough to find the corresponding mechanism, but the audible difference remains (assuming proper blind testing, etc.).

Not in my experience. All someone has to do is to

1 show me a difference

2 show me how to replicate that difference.

If that can be done, then you have something. If it cannot be done, then you have nothing. A difference which cannot be detected is simply not a difference of any significance.

I once encountered an 'audiophile' who swore that he could tell the difference between not merely vinyl LPs but between CDs and high-bit-rate AAC and Ogg Vorbis copies. (He insisted that Ogg gave 'purer' sound.) After I set up a little test suite involving LPs, CDs, DAT, and AAC and Ogg, and he could not tell the diff between the LPs and the DAT, and he thought that the AAC copy was better than either the CD original or the Ogg copy, he insisted that it was because my 'crap system' wasn't capable of 'true reproduction' and that he'd be able to make better judgements if I used a 'real, quality' system. I offered to repeat the test using his setup. He didn't have time just then. That was over a year ago. Several times I've offered to repeat the test, using his system. He's never had time. Gee. I wonder why.

Perhaps, as you suggest, he didn't want to know that he couldn't tell the difference. Perhaps he couldn't. In any case, his ability doesn't prove a universal truth about audible differences.

M'man thought that a DAT was an LP and the LP was a DAT. He thought that the AAC recording was the CD. He thought the CD was the Ogg. He thought the Ogg was AAC. He didn't get one right. (Well, he did detect the difference between the digital recordings and the LP, except that he thought the LP was a digital recording. And made a big deal over the 'harshness' of the 'hard-edged' digital sound, how it hurt his oh-so-sensitive ears after the smoothness of the analog sound from the LP... Pretentious boob.)

Well one thing is very important here. He was not used to your system's characteristics. He should only be doing comparisons on his system or one he listens to frequently.

Then why is he so hesitant at doing the test using his equipment?

You're right. He certainly shouldn't have been. If you don't hear a difference, celebrate. You've just saved a pile of money!

I think I know why. He DID NOT GET ONE RIGHT. Not one. He damned the LP for having 'harsh', 'hard-edged' digital sound, and he praised the DAT for having 'smooth' analog sound! He thought that an AAC recording made from the CD was the CD! In short, he had no fucking clue! I had a serious problem keeping my face straight while he bloviated!

Yes - its kind of comical. But if an LP is harsh, there's probably a problem with the setup of the cartridge. Maybe that's why Michelle upgraded the tonearm. Setup is vital with turntable equipment. All this is avoided of course if the comparisons are done on equipment the tester is intimately familiar with.

BTY, eyeglass wearers, take note. Take off your glasses when listening. They obscure imaging, as they distort the sound as it gets to the ears. If you have a decent system you'll hear the difference, but only, of course, if your speakers are set up for good imaging.
Something that is rare unfortunately. (Max distance from the rear wall without getting a hole in the middle, grills off, tweeters at ear level, and NOT toed in. Only speakers with poor horizontal dispersion benefit from toeing in. Toeing in tends to result in a truncated soundstage where depth is more between the speakers than in the corners. Imaging detail is obscured as information is packed together.) And when you raise those speakers so the tweeters are at ear level, make sure they are on utterly rigid stands without a hint of wobble anchored through carpet to a hard surface below. That was something that Linn pioneered. Kind of woke the industry up.

I think I made a comment about a pretentious boob earlier. The above is the kind of crap I was thinking of when I made it. This is the kind of bullshit which was harpooned by Alan Sokol in his 'Social Text' hoax. His target was 'deconstructionist' pretentious boobs, who failed to notice that, among other things, his publication said straight out that gravity is a social construct, and that he had deliberately dropped in references that only an idiot would take seriously and that he was laughing his ass off at them while they were praising him for his 'insight'. See http://physics.nyu.edu/~as2/. 'Audiophile' pretentious boobs construct elaborate mountains of crap on even flimsier foundations than did the twits that Sokol dropped the hammer on.

Well it would be nice if people stayed on point. If you've tested the eyeglasses theory, list the equipment it was tested on and how it was set up. Then we'll go from there. I, along with many others have tested it and it most definitely impedes imaging. We're talking audio here. Stick with audio.

Ever heard of binaural recording? They use a dummy head with mics in the ears. Then its played back with headphones. The realism is uncanny. The shape of your face helps your hearing.

Some of you are quick to judge and yet have invested very little time listening and comparing equipment critically. Audiophiles invest thousands of hours. Try to respect that a little. Its like a PC enthusiast putting down OS X when they haven't ever tried it. Its not fair and its not right.

In article replytogroup-0E1137.13225917072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

...... If you've tested the eyeglasses theory, list the equipment it was tested on and how it was set up. Then we'll go from there. I, along with many others have tested it and it most definitely impedes imaging. We're talking audio here. Stick with audio.
......

It does seem unlikely that glasses could have any significant direct effect on the sound. But there could very well be an indirect effect associated with closing the eyes or, being faced with everything out of focus, paying less attention to the room and more to the music.

And did it sound better than the one it replaced? Or did you buy it because of its compatibility with the new cartridge you bought at the time?

Yes, it did sound better; and I did not buy a new cartridge at the time. I bought a new cartridge a few months later, when I could afford it.

You do realize that many people will insist there are no audible differences between tonearms........:)

Sure, but their being wrong about that does not invalidate the fact that there is no audible difference between audio cables.

But why would you think there are audible differences between tonearms but not with cables? Audiophiles hear differences in both. (I haven't heard large differences in cables but I got out of high end audio before the rage of cables really hit hence my lack of comment in that area.)

In article replytogroup-B6AFF9.07364417072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Its hilarious. We're talking about sound differences. And you're saying " if you happen to have a decent grounding in science and audio technology, you can easily see the flaw in the explanations for all of those."

You are claiming that there are sound differences, yet you offer nothing to show that those differences actually exist. Meanwhile others are offering evidence to show that any perceived differences are merely illusionary.

So when you were in Japan, you spent all that money on equipment that sounded no better than what you were using before? Didn't you say you spent $600 on a tonearm?

Its funny. People claim that small differences don't exist. But when they go over to some audiophile's place and listen to some recording they are familiar with, most are floored by the difference. It used to happen at my place all the time. From people that just listen to music as background noise. The point here is a whole bunch of small improvements make a huge improvement. Trained ears can discern small differences. But it takes years to train them. Lots equipment that measures better doesn't sound better or may actually sound worse.

There's a whole class of errors produced by audio equipment called "euphonic distortions", so called because in some cases people can prefer the alterations they cause over the original material.

Single-ended amplifiers built with vacuum tubes and output transformers are particularly susceptible to even order harmonic distortion, which is in the class of euphonic distortions, for example, and some folks like the "punch" produced from soft clipping, another characteristic of tube amps.

The entire process of cutting a vinyl record is a stack of distortions from one end to the other (in that case, most were put there on purpose in an effort to make a "better" end product). Those, plus the characteristic distortions produced by turntable-cartridge systems result in a "sound" that some people prefer -- or simply have become used to and comfortable with.

Others, however, believe that the "original intent" of the composer/performer/engineer should be preserved (i.e. that it's not OK to add stuff to the original recording when you play it back). Or alternately, they don't want any alterations going on that they don't explicitly control, because not all source material benefits equally from the same amount and type of added distortion -- even if it is "euphonic".

When a person who thinks he has a "high-end" setup goes through a process of grading commercial recordings into groups such as "wonderful sound stage", "excellent bass punch", "worthless junk", and so on, what is probably happening is that the material is unconsciously being selected or rejected according to whether it benefits from the specific set of (euphonic) distortions his system produces.

Isaac

...... If you've tested the eyeglasses theory, list the equipment it was tested on and how it was set up. Then we'll go from there. I, along with many others have tested it and it most definitely impedes imaging. We're talking audio here. Stick with audio.

It does seem unlikely that glasses could have any significant direct effect on the sound. But there could very well be an indirect effect associated with closing the eyes or, being faced with everything out of focus, paying less attention to the room and more to the music.

No. Its about the ability to discern precise imaging locations (or as its known in audio circles - image specificity).

In article replytogroup-E966A5.07434717072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

-- snippety-snip --

M'man thought that a DAT was an LP and the LP was a DAT. He thought that the AAC recording was the CD. He thought the CD was the Ogg. He thought the Ogg was AAC. He didn't get one right. (Well, he did detect the difference between the digital recordings and the LP, except that he thought the LP was a digital recording. And made a big deal over the 'harshness' of the 'hard-edged' digital sound, how it hurt his oh-so-sensitive ears after the smoothness of the analog sound from the LP... Pretentious boob.)

Well one thing is very important here. He was not used to your system's characteristics. He should only be doing comparisons on his system or one he listens to frequently.

It has always seemed to me that if there was anything at all to "high-end audio", there should be a "convergence towards perfection", i.e. as different systems got "better and better" they should also sound more and more alike. IOW, if two "high-end" systems are perceptibly different in sound, at least one of them is somehow deficient (and therefore obviously not "high-end").

Oddly, most owners of "high-end" systems don't agree, arguing instead that their system alone is capable of producing the One True Sound ...

Isaac

In article replytogroup-0E1137.13225917072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Yes - its kind of comical. But if an LP is harsh, there's probably a problem with the setup of the cartridge. Maybe that's why Michelle upgraded the tonearm.

No, I don't change equipment just because of one record. I wouldn't doubt that you would do that, though.

Well it would be nice if people stayed on point. If you've tested the eyeglasses theory, list the equipment it was tested on and how it was set up. Then we'll go from there. I, along with many others have tested it and it most definitely impedes imaging.

Frankly, I do not believe you.

Ever heard of binaural recording?

Oooh, you stumbled across something else in your reading. Yes, I have not only heard of binaural recording, I've listened to it--with headphones, about 37 years ago.

Some of you are quick to judge and yet have invested very little time listening and comparing equipment critically.

Gee, you're back to your "real world experience" schtick again--I doubt that you have had any meaningful RWE yourself.

Audiophiles invest thousands of hours. Try to respect that a little.

You mean like a guy who invests thousands of dollars in the stock market and has nothing to show for it?

In article replytogroup-CA3D77.09244117072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

--snip--

Well I've heard the differences many times. And every one of my audiophile customers that wore glasses noticed the same things. Its all in how well the system is set up for imaging. Most people don't align the tweeters to the proper height (of course I'm referring to cone speakers as most people use them). And most people toe in their speakers, thereby destroying a lot of the depth available. And many people have their expensive speakers stands sitting on thick carpet nullifying any benefits of the stands. And having the speakers in the middle of the room is difficult in many living arrangements so they tend to get pushed too close to the back wall, destroying depth in the soundstage.

All of that is true only for a certain class of loudspeakers (cone drivers in boxes); there are other types of speakers that don't need that sort of treatment, and some people think those are superior.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-5CD018.13250217072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Sure, but their being wrong about that does not invalidate the fact that there is no audible difference between audio cables.

But why would you think there are audible differences between tonearms but not with cables?

Oh, because tonearms have bearings that have varying degrees of friction; they have mass and therefore resonances; they have tracking offsets; they have mechanical damping; etc.

If you really knew anything about the subject, you would understand and wouldn't have needed to ask me.

You're very good at searching, copying and regurgitating; you are very week at understanding.

In article isw-9E9839.11383017072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-B6AFF9.07364417072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Its hilarious. We're talking about sound differences. And you're saying " if you happen to have a decent grounding in science and audio technology, you can easily see the flaw in the explanations for all of those."

You are claiming that there are sound differences, yet you offer nothing to show that those differences actually exist. Meanwhile others are offering evidence to show that any perceived differences are merely illusionary.

So when you were in Japan, you spent all that money on equipment that sounded no better than what you were using before? Didn't you say you spent $600 on a tonearm?

Its funny. People claim that small differences don't exist. But when they go over to some audiophile's place and listen to some recording they are familiar with, most are floored by the difference. It used to happen at my place all the time. From people that just listen to music as background noise. The point here is a whole bunch of small improvements make a huge improvement. Trained ears can discern small differences. But it takes years to train them. Lots equipment that measures better doesn't sound better or may actually sound worse.

There's a whole class of errors produced by audio equipment called "euphonic distortions", so called because in some cases people can prefer the alterations they cause over the original material.

Single-ended amplifiers built with vacuum tubes and output transformers are particularly susceptible to even order harmonic distortion, which is in the class of euphonic distortions, for example, and some folks like the "punch" produced from soft clipping, another characteristic of tube amps.

They also excel in extracting more emotion out of the music. Emotion is generally regarded as minute volume differences in tones. If you've ever played an acoustic instrument, you'll be well familiar with the impossibility of playing even an octave of notes of a scale with exactly the same touch. Of course an electronic instrument with no touch sensitivity will have no emotion as those volume differences are impossible to generate. Solid state equipment is getting better and better at this, but generally this is one of its weakness. Tonal purity is one of solid state's strengths as well as bass definition and extension. But there is always some pieces of equipment that give us a surprise. The bass of the Conrad Johnson Premier 1 was a shock, for example as never before had tube power amps been able to go as low and particularly with such "grip", definition and power. Very few people have heard true good bass under 20 hz. Its mighty hard to reproduce.

The entire process of cutting a vinyl record is a stack of distortions from one end to the other (in that case, most were put there on purpose in an effort to make a "better" end product). Those, plus the characteristic distortions produced by turntable-cartridge systems result in a "sound" that some people prefer -- or simply have become used to and comfortable with.

Others, however, believe that the "original intent" of the composer/performer/engineer should be preserved (i.e. that it's not OK to add stuff to the original recording when you play it back). Or alternately, they don't want any alterations going on that they don't explicitly control, because not all source material benefits equally from the same amount and type of added distortion -- even if it is "euphonic".

When a person who thinks he has a "high-end" setup goes through a process of grading commercial recordings into groups such as "wonderful sound stage", "excellent bass punch", "worthless junk", and so on, what is probably happening is that the material is unconsciously being selected or rejected according to whether it benefits from the specific set of (euphonic) distortions his system produces.

Isaac, finally you're using SOME audio language that relates to this thread. And some of what you say is very true. Euphonic colorations can indeed by misleading. But there's a limit. Eventually accuracy will ring true and be chosen by an experienced listener. As long as they are regularly exposed to acoustic music for a reference. I should have mentioned that earlier. But its kind of a given......what else would anybody use for a reference? A specification sheet? lol...

M'man thought that a DAT was an LP and the LP was a DAT. He thought that the AAC recording was the CD. He thought the CD was the Ogg. He thought the Ogg was AAC. He didn't get one right. (Well, he did detect the difference between the digital recordings and the LP, except that he thought the LP was a digital recording. And made a big deal over the 'harshness' of the 'hard-edged' digital sound, how it hurt his oh-so-sensitive ears after the smoothness of the analog sound from the LP... Pretentious boob.)

Well one thing is very important here. He was not used to your system's characteristics. He should only be doing comparisons on his system or one he listens to frequently.

It has always seemed to me that if there was anything at all to "high-end audio", there should be a "convergence towards perfection", i.e. as different systems got "better and better" they should also sound more and more alike. IOW, if two "high-end" systems are perceptibly different in sound, at least one of them is somehow deficient (and therefore obviously not "high-end").

That's very true. Tube amps are getting less and less colored, their frequency response is getting better and better, solid state amps are getting better at emotion, soundstaging, etc.

Oddly, most owners of "high-end" systems don't agree, arguing instead that their system alone is capable of producing the One True Sound ...

Well if you're using an acoustic reference, nothing really comes close to that! So its pretty humbling.

In article michelle-4E3451.11595717072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-0E1137.13225917072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Yes - its kind of comical. But if an LP is harsh, there's probably a problem with the setup of the cartridge. Maybe that's why Michelle upgraded the tonearm.

No, I don't change equipment just because of one record. I wouldn't doubt that you would do that, though.

I didn't say one record. If the turntable is set up wrong, its most certainly going to influence more than one record! Time to ease up on the meds Michelle....lol.

Well it would be nice if people stayed on point. If you've tested the eyeglasses theory, list the equipment it was tested on and how it was set up. Then we'll go from there. I, along with many others have tested it and it most definitely impedes imaging.

Frankly, I do not believe you.

Who cares? People with far more experience than you have heard it. List your equipment and I'll tell you why you may not have heard it.
(silence follows.........)

Ever heard of binaural recording?

Oooh, you stumbled across something else in your reading. Yes, I have not only heard of binaural recording, I've listened to it--with headphones, about 37 years ago.

Well its progressed a lot since then obviously......:) Most listeners are shocked as to certain aspects of the realism of the sound. That reason is that the realism is the sound being affected by the shape of the face. Otherwise it would sound the same as music recorded with normal microphone techniques.

In article isw-18FC4E.12001017072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-CA3D77.09244117072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

--snip--

Well I've heard the differences many times. And every one of my audiophile customers that wore glasses noticed the same things. Its all in how well the system is set up for imaging. Most people don't align the tweeters to the proper height (of course I'm referring to cone speakers as most people use them). And most people toe in their speakers, thereby destroying a lot of the depth available. And many people have their expensive speakers stands sitting on thick carpet nullifying any benefits of the stands. And having the speakers in the middle of the room is difficult in many living arrangements so they tend to get pushed too close to the back wall, destroying depth in the soundstage.

All of that is true only for a certain class of loudspeakers (cone drivers in boxes); there are other types of speakers that don't need that sort of treatment, and some people think those are superior.

Isaac

Name one type of speakers that don't require great care in height, depth and horizontal positioning........I didn't mention others because those are in a distinct minority and didn't what to make this discussion even more complicated for non-audio people than necessary.

Sure, but their being wrong about that does not invalidate the fact that there is no audible difference between audio cables.

But why would you think there are audible differences between tonearms but not with cables?

Oh, because tonearms have bearings that have varying degrees of friction; they have mass and therefore resonances; they have tracking offsets; they have mechanical damping; etc.

Yes - I'm well aware of those areas of tonearm design. By the way, what was that $600 arm you scored for $200? And what was the cartridge it was paired with? And the turntable?

If you really knew anything about the subject, you would understand and wouldn't have needed to ask me.

I didn't ask you for knowledge (that would be humorous in this area!)
I asked you to test you. And also to point out that you can audible differences in many areas that at first, may not be apparent to lay people.

You're very good at searching, copying and regurgitating; you are very week at understanding.

You're very good at getting off point and attacking people when they don't bow down to your opinions. I guess you just can't stand it when people disagree with you.

The New Guy wrote:

I guess you didn't read my postings regarding Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and the type of equipment mentioned. Its from the same era.

I guess youÄôre not interested in saving face.

The New Guy wrote:

TAS has had 10 times the impact on the audio world than the Audio Critic ever did.

Which says absolutely nothing about their credibility or reliability.

If you've been through high end audio you'd know that. TAS has influenced publications in Asia as well as Europe.

Which says absolutely nothing about their credibility or reliability.

And by TAS, it was really Harry Pearson who spearheaded it all. The guy was an innovator. If it wasn't for him, you probably wouldn't have seen such ground breaking products as the Infinity IRS (from the QRS-1D put together by HP) and later the Genesis One when Arnie left Infinity. Not to mention the Goldmund Studio turntable which ushered in a whole generation of post Linn LP-12 products that broke new ground. He also encouraged high gain tube preamps for low output (for sub .3 mv moving coils) so pre-preamps could be banished. The guy's influence was vast. Audiophiles owe him much.

Which says very little about their credibility or reliability.

As for science and math.......what a joke. Does science and math make something sound better?

No. Science and math prove that something sounds better; that itÄôs not all just in your head.

If you're paying for science and math without it sounding better, you just got suckerpunched by your neighborhood slick audio salesman.

It sounds like thatÄôs happened to you once too often.

If you can't hear the difference, don't pay for the difference.

And if there is no difference, donÄôt pay for it in that case either.

Seriously. ThereÄôs only one difference between $1000 cables and $20 cables: $980.

The New Guy wrote:

As for science and math.......what a joke. Does science and math make something sound better? Errm, actually it does. You take the maths and the science, and you apply it.

So you would buy something that is SUPPOSED to sound better in theory but actually sounds the same to your own ears as compared to your existing equipment? If so, you're even stupider than I thought. No wonder scammers can sell some cables for thousands of dollars that sound no better than $2 Radio Shack junk.

Absolutely not. Stop projecting your stupidity on other posters.

In about 1983, I added a $150 BSR CD player to my Shure V15 cartridge, SME arm, Thorens turntable, Quad amp/preamp, Quad FM tuner, and IMF Studio Monitors. It sounded just as good as the $1400 Philips CD player that the local "audio buffs" were trying to foist on me.

Then you're deaf. Or the equipment was very poorly set up. First of all, you'd have to be deaf to put up with the horrible CD sound in 1983, whether from BSR or Phillips! That was a disgrace.

In 1983, some engineers knew how to master a recording for CD pretty well, and some didnÄôt (the emphasis flag, for CD production of recordings meant for cassette, comes to mind). DonÄôt automatically assume that he listened to the work of the latter.

The New Guy wrote:

Wow, Michelle. Cutting edge information from 16 years ago. Well done! LOL!!!! Are you going to be next posting information from the computer information era from 1991 also?

You're losing it. You're really losing it.

Tell me how you think cabling has changed over the last 16 years.

The New Guy wrote:

We're talking about sound. You keep on getting distracted. Because I guess you never were really into high end sound. Otherwise you'd talk the talk. No REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE? Is there an echo here? LOL...

I see a pattern here. Denial of reality.

The New Guy wrote:

I've been talking audio for several posts. You haven't been. If you want to contribute to this thread, jump in. But so far, all you do is try to put me down. So let's discuss the good and bad points of your equipment if you want. Of course you'll just claim that I copied everything off the internet.......lol.

Yeah, weÄôve noticed how reality tends to put you down.

The New Guy wrote:

BTY, eyeglass wearers, take note. Take off your glasses when listening. They obscure imaging, as they distort the sound as it gets to the ears.

I wear my glasses all the time, so to be as objective as possible, I should keep them on when performing a listening test.

If you have a decent system you'll hear the difference, but only, of course, if your speakers are set up for good imaging. Something that is rare unfortunately. (Max distance from the rear wall without getting a hole in the middle, grills off, tweeters at ear level, and NOT toed in. Only speakers with poor horizontal dispersion benefit from toeing in. Toeing in tends to result in a truncated soundstage where depth is more between the speakers than in the corners. Imaging detail is obscured as information is packed together.) And when you raise those speakers so the tweeters are at ear level, make sure they are on utterly rigid stands without a hint of wobble anchored through carpet to a hard surface below. That was something that Linn pioneered. Kind of woke the industry up.

Bla bla bla.

The New Guy wrote:

Well it would be nice if people stayed on point. If you've tested the eyeglasses theory...

Make up your mind. Either stay on point or donÄôt.

You keep making more and more outrageous claims and then failing to back them up. Instead, you insist on everybody else backing up their refutations. And when they do, you cry about lack of real-world experience. This is getting tiresome.

Ever heard of binaural recording? They use a dummy head with mics in the ears. Then its played back with headphones. The realism is uncanny. The shape of your face helps your hearing.

Yes, IÄôve heard of it. You probably know as much about it as I do. So letÄôs NOT waste screen space talking about it.

Some of you are quick to judge and yet have invested very little time listening and comparing equipment critically.

And it seems the comparisons you read about and perform are anything but critical.

The New Guy wrote:

You can't measure emotional enjoyment from music. And that's what you're paying for.

Then youÄôre being robbed.

The New Guy wrote:

Use your ears to judge. Then you won't make mistakes.

Yes, you can.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson)

That, and gold is a better conductor than steel, aluminum and even copper.

The New Guy wrote:

You people make things so complicated because either your hearing or perception is so lousy you can't discern smaller differences or you're listening on associated equipment that is obscuring said differences.
Name your poison.

Denial of reality again. IÄôm not even surprised anymore.

The New Guy wrote:

Yes - that's very basic stuff you learn when first getting into audio as is phasing tricks. I do hope we're a little beyond that. Man this is getting pedestrian. Any audiophile with more than a few brain cells won't get fooled by stuff like that.

Just had to be sure. After all, you arenÄôt an audiophile with more than a few brain cells.

In article Ribni.42459$w44.195179@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Seriously. ThereÄôs only one difference between $1000 cables and $20 cables: $980.

There are other differences:

1. Packaging.
2. The type of car the salesman drives.
3. The amount of sales tax (or VAT, depending on where you buy it)
4. The "smug" factor.
5. Etc.

The New Guy wrote:

More idiotic tests. Hey Isaac. Do you have your Mommy buy your sound system for you? Do you only buy what some test tells you? Do you people ever think for yourselves? This is getting positively pathetic.

What you think has to have some basis in reality. But it seems that that is beyond your grasp.

isw wrote:

When they can't disprove a person's statements, some folks resort to a personal attack (it's called "shoot the messenger"), and hope people don't notice. Usually it doesn't work.

I prefer Äúad hominem.Äù

The New Guy wrote:

Its called audio terminology. If you're into audio, you'd relate. If you're not you won't. We all learn terminology in our specific interests. Most of you have picked up piles of computer terminology that the average person wouldn't have a clue about.

While it is all Äúaudio terminilogy,Äù that doesnÄôt change that some of it is bullshit.

In article replytogroup-8F5563.14114717072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Yes - its kind of comical. But if an LP is harsh, there's probably a problem with the setup of the cartridge. Maybe that's why Michelle upgraded the tonearm.

No, I don't change equipment just because of one record. I wouldn't doubt that you would do that, though.

I didn't say one record.

You wrote "an LP"; see for yourself, it's right up there in the quote.
"An LP" means one record.

If the turntable is set up wrong, its most certainly going to influence more than one record!

You didn't say anything about the turntable being set up wrong; you said that if an LP is harsh, there's probably a problem with the setup of the cartridge--there is a difference between a turntable and a cartridge.
But that's hogwash, because if only one LP sounds harsh, it's most likely the fault of the recording engineer. And whether you meant to sway it or not, you did specify one LP.

Frankly, I do not believe you.

Who cares? People with far more experience than you have heard it.

You are making that up.

List your equipment and I'll tell you why you may not have heard it.

This should be fun. Technics SP 5 turntable. Denon moving coil cartridge with matching transformer (sorry, but I forgot the model).
After all these years I forgot the name of the tone arm I bought in Japan, but I replaced it with a Magnepan tone arm in 1982, and that was an improvement over the one I bought in Japan. (And yes, Magnapan did make a tone arm in addition to loudspeakers).

The original DCM Time Window speakers. Audionics by Oregon CC2 power amplifier. A Hafler pre amp; I forget the model number. Kimber speaker cables. Monster component interconnect cables.

(silence follows.........)

Yup; you're silent.

Ever heard of binaural recording?

Oooh, you stumbled across something else in your reading. Yes, I have not only heard of binaural recording, I've listened to it--with headphones, about 37 years ago.

Well its progressed a lot since then obviously......:)

Oh, it's now set up for three ears?

In article replytogroup-703DBF.14191817072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

I didn't ask you for knowledge (that would be humorous in this area!) I asked you to test you.

loud guffaw

You're very good at searching, copying and regurgitating; you are very week at understanding.

You're very good at getting off point and attacking people when they don't bow down to your opinions. I guess you just can't stand it when people disagree with you.

Oh, gee; now you've resorted to "I'm rubber, you're glue".

In article 2ycni.44930$w44.210000@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Just had to be sure. After all, you arenÄôt an audiophile with more than a few brain cells.

OK, then; is he

A. An audiophile with fewer than a few brain cells. B. Not an audiophile, but with than a few brain cells. C. Not an audiophile, and with fewer than a few brain cells.

In article dwcni.44871$w44.209846@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson)

That, and gold is a better conductor than steel, aluminum and even copper.

So does that mean that Auric Goldfinger should be conducting a symphony?

Michelle Steiner wrote:

In article Ribni.42459$w44.195179@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Seriously. ThereÄôs only one difference between $1000 cables and $20 cables: $980.

There are other differences:

1. Packaging.
2. The type of car the salesman drives.
3. The amount of sales tax (or VAT, depending on where you buy it)
4. The "smug" factor.
5. Etc.

None of which have anything to do with the cables themselves.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

In article 2ycni.44930$w44.210000@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Just had to be sure. After all, you arenÄôt an audiophile with more than a few brain cells.

OK, then; is he

A. An audiophile with fewer than a few brain cells. B. Not an audiophile, but with than a few brain cells. C. Not an audiophile, and with fewer than a few brain cells.

D. Good evening!

Yes - its kind of comical. But if an LP is harsh, there's probably a problem with the setup of the cartridge. Maybe that's why Michelle upgraded the tonearm.

No, I don't change equipment just because of one record. I wouldn't doubt that you would do that, though.

I didn't say one record.

You wrote "an LP"; see for yourself, it's right up there in the quote.
"An LP" means one record.

Please. I would have hoped your English composition was a wee bit higher than that. "An LP" refers to playing LP's. Sheesh. Anyways, you're clear about what I said or meant now I hope. Unless records were of varying thicknesses, it would be senseless anyways.

If the turntable is set up wrong, its most certainly going to influence more than one record!

You didn't say anything about the turntable being set up wrong; you said that if an LP is harsh, there's probably a problem with the setup of the cartridge--there is a difference between a turntable and a cartridge.
But that's hogwash, because if only one LP sounds harsh, it's most likely the fault of the recording engineer. And whether you meant to sway it or not, you did specify one LP.

Unbelievable.

List your equipment and I'll tell you why you may not have heard it.

This should be fun. Technics SP 5 turntable.

Great motor, zero isolation from acoustic feedback. How did you isolate it?

Denon moving coil cartridge with matching transformer (sorry, but I forgot the model).

Good imaging, good frequency response, but lacking warmth. I remember the 103 and 105 models. Might have been one of those. They sounded a little more robust than the Ortofon models popular at the time. But a little under the Fidelity Research and Koetsu models. Output, as I remember was medium, about .3 mv so its a shame the transformer was used.

After all these years I forgot the name of the tone arm I bought in Japan,

Lustre 801? Grace? JVC?

but I replaced it with a Magnepan tone arm in 1982, and that was an improvement over the one I bought in Japan. (And yes, Magnapan did make a tone arm in addition to loudspeakers).

And it was very well received. Good choice. Unipivot design which was very unusual as only the Decca had used that up to that point as I remember. But the Magnepan was far more advanced than the Decca of course.

The original DCM Time Window speakers.

Never heard them but they were well received and were good value for the money apparently.

Audionics by Oregon CC2 power amplifier. A Hafler pre amp; I forget the model number.

If it was the 101 it had very low gain hence perhaps your need of that transformer. But if it was the 110 you might have gotten away without
using it. Can't remember the efficiency of the DCM's or the input sensitivity of your power amp which of course affects the ability to run moving coil cartridges straight in. But it was a pretty well balanced system for its day. You thought well before purchasing.

Kimber speaker cables. Monster component interconnect cables.

Those cables were far more expensive than cheap throw in ones, so why did you opt for them? They didn't cost a grand each of course, but I'm still curious why you bothered to spend more than you needed at the time?

(silence follows.........)

Yup; you're silent.

Hardly........:) Thanks for providing some input.

Ever heard of binaural recording?

Oooh, you stumbled across something else in your reading. Yes, I have not only heard of binaural recording, I've listened to it--with headphones, about 37 years ago.

So when you hear the differences of binaural recording it should be obvious that those differences are caused by using the dummy head to replicate the sound patterns caused by the shape of our faces. The same reason imaging is going to be affected by glasses. Hopefully that will make sense to some of the others now.

In article replytogroup-AF891A.23430417072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

You wrote "an LP"; see for yourself, it's right up there in the quote. "An LP" means one record.

Please. I would have hoped your English composition was a wee bit higher than that. "An LP" refers to playing LP's.

Thanks for demonstrating that my command of English is far superior to yours.

Anyways, you're clear about what I said or meant now I hope.

Considering how often you change what you say you mean, I doubt that anyone is ever clear about what you mean. All we can go by is what you type.

Unless records were of varying thicknesses, it would be senseless anyways.

Not all records are the same thickness. Look up RCA's Dynaflex, for instance.

Unbelievable.

Yes, you are.

Output, as I remember was medium, about .3 mv so its a shame the transformer was used.

Got news for you: back in those days, all moving coil cartridges needed either a transformer or a pre-preamplifier. I couldn't afford a pre-preamp.

After all these years I forgot the name of the tone arm I bought in Japan,

Lustre 801? Grace? JVC?

None of the above.

Kimber speaker cables. Monster component interconnect cables.

Those cables were far more expensive than cheap throw in ones, so why did you opt for them?

Because I didn't know better at the time.

But thanks for showing that you know how to use search engines and to copy and paste information that you know nothing about. You'd make a great parrot.

In article dmeni.48529$w44.247137@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Seriously. ThereÄôs only one difference between $1000 cables and $20 cables: $980.

There are other differences:

1. Packaging.
2. The type of car the salesman drives.
3. The amount of sales tax (or VAT, depending on where you buy it)
4. The "smug" factor.
5. Etc.

None of which have anything to do with the cables themselves.

Exactly, just as the price has nothing to do with the cables themselves.
But the price does affect what kind of car the salesman drives.

In article replytogroup-0D26A0.14045617072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

--snip--

Eventually accuracy will ring true and be chosen by an experienced listener.

But not, IME, at the "high end". "Accuracy" doesn't seem to be too much of a motivation to those folks -- not any kind of accuracy you can measure, anyhow. And if you can't measure it, how can you possibly know it's accurate?

As long as they are regularly exposed to acoustic music for a reference.

I gave up on that Holy Grail a long time ago; it's hopeless. The best that any REproduction system can possibly hope for is to accurately reproduce the "waveform" of the audio as it is expressed on the transmission medium (I mean, the wiggles in the groove of an LP, or a plot of the waveform defined by the bits on a CD), as a sound field in front of a speaker. Period. If a music REproduction system adds anything to the waveform mentioned above, then it's become a music PROduction system -- IOW, you're making music, not playing it back.

It is totally impossible for any REproduction system to "reach back" beyond the storage medium to the live performance, because no existing recording system can capture anywhere near enough information to permit that to happen with any hope of accuracy.

Now, you might think that some system has that capability (on some carefully chosen source material, under some carefully controlled listening conditions), but the problem is that most of the time you have no way to know whether the illusion of venue your system produces is anything like the one where the recording was actually made. And so no matter how good it sounds, it's not "accurate". And no matter how good it makes some source material sound, it will inevitably act to make some source material sound worse (any audiophile worth his salt will, of course, simply classify those recordings as "junk" and try to find some others for which their system's artifact load is "beneficial").

--

If what you want is an accurate REproduction system -- one that is "source agnostic", then the best thing you can do is get gear that performs to the greatest extent possible to a "straight wire with gain". And that can be determined by properly utilized instrumentation, and not (absolutely not) by ears alone.

If this sounds like a long-winded way to say that "euphonic distortions" are a Bad Thing, well, that's right; they are.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-0D26A0.14045617072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-9E9839.11383017072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-B6AFF9.07364417072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Its hilarious. We're talking about sound differences. And you're saying " if you happen to have a decent grounding in science and audio technology, you can easily see the flaw in the explanations for all of those."

You are claiming that there are sound differences, yet you offer nothing to show that those differences actually exist. Meanwhile others are offering evidence to show that any perceived differences are merely illusionary.

So when you were in Japan, you spent all that money on equipment that sounded no better than what you were using before? Didn't you say you spent $600 on a tonearm?

Its funny. People claim that small differences don't exist. But when they go over to some audiophile's place and listen to some recording they are familiar with, most are floored by the difference. It used to happen at my place all the time. From people that just listen to music as background noise. The point here is a whole bunch of small improvements make a huge improvement. Trained ears can discern small differences. But it takes years to train them. Lots equipment that measures better doesn't sound better or may actually sound worse.

There's a whole class of errors produced by audio equipment called "euphonic distortions", so called because in some cases people can prefer the alterations they cause over the original material.

Single-ended amplifiers built with vacuum tubes and output transformers are particularly susceptible to even order harmonic distortion, which is in the class of euphonic distortions, for example, and some folks like the "punch" produced from soft clipping, another characteristic of tube amps.

They also excel in extracting more emotion out of the music.

There is nothing to "extract more emotion from" except the waveform as it is expressed in the transmission medium (the LP or CD). If an amplifier's output is other than a larger amplitude version of that waveform, then it has added distortion that did not exist during the performance, not "emotion".

Emotion is generally regarded as minute volume differences in tones. If you've ever played an acoustic instrument, you'll be well familiar with the impossibility of playing even an octave of notes of a scale with exactly the same touch. Of course an electronic instrument with no touch sensitivity will have no emotion as those volume differences are impossible to generate. Solid state equipment is getting better and better at this, but generally this is one of its weakness.

It sounds to me like you're confusing music PROduction with music REproduction. Or maybe some sorts of electronic musical instruments with a living room playback system. They are very different beasts.

Any amplifier worth using for REproduction -- whether solid state or tube -- will be capable of all the finesse needed to reproduce much finer differences in amplitude than any set of ears on earth can discern. Any failure to handle tiny changes in amplitude would show up easily on available instrumentation -- and it does not.

An amplifier (or any other device the signal passes through) that is used for music PROduction -- a guitar amp, say -- can do anything to the signal at all, just so long as the musician approves of the sound that comes out.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-D59CE8.14154717072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article isw-18FC4E.12001017072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-CA3D77.09244117072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

--snip--

Well I've heard the differences many times. And every one of my audiophile customers that wore glasses noticed the same things. Its all in how well the system is set up for imaging. Most people don't align the tweeters to the proper height (of course I'm referring to cone speakers as most people use them). And most people toe in their speakers, thereby destroying a lot of the depth available. And many people have their expensive speakers stands sitting on thick carpet nullifying any benefits of the stands. And having the speakers in the middle of the room is difficult in many living arrangements so they tend to get pushed too close to the back wall, destroying depth in the soundstage.

All of that is true only for a certain class of loudspeakers (cone drivers in boxes); there are other types of speakers that don't need that sort of treatment, and some people think those are superior.

Isaac

Name one type of speakers that don't require great care in height, depth and horizontal positioning.

Oh, most of them do need to have some attention paid to their positioning, but not to the same set of guidelines as for "drivers in boxes". And at least some of those don't require "great care" at all; some horns, for example, just need to get put into corners, and don't much care about carpet or "spikes".

Isaac

In article kDcni.45096$w44.211148@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

isw wrote:

When they can't disprove a person's statements, some folks resort to a personal attack (it's called "shoot the messenger"), and hope people don't notice. Usually it doesn't work.

I prefer Äúad hominem.Äù

I don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice 8^}
people tend to get confused.

Isaac

The New Guy wrote:

More idiotic tests. Hey Isaac. Do you have your Mommy buy your sound system for you?

Since you asked, I designed some of it, built most of it, and modified what I didn't design. CD player (modified); control preamp (designed and built); power amp (built from a kit and modified); horn speakers (built); subwoofer electronic crossover and amplifier (designed and built); subwoofer enclosure (designed and built).

And you?

Isaac

In article dwcni.44871$w44.209846@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Michelle Steiner wrote:

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson)

That, and gold is a better conductor than steel, aluminum and even copper.

Um, actually, gold is poorer than copper, but better than aluminum. Silver is slightly better than copper. Steel (iron) is pretty poor. Google for a table of resistivity values.

The usefulness of gold (in addition to the marketability of "shiny") is that it does not corrode.

Interestingly, while silver corrodes easily, the corrosion products are ugly but decently conductive, unlike aluminum or iron, for example.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-0E1137.13225917072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Ever heard of binaural recording? They use a dummy head with mics in the ears. Then its played back with headphones. The realism is uncanny. The shape of your face helps your hearing.

Heard of 'em, and heard 'em, too. They sound pretty bad when played through speakers; practically no stereo effect. There's a reverse problem showing up nowadays, though. So many folks are listening with iPods -- and a few unfortunate enough to be stuck with a Zune -- that a lot of mixdowns are being tailored for headphone listening, and that plays hob with the stereo soundfield when the stuff is played back through speakers.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-5CD018.13250217072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

And did it sound better than the one it replaced? Or did you buy it because of its compatibility with the new cartridge you bought at the time?

Yes, it did sound better; and I did not buy a new cartridge at the time. I bought a new cartridge a few months later, when I could afford it.

You do realize that many people will insist there are no audible differences between tonearms........:)

Sure, but their being wrong about that does not invalidate the fact that there is no audible difference between audio cables.

But why would you think there are audible differences between tonearms but not with cables? Audiophiles hear differences in both. (I haven't heard large differences in cables but I got out of high end audio before the rage of cables really hit hence my lack of comment in that area.)

Actual measurements show obvious differences between tonearms, and an analysis of their construction can show mathematically just why those differences exist. No legitimate test has ever shown any obvious (or even significant) difference between cables (other than resistance -- big wire has less than small wire) and an analysis of their construction shows very clearly that any differences are well below the human ability to perceive them.

Interestingly, IF a cable is long enough (hundreds of miles), the high frequencies get to the far end in advance of the lows to the extent that speech becomes unintelligible.

Isaac

The New Guy wrote:

Good imaging, good frequency response, but lacking warmth.

Warmth! LMFAO!!!

isw wrote:

In article dwcni.44871$w44.209846@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Michelle Steiner wrote:

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson) That, and gold is a better conductor than steel, aluminum and even copper.

Um, actually, gold is poorer than copper, but better than aluminum.

Well IÄôll be damned. YouÄôre right. IÄôd better dust off my textbooks. :|

Silver is slightly better than copper. Steel (iron) is pretty poor. Google for a table of resistivity values.

The usefulness of gold (in addition to the marketability of "shiny") is that it does not corrode.

Interestingly, while silver corrodes easily, the corrosion products are ugly but decently conductive, unlike aluminum or iron, for example.

And IÄôm guessing itÄôs relatively easy to plate many materials with a veeery thin layer of gold.

Output, as I remember was medium, about .3 mv so its a shame the transformer was used.

Got news for you: back in those days, all moving coil cartridges needed either a transformer or a pre-preamplifier. I couldn't afford a pre-preamp.

All? Moving coils came in various outputs. Guess you missed that in your buying research. Ortofons were extremely low so most everyone had to use a step-up device. But the Denons at .3 mv were of a median output so some people were able to depending on your standard for background noise in your system. If you were playing acoustic music the noise might have been more distracting than if you were playing louder non-acoustic music. Remember the Koetsu? It was about .5 so many got away with plugging it straight in as long as they didn't change the input impedance of their preamp to tame a somewhat screechy
high end that was usually caused by poor electronics. Then there were the high output moving coils that were about 1 - 2 mv. Most people didn't need any step-up device with those. It depended on the gain of your preamp, the input sensitivity of your power amp, and the efficiency of your speakers. And of course how much noise you could stand. But eliminating a whole amplification stage yielded a dramatic improvement in sound of course. Some people were even bypassing the high level stage in their preamps if they were using moving magnet cartridges (like some Graces and Grados) for the same benefit. Less is more.

Kimber speaker cables. Monster component interconnect cables.

Those cables were far more expensive than cheap throw in ones, so why did you opt for them?

Because I didn't know better at the time.

But thanks for showing that you know how to use search engines and to copy and paste information that you know nothing about. You'd make a great parrot.

Right. Yep. Thanks for your vote of confidence. You've got a lot of hate in you Michelle. I hope you someday get over it.

In article replytogroup-91CDB3.09005318072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Got news for you: back in those days, all moving coil cartridges needed either a transformer or a pre-preamplifier. I couldn't afford a pre-preamp.

All? Moving coils came in various outputs. Guess you missed that in your buying research.

Show me one moving coil cartridge of that era that didn't require pre-preamplification. Don't just name it, but give me a reference to its specs.

You've got a lot of hate in you Michelle. I hope you someday get over it.

No hate, just disgust at loud-mouth know-it-alls who really don't know what they're talking about.

I don't hate you; you're not significant enough to evoke that emotion.

Well I've heard the differences many times. And every one of my audiophile customers that wore glasses noticed the same things. Its all in how well the system is set up for imaging. Most people don't align the tweeters to the proper height (of course I'm referring to cone speakers as most people use them). And most people toe in their speakers, thereby destroying a lot of the depth available. And many people have their expensive speakers stands sitting on thick carpet nullifying any benefits of the stands. And having the speakers in the middle of the room is difficult in many living arrangements so they tend to get pushed too close to the back wall, destroying depth in the soundstage.

All of that is true only for a certain class of loudspeakers (cone drivers in boxes); there are other types of speakers that don't need that sort of treatment, and some people think those are superior.

Name one type of speakers that don't require great care in height, depth and horizontal positioning.

Oh, most of them do need to have some attention paid to their positioning, but not to the same set of guidelines as for "drivers in boxes". And at least some of those don't require "great care" at all; some horns, for example, just need to get put into corners, and don't much care about carpet or "spikes".

Actually planars, electrostatics and ribbons require the same positioning care as cone speakers, especially as almost all are dipolar (sound being produced both front and back). So its crucial to get them away from the back walls. I was experimenting with the original Quad electrostatic for a few months many years ago and was amazed at the imaging accuracy that was possible with good tube electronics, a superb moving coil cartridge going straight in to the preamp (not loaded down but running at 50k input impedance). They had to have the felt removed from the back, as well as all grills removed
and be raised so the middle of the panel was exactly at ear level which also necessitated a tilting forward of the panel so it stood vertical instead of tilted back. But the results were astonishing.
The speed of the midbass was also very surprising when coupled with the right poweramp. But without meticulous speaker setup I wouldn't have been able to assemble sound like that. Not even close. So in any speaker, the setup is crucial.

Horns are rarely used for imaging accuracy so I won't bother discussing them as my experience with them is extremely limited though I do acknowledge that they do produce dynamics in a way that cannot be replicated (unfortunately!) by any other type of speaker design.
Another advantage to using horns is their extreme efficiency allowing one a greater choice of power amplification, not to mention the gain advantage when trying to bypass amplification stages.

So people, if you want to really hear your speakers try this: For maximum bass you need to sit near the "front" wall or the wall facing the speakers. If this is a hard wall (most walls are), try hanging fabric that will absorb mid - high frequencies.
For maximum imaging realism you need the speakers as far away from the back wall as possible. 6 feet is a minimum. Side walls are less critical. 2 or 3 feet is usually fine for most designs. Just keep on moving the speakers away from the back wall until you get a hole in the middle in the imaging field, then back off so its perfect. That will allow maximum width and depth. Remove grills as these can wreck horizontal dispersion destroying imaging. Do NOT toe the speakers toward the listening position. Rather, point them straight ahead aligning the speakers within 1/4" from the back wall and hopefully, if your room allows it, equal distance from the side walls. Symmetry is important for imaging. Make sure the tweeters are at ear level. But experiment with this as some speakers are designed to be tilted back or forward. Trust your ears. There ain't many imaging specifications! Make sure your speaker stands do not rock! If you have carpet, use 3 wood screws to support the stands going through the carpet to the wood underneath.
If you've got concrete underneath, use spikes through the carpet. If you have a beautiful hardwood floor its more difficult. You then can only use spikes on pennies on the floor. Some people use duxseal plumbing compound under their speakers coupling them to the stands instead of spikes but you'll have to experiment with that.

Ever heard of binaural recording? They use a dummy head with mics in the ears. Then its played back with headphones. The realism is uncanny. The shape of your face helps your hearing.

Heard of 'em, and heard 'em, too. They sound pretty bad when played through speakers; practically no stereo effect.

Well duh..........Isaac they're designed to be played through headphones. That's why they use the dummy head mic. How you could even assume anyone would play them through speakers is rather odd.

Got news for you: back in those days, all moving coil cartridges needed either a transformer or a pre-preamplifier. I couldn't afford a pre-preamp.

All? Moving coils came in various outputs. Guess you missed that in your buying research.

Show me one moving coil cartridge of that era that didn't require pre-preamplification. Don't just name it, but give me a reference to its specs.

I myself used Denons without any step up devices. But not Ortofons.
Even used the Accuphase AC-2 and AC-3 without step up devices. Its not the cartridge that requires the step-up device. Its the system.
Its all about the gain of the system in total. You should know that.
These are the factors: Output of the cartridge in mv. Gain of the phono preamp in db. Gain of the high level stage in db. Input sensitivity (in mv) or gain of the power amp. Efficiency of the speakers and of course the size of the room and desired playback volume. Noise of the system.

Actually the power amp had the most surprising affect as they had widely different levels of gain with widely different levels of noise.
Solid state had distinct advantages in this area of course. Remember the PS 4 and 5 preamps? There were one the first (reasonably priced designs) that got on the band wagon that HP started. He was the one that stressed the importance of the elimination of the step-up device.
Just another example of his pioneering in this area. He also stressed the importance of not loading down the input impedance of the preamp.
That changed a lot of thinking and improved preamps for years. The guy was a visionary. Some people thought he should work for a company designing gear but then he would only have influenced one company. By journalism, he influenced the whole industry. Anyway, about that time tube preamp manufacturers really concentrated hard in this area with CJ and AR gradually lowering the noise floor and increasing the gain in succeeding designs til finally few moving coils were under .2 output so most could be used without a step-up device.

Michelle, remember the Win Strain Gauge? That went in the opposite direction with a tremendous output. But unfortunately it was a severely flawed design that was never refined. Awesome bass and dynamics though. I think it was possible to plug it in directly to a power amp it had so much gain.

isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

Heard of 'em, and heard 'em, too. They sound pretty bad when played through speakers; practically no stereo effect. There's a reverse problem showing up nowadays, though. So many folks are listening with iPods -- and a few unfortunate enough to be stuck with a Zune -- that a lot of mixdowns are being tailored for headphone listening, and that plays hob with the stereo soundfield when the stuff is played back through speakers.

I've sometimes wondered if anyone has designed a circuit which would allow some "leakage" from left and right channels when listening on headphones so as to more closely mimic listening on speakers where you do get some left speaker sound picked up by right ear (and right speaker left ear of course). Some mixes certainly sound strange on headphones with the extreme separation of channels.

In article itmni.51129$w44.293558@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

isw wrote:

In article dwcni.44871$w44.209846@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

Michelle Steiner wrote:

Gold-plated connectors do make sense, though; it keeps the connectors from corroding. The point of connection between items is the weakest link in a signal path. (Cue Ann Robinson) That, and gold is a better conductor than steel, aluminum and even copper.

Um, actually, gold is poorer than copper, but better than aluminum.

Well IÄôll be damned. YouÄôre right. IÄôd better dust off my textbooks. :|

Silver is slightly better than copper. Steel (iron) is pretty poor. Google for a table of resistivity values.

The usefulness of gold (in addition to the marketability of "shiny") is that it does not corrode.

Interestingly, while silver corrodes easily, the corrosion products are ugly but decently conductive, unlike aluminum or iron, for example.

And IÄôm guessing itÄôs relatively easy to plate many materials with a veeery thin layer of gold.

Yup. 50 microns is pretty standard for connectors that don't see much action -- the ones on RAM sticks, for example.

Isaac

There's a reverse problem showing up nowadays, though. So many folks are listening with iPods -- and a few unfortunate enough to be stuck with a Zune -- that a lot of mixdowns are being tailored for headphone listening, and that plays hob with the stereo soundfield when the stuff is played back through speakers.

I've sometimes wondered if anyone has designed a circuit which would allow some "leakage" from left and right channels when listening on headphones so as to more closely mimic listening on speakers where you do get some left speaker sound picked up by right ear (and right speaker left ear of course). Some mixes certainly sound strange on headphones with the extreme separation of channels.

What kind of headphones are you using? Remember that some listeners adjust to the headphone "affect" far better than others. It doesn't mean they listen more acutely. Just an auditory preference. Have you ever tried the Stax earspeakers?
The Sigmas were best at that but even the Lambdas had the sound
coming more from the front to better replicate the original soundstage. For a real headphone experience try the new top of the line Grado's. Also try them with a good headphone amp and also in a minimilist setup running right off the preamp, if the headphones are efficient enough. Both give interesting results.

In article replytogroup-7101D6.09240318072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

--snip --

Horns are rarely used for imaging accuracy so I won't bother discussing them as my experience with them is extremely limited

Well, if your experience were less limited, you'd have found out that some of them, at least, are capable of creating an exceptional sound stage.

though I do acknowledge that they do produce dynamics in a way that cannot be replicated (unfortunately!) by any other type of speaker design.

Yup. Lots of speakers clip on peaks. It's no better an idea there than it is on an amplifier.

Another advantage to using horns is their extreme efficiency allowing one a greater choice of power amplification, not to mention the gain advantage when trying to bypass amplification stages.

That used to matter, but with the avaliability of exceptionally linear solid-state units, it doesn't any more. Interestingly, most of the problem with early solid state amps (for horns especially) was at low levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

-- snippage of complicated stuff necessary to get good results from "cone in a box" speakers --

Remove grills as these can wreck horizontal dispersion destroying imaging.

Unless, of course, the engineers who designed the speakers actually knew what they were doing (gasp!), in which case those grills would be necessary for the unit to perform as intended.

-- snippage of a whole bunch more complicated stuff --

Or get a couple of good horns, stick 'em in the corners, and turn on the music. Twenty-foot wall? Not a problem; singers are still right near the middle. Try that with boxes 20 feet apart.

Isaac

In article isw-129FF9.23523817072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote: .....

Interestingly, IF a cable is long enough (hundreds of miles), the high frequencies get to the far end in advance of the lows to the extent that speech becomes unintelligible.

That explains why every time I call this guy in Europe it sounds like he is speaking a different language. :-)

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

There's a reverse problem showing up nowadays, though. So many folks are listening with iPods -- and a few unfortunate enough to be stuck with a Zune -- that a lot of mixdowns are being tailored for headphone listening, and that plays hob with the stereo soundfield when the stuff is played back through speakers.

I've sometimes wondered if anyone has designed a circuit which would allow some "leakage" from left and right channels when listening on headphones so as to more closely mimic listening on speakers where you do get some left speaker sound picked up by right ear (and right speaker left ear of course). Some mixes certainly sound strange on headphones with the extreme separation of channels.

What kind of headphones are you using? Remember that some listeners adjust to the headphone "affect" far better than others. It doesn't mean they listen more acutely. Just an auditory preference. Have you ever tried the Stax earspeakers?
The Sigmas were best at that but even the Lambdas had the sound
coming more from the front to better replicate the original soundstage. For a real headphone experience try the new top of the line Grado's. Also try them with a good headphone amp and also in a minimilist setup running right off the preamp, if the headphones are efficient enough. Both give interesting results.

I wasn't referring to my headphones particularly. I was making a general point about headphone listening as against listening via speakers.

Clearly when you listen on any headphones all the audio from the left channel of the stereo goes exclusively to the left ear, whilst if you listen on speakers some of the left speaker sound can actually be heard by the right ear as well as the left. This necessarily creates a very different sense of the stereo image. My speculation was about whether anyone has designed a circuit to compensate for this effect by intentionally allowing some of the respective channel's sound to cross over to the other ear when listening on headphones. (Obviously if the sound was recorded using the dummy head approach specifically for headphone listening this would not be appropriate.)

However, I suppose we shouldn't get too precious about the representation of a true stereo image on modern recordings. In nearly every case the stereo image is artificially created in the mix by panning individual tracks of relatively close miked instruments and adding various amounts of delay to create a sense of location and space. True stereo ORTF or XY microphone placement techniques may work for fairly small acoustic groups or choirs but that's about it as far as I know.

In article 1i1gogs.vi0c9aq67saeN%nonesuch@redacted.invalid, nonesuch@redacted.invalid (Adrian) wrote:

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

There's a reverse problem showing up nowadays, though. So many folks are listening with iPods -- and a few unfortunate enough to be stuck with a Zune -- that a lot of mixdowns are being tailored for headphone listening, and that plays hob with the stereo soundfield when the stuff is played back through speakers.

I've sometimes wondered if anyone has designed a circuit which would allow some "leakage" from left and right channels when listening on headphones so as to more closely mimic listening on speakers where you do get some left speaker sound picked up by right ear (and right speaker left ear of course). Some mixes certainly sound strange on headphones with the extreme separation of channels.

What kind of headphones are you using? Remember that some listeners adjust to the headphone "affect" far better than others. It doesn't mean they listen more acutely. Just an auditory preference. Have you ever tried the Stax earspeakers?
The Sigmas were best at that but even the Lambdas had the sound
coming more from the front to better replicate the original soundstage. For a real headphone experience try the new top of the line Grado's. Also try them with a good headphone amp and also in a minimilist setup running right off the preamp, if the headphones are efficient enough. Both give interesting results.

I wasn't referring to my headphones particularly. I was making a general point about headphone listening as against listening via speakers.

Clearly when you listen on any headphones all the audio from the left channel of the stereo goes exclusively to the left ear, whilst if you listen on speakers some of the left speaker sound can actually be heard by the right ear as well as the left. This necessarily creates a very different sense of the stereo image. My speculation was about whether anyone has designed a circuit to compensate for this effect by intentionally allowing some of the respective channel's sound to cross over to the other ear when listening on headphones. (Obviously if the sound was recorded using the dummy head approach specifically for headphone listening this would not be appropriate.)

However, I suppose we shouldn't get too precious about the representation of a true stereo image on modern recordings. In nearly every case the stereo image is artificially created in the mix by panning individual tracks of relatively close miked instruments and adding various amounts of delay to create a sense of location and space. True stereo ORTF or XY microphone placement techniques may work for fairly small acoustic groups or choirs but that's about it as far as I know.

That's it - any stereo system is only going to give you an approximation, even if the waveform arriving at each mic is exactly the same (except for amplitude) as that created by each speaker. An orchestra is a distributed sound source; a stereo system is barely that.

That's why having bought the kit I did 30 years ago, and it sounding fucking good, I haven't bothered to upgrade it.

Tim Streater timstreater@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 1i1gogs.vi0c9aq67saeN%nonesuch@redacted.invalid, nonesuch@redacted.invalid (Adrian) wrote:

I wasn't referring to my headphones particularly. I was making a general point about headphone listening as against listening via speakers.

Clearly when you listen on any headphones all the audio from the left channel of the stereo goes exclusively to the left ear, whilst if you listen on speakers some of the left speaker sound can actually be heard by the right ear as well as the left. This necessarily creates a very different sense of the stereo image. My speculation was about whether anyone has designed a circuit to compensate for this effect by intentionally allowing some of the respective channel's sound to cross over to the other ear when listening on headphones. (Obviously if the sound was recorded using the dummy head approach specifically for headphone listening this would not be appropriate.)

However, I suppose we shouldn't get too precious about the representation of a true stereo image on modern recordings. In nearly every case the stereo image is artificially created in the mix by panning individual tracks of relatively close miked instruments and adding various amounts of delay to create a sense of location and space. True stereo ORTF or XY microphone placement techniques may work for fairly small acoustic groups or choirs but that's about it as far as I know.

That's it - any stereo system is only going to give you an approximation, even if the waveform arriving at each mic is exactly the same (except for amplitude) as that created by each speaker. An orchestra is a distributed sound source; a stereo system is barely that.

That's why having bought the kit I did 30 years ago, and it sounding fucking good, I haven't bothered to upgrade it.

I would be too embarrassed in this elevated company to admit to my "hifi" components (34 year old speakers!) but it sounds good to me, and is often commented as sounding good by others.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

In article replytogroup-91CDB3.09005318072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Got news for you: back in those days, all moving coil cartridges needed either a transformer or a pre-preamplifier. I couldn't afford a pre-preamp. All? Moving coils came in various outputs. Guess you missed that in your buying research.

Show me one moving coil cartridge of that era that didn't require pre-preamplification. Don't just name it, but give me a reference to its specs.

You've got a lot of hate in you Michelle. I hope you someday get over it.

No hate, just disgust at loud-mouth know-it-alls who really don't know what they're talking about.

I don't hate you; you're not significant enough to evoke that emotion.

He's so far up himself that he should coat himself with grease and slip into the next world. It would be doing this group a favour if he did so anyway.

Xeno

Horns are rarely used for imaging accuracy so I won't bother discussing them as my experience with them is extremely limited

Well, if your experience were less limited, you'd have found out that some of them, at least, are capable of creating an exceptional sound stage.

I did say "rarely". And I said my experience with them is extremely limited. Guess its back to remedial reading class for you.

though I do acknowledge that they do produce dynamics in a way that cannot be replicated (unfortunately!) by any other type of speaker design.

Yup. Lots of speakers clip on peaks. It's no better an idea there than it is on an amplifier.

Clipping is an amplifier characteristic, not a speaker characteristic. Who said it was a better idea? I was talking about dynamics, not distortion. Back to the reading class for you.

Another advantage to using horns is their extreme efficiency allowing one a greater choice of power amplification, not to mention the gain advantage when trying to bypass amplification stages.

That used to matter, but with the avaliability of exceptionally linear solid-state units, it doesn't any more.

Linear? What's a linear amp? Please give an example of a linear amp that was or is commercially made. That's a new term to me but I've been out of high end for several years.

Interestingly, most of the problem with early solid state amps (for horns especially) was at low levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

If you have distortion in the crossover you fix it at source - at the crossover. How can an amp fix a problem in the crossover?

-- snippage of complicated stuff necessary to get good results from "cone in a box" speakers --

Stuff that you haven't tried obviously. Hence your lack of ability to detect smaller than immense audio differences when you experiment with equipment.

Remove grills as these can wreck horizontal dispersion destroying imaging.

Unless, of course, the engineers who designed the speakers actually knew what they were doing (gasp!), in which case those grills would be necessary for the unit to perform as intended.

Name one design where the grill doesn't impede horizontal dispersion,
not a manufacturer that claims (it doesn't make a difference).
Material in front of a sound radiator cannot help but impede things.

-- snippage of a whole bunch more complicated stuff --

Ditto from above.

Or get a couple of good horns, stick 'em in the corners, and turn on the music. Twenty-foot wall? Not a problem; singers are still right near the middle. Try that with boxes 20 feet apart.

Wow - you sound like a real discerning listener. lol.......

There's a reverse problem showing up nowadays, though. So many folks are listening with iPods -- and a few unfortunate enough to be stuck with a Zune -- that a lot of mixdowns are being tailored for headphone listening, and that plays hob with the stereo soundfield when the stuff is played back through speakers.

I've sometimes wondered if anyone has designed a circuit which would allow some "leakage" from left and right channels when listening on headphones so as to more closely mimic listening on speakers where you do get some left speaker sound picked up by right ear (and right speaker left ear of course). Some mixes certainly sound strange on headphones with the extreme separation of channels.

What kind of headphones are you using? Remember that some listeners adjust to the headphone "affect" far better than others. It doesn't mean they listen more acutely. Just an auditory preference. Have you ever tried the Stax earspeakers?
The Sigmas were best at that but even the Lambdas had the sound
coming more from the front to better replicate the original soundstage. For a real headphone experience try the new top of the line Grado's. Also try them with a good headphone amp and also in a minimilist setup running right off the preamp, if the headphones are efficient enough. Both give interesting results.

I wasn't referring to my headphones particularly. I was making a general point about headphone listening as against listening via speakers.

Clearly when you listen on any headphones all the audio from the left channel of the stereo goes exclusively to the left ear, whilst if you listen on speakers some of the left speaker sound can actually be heard by the right ear as well as the left. This necessarily creates a very different sense of the stereo image. My speculation was about whether anyone has designed a circuit to compensate for this effect by intentionally allowing some of the respective channel's sound to cross over to the other ear when listening on headphones. (Obviously if the sound was recorded using the dummy head approach specifically for headphone listening this would not be appropriate.)

No - no compensatory circuit that I've ever heard of. Circuitry equals distortion so less is more. Never insert anything you don't have to. Just try listening with good equipment. People love to make comments on equipment when they have never listened to the potential of that same equipment. Sound and imaging on headphones has to be adjusted to but can be extremely thrilling when presented with very low distortion, i.e. excellent equipment.

However, I suppose we shouldn't get too precious about the representation of a true stereo image on modern recordings. In nearly every case the stereo image is artificially created in the mix by panning individual tracks of relatively close miked instruments and adding various amounts of delay to create a sense of location and space. True stereo ORTF or XY microphone placement techniques may work for fairly small acoustic groups or choirs but that's about it as far as I know.

That is true, but nevertheless good equipment can great a spectacular sound that can really take your breath away.

Talking about recording......I remember HP writing about some turntable (I think it was the Goldmund Reference, can't be sure) and comparing an original 30 ips master tape on a Levinson modified Studor with a direct to disc of the same performance. I'm not sure how each was obtained. But he said that for the first time it was proven that vinyl was a better medium for recording than tape. This was a milestone in LP reproduction. Kind of exciting when you think about it since nobody up to that point ever thought 30 ips tape could be equaled by anything.

I wasn't referring to my headphones particularly. I was making a general point about headphone listening as against listening via speakers.

Clearly when you listen on any headphones all the audio from the left channel of the stereo goes exclusively to the left ear, whilst if you listen on speakers some of the left speaker sound can actually be heard by the right ear as well as the left. This necessarily creates a very different sense of the stereo image. My speculation was about whether anyone has designed a circuit to compensate for this effect by intentionally allowing some of the respective channel's sound to cross over to the other ear when listening on headphones. (Obviously if the sound was recorded using the dummy head approach specifically for headphone listening this would not be appropriate.)

However, I suppose we shouldn't get too precious about the representation of a true stereo image on modern recordings. In nearly every case the stereo image is artificially created in the mix by panning individual tracks of relatively close miked instruments and adding various amounts of delay to create a sense of location and space. True stereo ORTF or XY microphone placement techniques may work for fairly small acoustic groups or choirs but that's about it as far as I know.

That's it - any stereo system is only going to give you an approximation, even if the waveform arriving at each mic is exactly the same (except for amplitude) as that created by each speaker. An orchestra is a distributed sound source; a stereo system is barely that.

That's why having bought the kit I did 30 years ago, and it sounding fucking good, I haven't bothered to upgrade it.

I would be too embarrassed in this elevated company to admit to my "hifi" components (34 year old speakers!) but it sounds good to me, and is often commented as sounding good by others.

But after all is said and done, that is all that matters! I'm not into high end any more and still enjoy the sound immensely. I guess most things is life are simply relative.

In article 469e7d4c$0$14986$afc38c87@redacted.invalid, Xeno Lith xenolith@redacted.invalid wrote:

Michelle Steiner wrote:

In article replytogroup-91CDB3.09005318072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Got news for you: back in those days, all moving coil cartridges needed either a transformer or a pre-preamplifier. I couldn't afford a pre-preamp. All? Moving coils came in various outputs. Guess you missed that in your buying research.

Show me one moving coil cartridge of that era that didn't require pre-preamplification. Don't just name it, but give me a reference to its specs.

You've got a lot of hate in you Michelle. I hope you someday get over it.

No hate, just disgust at loud-mouth know-it-alls who really don't know what they're talking about.

I don't hate you; you're not significant enough to evoke that emotion.

He's so far up himself that he should coat himself with grease and slip into the next world. It would be doing this group a favour if he did so anyway.

Xeno

Glad you could contribute something to this thread, Xeno. Welcome.
We look forward to more enlightening input.

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

[...]

levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

If you have distortion in the crossover you fix it at source - at the crossover. How can an amp fix a problem in the crossover?

levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

If you have distortion in the crossover you fix it at source - at the crossover. How can an amp fix a problem in the crossover?

Ah, so you're that guy who have never heard of crossover distortion in amplifiers...

Never heard of it. Please explain. Especially as there are no crossovers in amplifiers. Unless you're using some cheapo unit designed for a car of course. And then they would be electronic but he sounded like he was talking about passive. Of course somebody trimmed the post down to nothing so most people won't be able to make sense of it. PEOPLE! Don't be too aggressive in trimming please!
Context is vital to threads. Better to have a little too much than too little, you know?

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

If you have distortion in the crossover you fix it at source - at the crossover. How can an amp fix a problem in the crossover?

Ah, so you're that guy who have never heard of crossover distortion in amplifiers...

Never heard of it. Please explain.

levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

If you have distortion in the crossover you fix it at source - at the crossover. How can an amp fix a problem in the crossover?

Ah, so you're that guy who have never heard of crossover distortion in amplifiers...

Never heard of it. Please explain.

Crossover distortion is about the first thing an amplifier designer has to learn how to handle. Google for it.

Ah - that's just another term for a characteristic of Class B amp design. I thought he was talking about crossover distortion in the horn speakers. Well if you're getting noticeable distortion in your amp, get a better design! I can't imagine that being a factor in any but the most bottom of the line amps. Not really relevant in this discussion I would have thought. Sort like when someone mentioned a first generation CD player.....we all know it sucked. No biggee.

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

If you have distortion in the crossover you fix it at source - at the crossover. How can an amp fix a problem in the crossover?

Ah, so you're that guy who have never heard of crossover distortion in amplifiers...

Never heard of it. Please explain.

Crossover distortion is about the first thing an amplifier designer has to learn how to handle. Google for it.

Ah - that's just another term for a characteristic of Class B amp design. I thought he was talking about crossover distortion in the horn speakers.

The New Guy wrote:

In article 469e7d4c$0$14986$afc38c87@redacted.invalid, Xeno Lith xenolith@redacted.invalid wrote:

Michelle Steiner wrote:

In article replytogroup-91CDB3.09005318072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Got news for you: back in those days, all moving coil cartridges needed either a transformer or a pre-preamplifier. I couldn't afford a pre-preamp. All? Moving coils came in various outputs. Guess you missed that in your buying research. Show me one moving coil cartridge of that era that didn't require pre-preamplification. Don't just name it, but give me a reference to its specs.

You've got a lot of hate in you Michelle. I hope you someday get over it. No hate, just disgust at loud-mouth know-it-alls who really don't know what they're talking about.

I don't hate you; you're not significant enough to evoke that emotion.

He's so far up himself that he should coat himself with grease and slip into the next world. It would be doing this group a favour if he did so anyway.

Xeno

Glad you could contribute something to this thread, Xeno. Welcome.
We look forward to more enlightening input.

Well, you surely haven't done anything remotely positive. Why don't you rename this thread you hijacked and take it over to alt.audiowankers or someplace where your cowyard confetti will blend in well with the rest. This thread no longer belongs here. In fact, it's people like you that are the reason I don't frequent alt.audio.xxxxx forums. People like you know just enough to be dangerous!

Xeno

In article 1i1h6ck.1ttwhraa1e6coN%bskb@redacted.invalid, bskb@redacted.invalid (Bjarne B0ckstrÆm) wrote:

The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

If you have distortion in the crossover you fix it at source - at the crossover. How can an amp fix a problem in the crossover?

Ah, so you're that guy who have never heard of crossover distortion in amplifiers...

Never heard of it. Please explain.

Crossover distortion is about the first thing an amplifier designer has to learn how to handle. Google for it.

Ah - that's just another term for a characteristic of Class B amp design. I thought he was talking about crossover distortion in the horn speakers.

Suuure... Read a few lines up. It's noted that you didn't even have a beginner's knowledge about amplifier distortion mechanisms before Googling for it.

I know nothing about amplification distortion mechanism. However I have thousands of hours of experience with listening to amplifiers' sound. That is a trifle more relevant when comparing equipment. What he was talking about is a non-issue any any quality amp. I was also using some Class A amps which of course don't have that problem at all. Some of the best SS amps in the world are Class B. Its just a design type. Not so indicative of quality of sound. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, though there are probably more top end Class A amps than Class B. Class A amps also produce a huge amount of heat which can really be a consideration in the summer months if you don't have air conditioning and are bi-amping or tri-amping your speakers. More so if you're running dual monos. In that scenario you might have 6 chassis' running very hot.

In article 469eb675$0$25982$afc38c87@redacted.invalid, Xeno Lith xenolith@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

In article 469e7d4c$0$14986$afc38c87@redacted.invalid, Xeno Lith xenolith@redacted.invalid wrote:

Michelle Steiner wrote:

In article replytogroup-91CDB3.09005318072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Got news for you: back in those days, all moving coil cartridges needed either a transformer or a pre-preamplifier. I couldn't afford a pre-preamp. All? Moving coils came in various outputs. Guess you missed that in your buying research. Show me one moving coil cartridge of that era that didn't require pre-preamplification. Don't just name it, but give me a reference to its specs.

You've got a lot of hate in you Michelle. I hope you someday get over it. No hate, just disgust at loud-mouth know-it-alls who really don't know what they're talking about.

I don't hate you; you're not significant enough to evoke that emotion.

He's so far up himself that he should coat himself with grease and slip into the next world. It would be doing this group a favour if he did so anyway.

Glad you could contribute something to this thread, Xeno. Welcome.
We look forward to more enlightening input.

Well, you surely haven't done anything remotely positive. Why don't you rename this thread you hijacked and take it over to alt.audiowankers or someplace where your cowyard confetti will blend in well with the rest. This thread no longer belongs here. In fact, it's people like you that are the reason I don't frequent alt.audio.xxxxx forums. People like you know just enough to be dangerous!

Xeno

Hey, if you have an audio opinion, state it. If you disagree with an audio statement I made, state why you disagree. Fair enough?

In article replytogroup-020FD0.18011318072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Ah - that's just another term for a characteristic of Class B amp design. I thought he was talking about crossover distortion in the horn speakers. Well if you're getting noticeable distortion in your amp, get a better design! I can't imagine that being a factor in any but the most bottom of the line amps. Not really relevant in this discussion I would have thought. Sort like when someone mentioned a first generation CD player.....we all know it sucked. No biggee.

What was it Bob Dylan wrote about "someone who tries to hide what he don't know to begin with..."?

The New Guy wrote:

In article 469eb675$0$25982$afc38c87@redacted.invalid, Xeno Lith xenolith@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

In article 469e7d4c$0$14986$afc38c87@redacted.invalid, Xeno Lith xenolith@redacted.invalid wrote:

Michelle Steiner wrote:

In article replytogroup-91CDB3.09005318072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Got news for you: back in those days, all moving coil cartridges needed either a transformer or a pre-preamplifier. I couldn't afford a pre-preamp. All? Moving coils came in various outputs. Guess you missed that in your buying research. Show me one moving coil cartridge of that era that didn't require pre-preamplification. Don't just name it, but give me a reference to its specs.

You've got a lot of hate in you Michelle. I hope you someday get over it. No hate, just disgust at loud-mouth know-it-alls who really don't know what they're talking about.

I don't hate you; you're not significant enough to evoke that emotion.

He's so far up himself that he should coat himself with grease and slip into the next world. It would be doing this group a favour if he did so anyway. Glad you could contribute something to this thread, Xeno. Welcome.
We look forward to more enlightening input. Well, you surely haven't done anything remotely positive. Why don't you rename this thread you hijacked and take it over to alt.audiowankers or someplace where your cowyard confetti will blend in well with the rest. This thread no longer belongs here. In fact, it's people like you that are the reason I don't frequent alt.audio.xxxxx forums. People like you know just enough to be dangerous!

Xeno

Hey, if you have an audio opinion, state it. If you disagree with an audio statement I made, state why you disagree. Fair enough?

The problem is; you have too many opinions all of which cannot be backed up by fact. Many others have made statements disagreeing with your opinions only to be met with jeers, taunts and insults. The only opinion I have right now is that you and this hijacked thread belong someplace else. A schoolyard maybe? Certainly your attitude smacks of the oneupmanship that adolescent males typically display. I grew out of that sort of attitude long before my teens, you obviously haven't. Now, for the last time, a thread on audio does not belong in comp.sys.mac.hardware unless you perhaps relate it to the audio capabilities of a Mac. In this forum, that is about the only audio capability I am interested in.

Xeno

In article replytogroup-A16D90.20521418072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hey, if you have an audio opinion, state it. If you disagree with an audio statement I made, state why you disagree.

You first. Take your own advice. You are long on proclamations, but short on rationale.

Ah - that's just another term for a characteristic of Class B amp design. I thought he was talking about crossover distortion in the horn speakers. Well if you're getting noticeable distortion in your amp, get a better design! I can't imagine that being a factor in any but the most bottom of the line amps. Not really relevant in this discussion I would have thought. Sort like when someone mentioned a first generation CD player.....we all know it sucked. No biggee.

What was it Bob Dylan wrote about "someone who tries to hide what he don't know to begin with..."?

Well if I said something incorrect why not specifically comment on that? In any competently chosen system crossover distortion will not be an issue just as speakers pointing in different directions with holes in the woofers won't be either. Its an absurd comment with absolutely no relevance to high end audio. Its like talking about a fully loaded Mac Pro hooked up to a 14" VGA monitor @redacted.invalid 640 x 480 resolution. It makes no sense.

In article 469ec91a$0$30511$afc38c87@redacted.invalid, Xeno Lith xenolith@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

In article 469eb675$0$25982$afc38c87@redacted.invalid, Xeno Lith xenolith@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

In article 469e7d4c$0$14986$afc38c87@redacted.invalid, Xeno Lith xenolith@redacted.invalid wrote:

Michelle Steiner wrote:

In article replytogroup-91CDB3.09005318072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Got news for you: back in those days, all moving coil cartridges needed either a transformer or a pre-preamplifier. I couldn't afford a pre-preamp. All? Moving coils came in various outputs. Guess you missed that in your buying research. Show me one moving coil cartridge of that era that didn't require pre-preamplification. Don't just name it, but give me a reference to its specs.

You've got a lot of hate in you Michelle. I hope you someday get over it. No hate, just disgust at loud-mouth know-it-alls who really don't know what they're talking about.

I don't hate you; you're not significant enough to evoke that emotion.

He's so far up himself that he should coat himself with grease and slip into the next world. It would be doing this group a favour if he did so anyway. Glad you could contribute something to this thread, Xeno. Welcome.
We look forward to more enlightening input. Well, you surely haven't done anything remotely positive. Why don't you rename this thread you hijacked and take it over to alt.audiowankers or someplace where your cowyard confetti will blend in well with the rest. This thread no longer belongs here. In fact, it's people like you that are the reason I don't frequent alt.audio.xxxxx forums. People like you know just enough to be dangerous!

Xeno

Hey, if you have an audio opinion, state it. If you disagree with an audio statement I made, state why you disagree. Fair enough?

The problem is; you have too many opinions all of which cannot be backed up by fact.

Fact is what people hear. What people hear is what people should pay for. Most of you don't have a clue about audio and yet are still commenting in that area. Its like me trying to discuss advanced software programming or any software programming, for that matter. I wouldn't do it because I have nothing to contribute in that area.
Comment on what you know otherwise its useless. If the thread is on audio, comment on audio. If the thread is on the Finder, comment on the Finder. Most of the comments here have nothing to do with audio, made by people that couldn't hear audio differences if their life depended on it, mainly because of a complacent attitude during the purchase of their equipment.

Many others have made statements disagreeing with your opinions only to be met with jeers, taunts and insults. The only opinion I have right now is that you and this hijacked thread belong someplace else. A schoolyard maybe? Certainly your attitude smacks of the oneupmanship that adolescent males typically display.

So why are you perpetuating the thread by commenting on it? Kill file the subject and kill file me. Problem solved. Is that so hard? Why waste your time in an area you're not interested in? Many people that use Macs care about their sound so there is somewhat of a crossover topic here, admittedly not much though.

I grew out of that sort of attitude long before my teens, you obviously haven't. Now, for the last time, a thread on audio does not belong in comp.sys.mac.hardware unless you perhaps relate it to the audio capabilities of a Mac. In this forum, that is about the only audio capability I am interested in.

We really couldn't care less Xeno. But if you had a comment on audio or Mac or something relevant, perhaps we could.

Hey, if you have an audio opinion, state it. If you disagree with an audio statement I made, state why you disagree.

You first. Take your own advice. You are long on proclamations, but short on rationale.

You're hilarious. You delete everything I'm saying, then try to put me down. Priceless. Michelle, you used to have something to say. You know, like something pertinent to the subject? You used to be very specific. Are you on some sort of powerful meds? Something or someone depressing you? A bad week or 2 at work? And if you're sick of me killfile me! Your comments are (almost) totally useless in this thread.

In article replytogroup-2ACA0E.17012518072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Horns are rarely used for imaging accuracy so I won't bother discussing them as my experience with them is extremely limited

Well, if your experience were less limited, you'd have found out that some of them, at least, are capable of creating an exceptional sound stage.

I did say "rarely". And I said my experience with them is extremely limited. Guess its back to remedial reading class for you.

though I do acknowledge that they do produce dynamics in a way that cannot be replicated (unfortunately!) by any other type of speaker design.

Yup. Lots of speakers clip on peaks. It's no better an idea there than it is on an amplifier.

Clipping is an amplifier characteristic, not a speaker characteristic. Who said it was a better idea? I was talking about dynamics, not distortion. Back to the reading class for you.

When the voice coil of a speaker hits the stops, that's clipping.

Another advantage to using horns is their extreme efficiency allowing one a greater choice of power amplification, not to mention the gain advantage when trying to bypass amplification stages.

That used to matter, but with the avaliability of exceptionally linear solid-state units, it doesn't any more.

Linear? What's a linear amp? Please give an example of a linear amp that was or is commercially made. That's a new term to me but I've been out of high end for several years.

Dave Hafler designed some exceptional units. On some of them, there was a way to hook up one channel so it amplified the difference between the input and output of the other channel. Hook the first channel to any load you want, including a speaker. Hook the difference amplifier to another speaker, isolated from the first (so you can hear whatever comes out of it).

What would come out is an amplified version of any non-linearity in the first channel (any way that the output differed from the input except pure gain). In fact, there was nothing to hear, at any level from very low up to clipping.

THAT is linear.

Interestingly, most of the problem with early solid state amps (for horns especially) was at low levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

If you have distortion in the crossover you fix it at source - at the crossover. How can an amp fix a problem in the crossover?

I was talking about croossover distortion in the output stage of the amplifier. It's a well-known problem.

Or get a couple of good horns, stick 'em in the corners, and turn on the music. Twenty-foot wall? Not a problem; singers are still right near the middle. Try that with boxes 20 feet apart.

Wow - you sound like a real discerning listener. lol.......

lol indeed. I did audio (design and operation) professionally for some years.

Isaac

In article 1i1gm33.ls7mlu1o1uneN%nonesuch@redacted.invalid, nonesuch@redacted.invalid (Adrian) wrote:

isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

Heard of 'em, and heard 'em, too. They sound pretty bad when played through speakers; practically no stereo effect. There's a reverse problem showing up nowadays, though. So many folks are listening with iPods -- and a few unfortunate enough to be stuck with a Zune -- that a lot of mixdowns are being tailored for headphone listening, and that plays hob with the stereo soundfield when the stuff is played back through speakers.

I've sometimes wondered if anyone has designed a circuit which would allow some "leakage" from left and right channels when listening on headphones so as to more closely mimic listening on speakers where you do get some left speaker sound picked up by right ear (and right speaker left ear of course). Some mixes certainly sound strange on headphones with the extreme separation of channels.

Things like that exist; google around a bit.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-5323BC.12450418072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

There's a reverse problem showing up nowadays, though. So many folks are listening with iPods -- and a few unfortunate enough to be stuck with a Zune -- that a lot of mixdowns are being tailored for headphone listening, and that plays hob with the stereo soundfield when the stuff is played back through speakers.

I've sometimes wondered if anyone has designed a circuit which would allow some "leakage" from left and right channels when listening on headphones so as to more closely mimic listening on speakers where you do get some left speaker sound picked up by right ear (and right speaker left ear of course). Some mixes certainly sound strange on headphones with the extreme separation of channels.

What kind of headphones are you using? Remember that some listeners adjust to the headphone "affect" far better than others. It doesn't mean they listen more acutely. Just an auditory preference. Have you ever tried the Stax earspeakers?
The Sigmas were best at that but even the Lambdas had the sound
coming more from the front to better replicate the original soundstage. For a real headphone experience try the new top of the line Grado's. Also try them with a good headphone amp and also in a minimilist setup running right off the preamp, if the headphones are efficient enough. Both give interesting results.

No headphones ever made can give you that "kick in the chest" effect that good speakers deliver.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-D2630E.22175018072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hey, if you have an audio opinion, state it. If you disagree with an audio statement I made, state why you disagree.

You first. Take your own advice. You are long on proclamations, but short on rationale.

You're hilarious. You delete everything I'm saying, then try to put me down.

Unlike you, I quote only that to which I am replying, so people don't have to wade through unrelated stuff they've read before. Unlike you, I retain the attribution line so people can check back the reference if they want to need to.

I find it highly amusing that you complain about me trying to put you down when all I did was suggest that you should take your own advice.

Michelle, you used to have something to say. You know, like something pertinent to the subject? You used to be very specific.
Are you on some sort of powerful meds? Something or someone depressing you? A bad week or 2 at work? And if you're sick of me killfile me! Your comments are (almost) totally useless in this thread.

And you dare to complain about me trying to put you down!!! You are one of the most obnoxious assholes I have ever encountered; you are hypocritical and a liar, and ignorant about anything you write about here.

Your comments are less than worthless because some poor schlub might think that you actually know what you are talking about and believe you.

You are in serious need of psychiatric care, you dolt!

though I do acknowledge that they do produce dynamics in a way that cannot be replicated (unfortunately!) by any other type of speaker design.

Yup. Lots of speakers clip on peaks. It's no better an idea there than it is on an amplifier.

Clipping is an amplifier characteristic, not a speaker characteristic. Who said it was a better idea? I was talking about dynamics, not distortion. Back to the reading class for you.

When the voice coil of a speaker hits the stops, that's clipping.

That sounds like a driver (usually a woofer of course) bottoming out because the crossover point is too low. Is that what you mean? Of course on a normal system this would never happen. It could also occur when the turntable fails to isolate itself from low frequencies (subsonics) from the speakers or subs. But that's just bad turntable design or setup.

Another advantage to using horns is their extreme efficiency allowing one a greater choice of power amplification, not to mention the gain advantage when trying to bypass amplification stages.

That used to matter, but with the avaliability of exceptionally linear solid-state units, it doesn't any more.

Linear? What's a linear amp? Please give an example of a linear amp that was or is commercially made. That's a new term to me but I've been out of high end for several years.

Dave Hafler designed some exceptional units. On some of them, there was a way to hook up one channel so it amplified the difference between the input and output of the other channel. Hook the first channel to any load you want, including a speaker. Hook the difference amplifier to another speaker, isolated from the first (so you can hear whatever comes out of it).

What would come out is an amplified version of any non-linearity in the first channel (any way that the output differed from the input except pure gain). In fact, there was nothing to hear, at any level from very low up to clipping.

THAT is linear.

Too bad he never made much of anything that sounded very good. It was fine for the money. Sort of the Toyota Corolla of audio. I do remember the DH400 and all the mods people concocted for that thing.
Then the DH500 - couldn't that model drive a very low impedance load?
Like something like an ohm? Can't remember.

Interestingly, most of the problem with early solid state amps (for horns especially) was at low levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

If you have distortion in the crossover you fix it at source - at the crossover. How can an amp fix a problem in the crossover?

I was talking about croossover distortion in the output stage of the amplifier. It's a well-known problem.

Maybe on lousy amps.

Or get a couple of good horns, stick 'em in the corners, and turn on the music. Twenty-foot wall? Not a problem; singers are still right near the middle. Try that with boxes 20 feet apart.

Wow - you sound like a real discerning listener. lol.......

lol indeed. I did audio (design and operation) professionally for some years.

What kind of stuff was your favorite kind of designing?

Question: Have you noticed any hearing damage from exposure to loud music (if you had lots of exposure to loud music when operating as a sound professional)? I'm amazed that even in this day and age, after learning about the sensitivity of our ears to high levels of sound, most pro audio controllers insist on keeping the volume at levels sure to damage hearing, even when young children are present. This is the height of irresponsibility as we all know young ears are much more sensitive to this kind of auditory abuse. (Isaac, I'm not grouping you in there with them.)

In article isw-ECC359.21025318072007@redacted.invalid, isw isw@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-5323BC.12450418072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

There's a reverse problem showing up nowadays, though. So many folks are listening with iPods -- and a few unfortunate enough to be stuck with a Zune -- that a lot of mixdowns are being tailored for headphone listening, and that plays hob with the stereo soundfield when the stuff is played back through speakers.

I've sometimes wondered if anyone has designed a circuit which would allow some "leakage" from left and right channels when listening on headphones so as to more closely mimic listening on speakers where you do get some left speaker sound picked up by right ear (and right speaker left ear of course). Some mixes certainly sound strange on headphones with the extreme separation of channels.

What kind of headphones are you using? Remember that some listeners adjust to the headphone "affect" far better than others. It doesn't mean they listen more acutely. Just an auditory preference. Have you ever tried the Stax earspeakers?
The Sigmas were best at that but even the Lambdas had the sound
coming more from the front to better replicate the original soundstage. For a real headphone experience try the new top of the line Grado's. Also try them with a good headphone amp and also in a minimilist setup running right off the preamp, if the headphones are efficient enough. Both give interesting results.

No headphones ever made can give you that "kick in the chest" effect that good speakers deliver.

Isaac

That is, unfortunately, VERY true! Especially from horns. I once heard a friend's system with reworked JBL horns, totally rebuilt Mac amps, state of the art CJ preamp, Accuphase moving coil cartridge on an Ittok/Oracle. He put on the Sheffield drum record. Well......WOW.
I'll never forget it. I think my chest is still sore.......:) But a nice soreness, nevertheless. That was an eye opener. Previously the only horns I had heard were useless Klipsch ones that sounded absolutely horrible. What a contrast. He even had some reasonable imaging. Nothing very good, mind you, but reasonable. But the dynamics were breathtaking.

In article michelle-255C66.21553518072007@redacted.invalid, Michelle Steiner michelle@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article replytogroup-D2630E.22175018072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Hey, if you have an audio opinion, state it. If you disagree with an audio statement I made, state why you disagree.

You first. Take your own advice. You are long on proclamations, but short on rationale.

You're hilarious. You delete everything I'm saying, then try to put me down.

Unlike you, I quote only that to which I am replying, so people don't have to wade through unrelated stuff they've read before. Unlike you, I retain the attribution line so people can check back the reference if they want to need to.

I find it highly amusing that you complain about me trying to put you down when all I did was suggest that you should take your own advice.

Michelle, you used to have something to say. You know, like something pertinent to the subject? You used to be very specific.
Are you on some sort of powerful meds? Something or someone depressing you? A bad week or 2 at work? And if you're sick of me killfile me! Your comments are (almost) totally useless in this thread.

And you dare to complain about me trying to put you down!!! You are one of the most obnoxious assholes I have ever encountered; you are hypocritical and a liar, and ignorant about anything you write about here.

Your comments are less than worthless because some poor schlub might think that you actually know what you are talking about and believe you.

You are in serious need of psychiatric care, you dolt!

And what exactly, audio wise, did I say that was ignorant (in your opinion of course)?

In article replytogroup-020FD0.18011318072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

levels. Crossover distortion tends to be a constant amount, so as the level goes down, as a percentage, it pops up. Sounds nasty, too. SS amps haven't had that problem for a long time, though. The first SS amp I designed from scratch was intended to deal with that very problem.

If you have distortion in the crossover you fix it at source - at the crossover. How can an amp fix a problem in the crossover?

Ah, so you're that guy who have never heard of crossover distortion in amplifiers...

Never heard of it. Please explain.

Crossover distortion is about the first thing an amplifier designer has to learn how to handle. Google for it.

Ah - that's just another term for a characteristic of Class B amp design. I thought he was talking about crossover distortion in the horn speakers. Well if you're getting noticeable distortion in your amp, get a better design! I can't imagine that being a factor in any but the most bottom of the line amps. Not really relevant in this discussion I would have thought. Sort like when someone mentioned a first generation CD player.....we all know it sucked. No biggee.

No it didn't.

The New Guy wrote:

Ah - that's just another term for a characteristic of Class B amp design. I thought he was talking about crossover distortion in the horn speakers. Well if you're getting noticeable distortion in your amp, get a better design! I can't imagine that being a factor in any but the most bottom of the line amps. Not really relevant in this discussion I would have thought. Sort like when someone mentioned a first generation CD player.....we all know it sucked. No biggee.

Do yourself a favour and just shut up.

The New Guy wrote:

Hey, if you have an audio opinion, state it. If you disagree with an audio statement I made, state why you disagree. Fair enough?

ThatÄôs much more fairness than you deserve at this point.

The New Guy wrote:

if you're sick of me killfile me!

ThatÄôs the first worthwhile advice IÄôve heard from you so far.

The New Guy wrote:

And what exactly, audio wise, did I say that was ignorant (in your opinion of course)?

For starters, you had not even the slightest clue about crossover distortion.

isw wrote:

No headphones ever made can give you that "kick in the chest" effect that good speakers deliver.

But they can give you a Äúkick in the headÄù effect which itself can be fun.

In article 8bIni.1964$pw.5985@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

And what exactly, audio wise, did I say that was ignorant (in your opinion of course)?

For starters, you had not even the slightest clue about crossover distortion.

As I just explained, in any decent amp its a non-problem. Its like driving a Ferrari that hasn't been tuned up.

The New Guy wrote:

In article 8bIni.1964$pw.5985@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

And what exactly, audio wise, did I say that was ignorant (in your opinion of course)? For starters, you had not even the slightest clue about crossover distortion.

As I just explained, in any decent amp its a non-problem.

No. Before that. Before someone had to tell you Google it, smartass.

In article replytogroup-F1FAAE.09035819072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

In article 8bIni.1964$pw.5985@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

The New Guy wrote:

And what exactly, audio wise, did I say that was ignorant (in your opinion of course)?

For starters, you had not even the slightest clue about crossover distortion.

As I just explained, in any decent amp its a non-problem. Its like driving a Ferrari that hasn't been tuned up.

Oh goody - a new thread hijack.

In article replytogroup-718C00.00190519072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

though I do acknowledge that they do produce dynamics in a way that cannot be replicated (unfortunately!) by any other type of speaker design.

Yup. Lots of speakers clip on peaks. It's no better an idea there than it is on an amplifier.

Clipping is an amplifier characteristic, not a speaker characteristic. Who said it was a better idea? I was talking about dynamics, not distortion. Back to the reading class for you.

When the voice coil of a speaker hits the stops, that's clipping.

That sounds like a driver (usually a woofer of course) bottoming out because the crossover point is too low. Is that what you mean?

"Bottoming out" is another name for it, but it's still clipping -- the peaks of the wave get flattened. It might be a badly chosen crossover point, but it's also caused (and a lot more often) simply by overdriving the speaker.

Of course on a normal system this would never happen.

Sure it does; people turn the level up too high all the time.

It could also occur when the turntable fails to isolate itself from low frequencies (subsonics) from the speakers or subs. But that's just bad turntable design or setup.

I think it's almost impossible to get anything close to perfect turntable isolation, and the feedback often is one source of euphonic distortion that causes some folks to wax rhapsodic about the "superiority" of analog over digital. Often, when comparing a reissued CD to the "original" LP, the CD seems lacking in bass or "punch". There is no way the low frequency response of a vinyl system can be as good as that of a CD, so something odd must be going on and I think it's feedback from speaker to 'table enhancing the bass.

Dave Hafler designed some exceptional units. On some of them, there was a way to hook up one channel so it amplified the difference between the input and output of the other channel. Hook the first channel to any load you want, including a speaker. Hook the difference amplifier to another speaker, isolated from the first (so you can hear whatever comes out of it).

What would come out is an amplified version of any non-linearity in the first channel (any way that the output differed from the input except pure gain). In fact, there was nothing to hear, at any level from very low up to clipping.

THAT is linear.

Too bad he never made much of anything that sounded very good.

Not to folks who favor euphonic distortions, no. An amplifier that adds nothing to the signal passing through it cannot possibly have any kind of "sound", and I think that is precisely what a fine amplifier for REproduction should do.

I was talking about croossover distortion in the output stage of the amplifier. It's a well-known problem.

Maybe on lousy amps.

Yup, and that was practically every one of the first-generation SS amps. It gave the whole genre a bad reputation. On high-efficiency speakers the problem was very much worse. Then the (good) designers learned that measurements which were entirely adequate for tube designs didn't expose all the problems of SS ones, started measuring more parameters, and made the problem go away.

lol indeed. I did audio (design and operation) professionally for some years.

What kind of stuff was your favorite kind of designing?

I'm a physicist by training and an EE by profession. I have had a lifelong interest in what is really necessary for excellent REproduction of audio in a domestic environment. I used the process of design as a way to learn about what various pieces of gear should do, and what didn't matter. I am strongly of the opinion that no piece of gear used in REproduction should have any sort of "sound" at all.

Question: Have you noticed any hearing damage from exposure to loud music (if you had lots of exposure to loud music when operating as a sound professional)?

I was an operating engineer in professional broadcasting for a while -- no loud stuff there to speak of, but lots of music production and reproduction. Then I moved into design and did a very wide range of things -- broadcast transmitters, instrumentation and control, precision imaging, digital video, ...

For years, I've have an audio system that is capable of playing at very high levels (a sustained 120 dB plus, on musical material, measured) but that's because I don't want it to clip -- ever -- even on occasional peaks.

I think that a lot of folks these days are taking a real chance of ear damage because of the current combination of earphone listening and the type of music that tend to play.

I'm amazed that even in this day and age, after learning about the sensitivity of our ears to high levels of sound, most pro audio controllers insist on keeping the volume at levels sure to damage hearing, even when young children are present. This is the height of irresponsibility as we all know young ears are much more sensitive to this kind of auditory abuse. (Isaac, I'm not grouping you in there with them.)

As may be, but if they turned it down, nobody would pay for it.

Isaac

In article replytogroup-5EA3ED.22142218072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

Fact is what people hear.

No, it's not, any more than it is what people see. There are both auditory and visual illusions that clearly demonstrate how very easy it is to fool either sense.

Isaac

though I do acknowledge that they do produce dynamics in a way that cannot be replicated (unfortunately!) by any other type of speaker design.

Yup. Lots of speakers clip on peaks. It's no better an idea there than it is on an amplifier.

Clipping is an amplifier characteristic, not a speaker characteristic. Who said it was a better idea? I was talking about dynamics, not distortion. Back to the reading class for you.

When the voice coil of a speaker hits the stops, that's clipping.

That sounds like a driver (usually a woofer of course) bottoming out because the crossover point is too low. Is that what you mean?

"Bottoming out" is another name for it, but it's still clipping -- the peaks of the wave get flattened. It might be a badly chosen crossover point, but it's also caused (and a lot more often) simply by overdriving the speaker.

Well at least we understand each other. If the the crossover point is too low, you raise it or change the slope of it. Problem solved. And if its the turntable you change it, or isolate it properly. Its not a "problem" in high end audio as tire pressure is not a problem in exotic cars. You fix the problem and get on with things.

Of course on a normal system this would never happen.

Sure it does; people turn the level up too high all the time.

I guess if you're intent on damaging your hearing you turn it up too high. I've never heard of this problem with dedicated listeners though.

It could also occur when the turntable fails to isolate itself from low frequencies (subsonics) from the speakers or subs. But that's just bad turntable design or setup.

I think it's almost impossible to get anything close to perfect turntable isolation, and the feedback often is one source of euphonic distortion that causes some folks to wax rhapsodic about the "superiority" of analog over digital. Often, when comparing a reissued CD to the "original" LP, the CD seems lacking in bass or "punch". There is no way the low frequency response of a vinyl system can be as good as that of a CD, so something odd must be going on and I think it's feedback from speaker to 'table enhancing the bass.

What turntables have you used? Maybe that's the problem. You don't get good isolation for a few hundred dollars you know.

Dave Hafler designed some exceptional units. On some of them, there was a way to hook up one channel so it amplified the difference between the input and output of the other channel. Hook the first channel to any load you want, including a speaker. Hook the difference amplifier to another speaker, isolated from the first (so you can hear whatever comes out of it).

What would come out is an amplified version of any non-linearity in the first channel (any way that the output differed from the input except pure gain). In fact, there was nothing to hear, at any level from very low up to clipping.

THAT is linear.

Too bad he never made much of anything that sounded very good.

Not to folks who favor euphonic distortions, no. An amplifier that adds nothing to the signal passing through it cannot possibly have any kind of "sound", and I think that is precisely what a fine amplifier for REproduction should do.

No respectable high end audio reviewer ever gushed over Hafler. Its the Toyota Corolla of audio. Nothing wrong with that. But that's all it was. Much like DCM Time Windows were. Great for the money but you can't expect too much out of them.

I was talking about croossover distortion in the output stage of the amplifier. It's a well-known problem.

Maybe on lousy amps.

Yup, and that was practically every one of the first-generation SS amps. It gave the whole genre a bad reputation. On high-efficiency speakers the problem was very much worse. Then the (good) designers learned that measurements which were entirely adequate for tube designs didn't expose all the problems of SS ones, started measuring more parameters, and made the problem go away.

The problem is that most audio designers don't listen to their equipment enough. The ones that do realize that some things that look important in theory aren't as important as other things that don't look so important in theory. And those thinkers that are listening and comparing constantly make the greatest strides obviously in designing equipment that actually sounds better.

lol indeed. I did audio (design and operation) professionally for some years.

What kind of stuff was your favorite kind of designing?

I'm a physicist by training and an EE by profession. I have had a lifelong interest in what is really necessary for excellent REproduction of audio in a domestic environment. I used the process of design as a way to learn about what various pieces of gear should do, and what didn't matter. I am strongly of the opinion that no piece of gear used in REproduction should have any sort of "sound" at all.

Yes of course, the straight wire with gain. Well until we are skipping around Heaven that's a rather unobtainable goal.

What kind of equipment was your favorite? Amplication, turntables, speakers?

Question: Have you noticed any hearing damage from exposure to loud music (if you had lots of exposure to loud music when operating as a sound professional)?

I was an operating engineer in professional broadcasting for a while -- no loud stuff there to speak of, but lots of music production and reproduction. Then I moved into design and did a very wide range of things -- broadcast transmitters, instrumentation and control, precision imaging, digital video, ...

Understood.

For years, I've have an audio system that is capable of playing at very high levels (a sustained 120 dB plus, on musical material, measured) but that's because I don't want it to clip -- ever -- even on occasional peaks.

I think that a lot of folks these days are taking a real chance of ear damage because of the current combination of earphone listening and the type of music that tend to play.

Yes - "private" listening is a problem. And those kids are too smart to learn from all the research that has already been done. Pity. But there may be hope. Earphones are coming out with better and better noise isolation so they don't have to turn it up as loud to "drown out" ambient noise. Also with downloading speeds getting far faster these days combined with huge amounts of lossless music available combined with larger capacity players makes MP3 compression less popular, day by day. Maybe if their music sounds better they won't turn it up as loud. Hopefully. Ears are a terrible thing to waste.

I'm amazed that even in this day and age, after learning about the sensitivity of our ears to high levels of sound, most pro audio controllers insist on keeping the volume at levels sure to damage hearing, even when young children are present. This is the height of irresponsibility as we all know young ears are much more sensitive to this kind of auditory abuse. (Isaac, I'm not grouping you in there with them.)

As may be, but if they turned it down, nobody would pay for it.

Isaac

That's an interesting comment......"pay for it". Do you mean they would be dissatisfied going to a venue if the music was not as loud as they are accustomed to, even if it was at a level that was damaging to their hearing? (Not that most people have a clue as to what level would be damaging if exposed for a few hours, like in a night club or concert.)

Interesting how differently we all perceive the same sounds.......:)

No, it's not, any more than it is what people see. There are both auditory and visual illusions that clearly demonstrate how very easy it is to fool either sense.

Isaac

Yes that can be true for a while, but eventually the truth (in accurately produced sound) becomes more desirable. The key here is to keep comparing. The more you listen, the less likely you are to be fooled by outlandish claims and "flashy" sound. People may scoff at the term "effortless" for sound reproduction but truly, I can't think of a better word to describe accurate sound. It truly is where all audio designers should be aiming.

In article replytogroup-3A6CC6.14372019072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

No respectable high end audio reviewer ever gushed over Hafler. Its the Toyota Corolla of audio. Nothing wrong with that. But that's all it was. Much like DCM Time Windows were. Great for the money but you can't expect too much out of them.

I guess that someone who really doesn't know what he's talking about--someone without any real-world experience--would say that.

The New Guy wrote:

No, it's not, any more than it is what people see. There are both auditory and visual illusions that clearly demonstrate how very easy it is to fool either sense.

Isaac

Yes that can be true for a while, but eventually the truth (in accurately produced sound) becomes more desirable. The key here is to keep comparing. The more you listen, the less likely you are to be fooled by outlandish claims and "flashy" sound. People may scoff at the term "effortless" for sound reproduction but truly, I can't think of a better word to describe accurate sound. It truly is where all audio designers should be aiming.

More mindless drivel.Ķ

In article replytogroup-3A6CC6.14372019072007@redacted.invalid, The New Guy replytogroup@redacted.invalid wrote:

--snippety--

That sounds like a driver (usually a woofer of course) bottoming out because the crossover point is too low. Is that what you mean?

"Bottoming out" is another name for it, but it's still clipping -- the peaks of the wave get flattened. It might be a badly chosen crossover point, but it's also caused (and a lot more often) simply by overdriving the speaker.

Well at least we understand each other. If the the crossover point is too low, you raise it or change the slope of it. Problem solved.

You still don't understand that it has nothing to do with the crossover point. Which you shouldn't change anyway, unless you are the designer of the speaker in question. All it has to do witih is shoving too much power into a speaker not designed to handle it.

And if its the turntable you change it, or isolate it properly. Its not a "problem" in high end audio as tire pressure is not a problem in exotic cars. You fix the problem and get on with things.

I think that's a more difficult problem to fix than most folks understand. Granted, it's pretty easy to think you've fixed it. If you didn't measure things with instruments, you don't have a clue.

Of course on a normal system this would never happen.

Sure it does; people turn the level up too high all the time.

I guess if you're intent on damaging your hearing you turn it up too high. I've never heard of this problem with dedicated listeners though.

Oh, I have. One time it was the owner of a couple of AR-3's trying to get the same SPL that I had just demonstrated with a Klipschorn. Another time it was a fellow with a Crown DC 300 and a pair of Bose 901's, trying the same thing.

Didn't work either time, but you could sure hear the cones hitting the stops -- clunkety-clunk.

It could also occur when the turntable fails to isolate itself from low frequencies (subsonics) from the speakers or subs. But that's just bad turntable design or setup.

I think it's almost impossible to get anything close to perfect turntable isolation, and the feedback often is one source of euphonic distortion that causes some folks to wax rhapsodic about the "superiority" of analog over digital. Often, when comparing a reissued CD to the "original" LP, the CD seems lacking in bass or "punch". There is no way the low frequency response of a vinyl system can be as good as that of a CD, so something odd must be going on and I think it's feedback from speaker to 'table enhancing the bass.

What turntables have you used? Maybe that's the problem. You don't get good isolation for a few hundred dollars you know.

No matter what kind of turntable it is, the disc is a fairly thin diaphragm a foot across,right there in the speaker's sound field (most folks won't put the player in another room, which would help some. Then too, there's the lateral waves set up in the vinyl by the vibrations of the stylus; they hit the inner and outer edges and bounce back again. Small? Yup, but so is a half percent IM, but it really doesn't sound very good...

Dave Hafler designed some exceptional units. On some of them, there was a way to hook up one channel so it amplified the difference between the input and output of the other channel. Hook the first channel to any load you want, including a speaker. Hook the difference amplifier to another speaker, isolated from the first (so you can hear whatever comes out of it).

What would come out is an amplified version of any non-linearity in the first channel (any way that the output differed from the input except pure gain). In fact, there was nothing to hear, at any level from very low up to clipping.

THAT is linear.

Too bad he never made much of anything that sounded very good.

Not to folks who favor euphonic distortions, no. An amplifier that adds nothing to the signal passing through it cannot possibly have any kind of "sound", and I think that is precisely what a fine amplifier for REproduction should do.

No respectable high end audio reviewer ever gushed over Hafler.

Yes, and for good reason. all they were (still are) is a very close approximation to a "straight wire with gain"; no "warmth" or "punch" or "strident highs" or any other kind of (euphonic) distortions.

The problem is that most audio designers don't listen to their equipment enough. The ones that do realize that some things that look important in theory aren't as important as other things that don't look so important in theory. And those thinkers that are listening and comparing constantly make the greatest strides obviously in designing equipment that actually sounds better.

The best ones are those who figure out how to quantify and measure what they're hearing; that is the way progress is made, and always has been. If you can't measure it and compare the numbers, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Yes of course, the straight wire with gain. Well until we are skipping around Heaven that's a rather unobtainable goal.

Not if you're looking for distortions you like, but otherwise not too difficult to find these days. Hafler was the first to offer really low-distortion amps, or nearly so.

What kind of equipment was your favorite? Amplication, turntables, speakers?

Amplifiers: the ones I designed for myself, until Hafler introduced the DH-200. I read the specs, immediately ordered a kit, and am still using it. Nothing introduced since has had specs that are superior in any way that matters.

Turntables: well, vinyl is such a terribly poor medium I never was willing to spend too much money on it -- there's only so far you can go towards a silk purse if you start out with a sow's ear. I cannot remember the manufacturer, but the last cartridge I owned was electret-based; I got it because I am convinced that the single most important thing about a tone arm-cartridge assembly is to minimize the angular momentum to the greatest degree possible. That cartridge weighed considerably less than anything else on the market. I had a tape deck for a while (not cassette), and felt that decent tapes were better than anything a vinyl could deliver.

Preamps: Almost all RIAA preamps have pretty poor distortion specs (RIAA-eq preamps are a lot more difficult to design properly than most people appreciate), so I wound up doing one to minimize the problem. I was also unhappy with the way most tone controls operated, so after a bunch of computer modeling (on a CP/M Z-80), I built my own control preamp too.

I have a good understanding of the A-to-D and D-to-A processes, so all the erroneous BS that was (and still is) being spread around about "digital sound" didn't bother me; I moved to CDs pretty early on and have never looked back. CD fidelity is flatly superior to anything vinyl can possibly deliver. Period.

Speakers: after doing a lot of studying and listening, I decided that speakers divided into two fundamental groups: "driver(s) in a box" and "others". I don't care for the sound of the former, especially at low levels, so they were out. Of "others", there are a couple of choices: planars like electrostats, and horns. Electrostats have a wonderful sound at low levels, but are unable even to keep up with a good string quartet, much less a symphony. I have a couple of Klipschorn copies that I built after Paul kindly allowed me to photograph the innards of a few units at his place in Hope. I've had them for years. From time to time I go on a listening quest, figuring that if I ever heard anything better I'd trade 'em. Never have.

As may be, but if they turned it down, nobody would pay for it.

That's an interesting comment......"pay for it". Do you mean they would be dissatisfied going to a venue if the music was not as loud as they are accustomed to, even if it was at a level that was damaging to their hearing? (Not that most people have a clue as to what level would be damaging if exposed for a few hours, like in a night club or concert.)

Yes; precisely. And if Apple were to make two iPods, the only difference being that one of them could not be operated at ear-damaging levels, that one would not sell.

Isaac

In article Tkfmi.18395$Fa7.209977@redacted.invalid, NRen2k5 nomore@redacted.invalid wrote:

So tell me, smartass. What sorcery does one perform on a couple of feet of electrical cable to warrant a price tag in the thousand-dollar range?

They're pure osmium, of course.

That sounds like a driver (usually a woofer of course) bottoming out because the crossover point is too low. Is that what you mean?

"Bottoming out" is another name for it, but it's still clipping -- the peaks of the wave get flattened. It might be a badly chosen crossover point, but it's also caused (and a lot more often) simply by overdriving the speaker.

Well at least we understand each other. If the the crossover point is too low, you raise it or change the slope of it. Problem solved.

You still don't understand that it has nothing to do with the crossover point. Which you shouldn't change anyway, unless you are the designer of the speaker in question. All it has to do witih is shoving too much power into a speaker not designed to handle it.