Using power conditioners with Guitar amps?

[Alan0354]

Alan
Please read this article.
Link: Cables, Interconnects and Other Stuff - The Truth

Thanks, I'll read this later on and think about it first.

If people think Monster is expensive, I've seem some outragous cables!!! I don't buy into any of the crap, you want better, add more pairs of cheap big cables in parallel, separate the cables for bass and the mid/treble. I separated two pairs for bass, two pairs for the rest on each side, not that I believe in the separation of signals, I am more thinking about the connectors. Don't know how much difference it made, but it didn't cost me anything to do that.

[Alan0354]

Alan
Please read this article.
Link: Cables, Interconnects and Other Stuff - The Truth

I read the article are few times, I particularly like the last part on the conclusion. It is the inductance that is the most important. I am not that into it to use CAT-5, I just use big cables and tie them together. I don't want to use coax as it is like 25pF per ft. You use 4 coax of 10 ft, that is 1nF and most amp don't like it.
One thing it explained that I learn is the impedance spike and can go low at different frequency. Maybe that's the reason I can hear so much difference between speakers. Maybe my new pair has very low impedance at high frequency and the little inductance hurts.

As I explained, the bigger the cable, the more surface area. Inductance is inverse proportion to the width of the surface. The formula of inductance is a constant times the length divided by the width. So the wider the surface, the lower the inductance. The more pairs you parallel, the lower the inductance. That is the whole concept I was trying to say. Because of the skin effect, a round cable can be modeled as a strip of width of the circumference of the wire. You can use this to do the calculation.

I am glad you brought up this article as I don't want to spend the time research into this just to proof a point.

Thanks

[Alan0354]

Again, I am an EE, I don't believe all the snake oil, voodoo. I don't believe for a second about the special material or all the BS. In fact I don't even buy into the carbon comp resistor and special cap yet. I am just talking about the simple size of the cable that give me more surface area and lower the inductance. AND note that people argue about steel and iron is not good conductor. Let me explain, the lower the conductance, the deeper the skin depth, so more material conduct. If you calculate the resistance, they all even out. It does not matter whether you use gold, silver, copper. They are not going to be that big a difference. The ONLY advantage is gold don't oxidize and create a high impedance surface. You get better contact with gold surface. That's all, not that they are better conductor. This is all in the basic Electromagnetics text book.

I am not closing the door on the real expensive cables and their snake oil theory. I am not there yet, my speakers are not good enough to deserve that. As I said, it is all about the quality of the system whether you call it elitist or what. My system don't deserve any more than what I have. Maybe if I have a $23000 Kerell amp and a $15000 Wilson speaker, I might tell a different story. As of right now, I am happy and I am not spending an arm or a leg on the cable. Just getting the cheapest big cable and pair them up.

[R.G.]

Again, I am an EE, I don't believe all the snake oil, voodoo. I don't believe for a second about the special material or all the BS. In fact I don't even buy into the carbon comp resistor

I didn't either - until I looked up and calculated the effect on signals of the voltage coefficient of resistance for carbon comp. The numbers showed where it can have an effect and where it can't. Details matter.

AND note that people argue about steel and iron is not good conductor. Let me explain, the lower the conductance, the deeper the skin depth, so more material conduct. If you calculate the resistance, they all even out. It does not matter whether you use gold, silver, copper. They are not going to be that big a difference.

Interesting position. I'll go look that up...

... OK, I'm back. You may want to look here: microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/skindepth. It turns out that sure enough conductance does get into the equation for skin depth. The ugly hidden issue is that so does the relative permeability. Nickel plating is a big offender, as most people don't think of it, but iron, steel, cobalt, and a few others also have high permeabilities. It turns out that the relative permeability dramatically decreases skin depth, much more than the change in conductivity. So while gold, silver, copper and so on may not matter much, using steel, iron, or nickel matters a whole lot. The permeability term changes the skin depth hugely.

The reference points out that even for 60Hz power transmission, using a steel core to strengthen cable can be a good idea because the permeability of the steel forces the aluminum outer jacket to carry most of the currents.

I'm guessing that a few minutes spent looking up equations might be a big help.

The ONLY advantage is gold don't oxidize and create a high impedance surface. You get better contact with gold surface. That's all, not that they are better conductor. This is all in the basic Electromagnetics text book.

It is all in the text book - and I recommend you go do some reading. The surface condition of the metal has little or no bearing on skin depth issues. Gold does not oxidize, so it's good for contacts - which you said don't matter in cables. Silver is actually the highest conductivity metal, followed by copper, gold, aluminum and ... calcium?!? Yep, metallic calcium is about 3x a better conductor than iron.

I point you back to Sir William Thompson, Lord Kelvin and his quotation about knowing something in numbers. There is no substitute for knowing the numbers.

[Alan0354]

I didn't either - until I looked up and calculated the effect on signals of the voltage coefficient of resistance for carbon comp. The numbers showed where it can have an effect and where it can't. Details matter.


Interesting position. I'll go look that up...

... OK, I'm back. You may want to look here: microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/skindepth. It turns out that sure enough conductance does get into the equation for skin depth. The ugly hidden issue is that so does the relative permeability. Nickel plating is a big offender, as most people don't think of it, but iron, steel, cobalt, and a few others also have high permeabilities. It turns out that the relative permeability dramatically decreases skin depth, much more than the change in conductivity. So while gold, silver, copper and so on may not matter much, using steel, iron, or nickel matters a whole lot. The permeability term changes the skin depth hugely.

The reference points out that even for 60Hz power transmission, using a steel core to strengthen cable can be a good idea because the permeability of the steel forces the aluminum outer jacket to carry most of the currents.

I'm guessing that a few minutes spent looking up equations might be a big help.


It is all in the text book - and I recommend you go do some reading. The surface condition of the metal has little or no bearing on skin depth issues. Gold does not oxidize, so it's good for contacts - which you said don't matter in cables. Silver is actually the highest conductivity metal, followed by copper, gold, aluminum and ... calcium?!? Yep, metallic calcium is about 3x a better conductor than iron.

I point you back to Sir William Thompson, Lord Kelvin and his quotation about knowing something in numbers. There is no substitute for knowing the numbers.

My bad I forgot the u. The formula δ=1/α where α=sqrt(πufσ) and u matter.

I said the gold don't oxidize so you get better contact. Nothing to do with skin depth.

I said I don't buy about the carbon comp don't mean I won't change as I need to be convinced. There are so many ways of introduce distortion that the voltage coef should not be important. But I can change my mind.

As for reading, I read a lot, I spent 3 hours a day six days a week in the last 10 years studying electromagnetics, rf and antennas. I work close to 30 years in designing analog circuits using transistors, opamp and all. I published two papers in the America Institute of Physics, Review of Scientific Instruments and I own a patent on multi channel detector in semi conductor metrology field. And I am currently writing a patent on guitar electronics. I have more books in the topics of EM, RF, Antennas, RF Power amps and communication than the Stanford University book store. I have two 7' book shelf just with text books just on these few subjects.

Reduced electron multiplier dead time in ion counting mass spectrometry | Rev. Sci. Instrum. - Review of Scientific Instruments

Ultrafast charge division imaging detector | Rev. Sci. Instrum. - Review of Scientific Instruments

Patent US7561438 - Electronic device incorporating a multilayered capacitor formed on a printed ... - Google Patents

I am also frequently in Physics Forum advising college student in EE problems. My user name is Yungman. People should visit there as there are ex professors and high caliber people willing to help others with questions.

Electrical Engineering Forum

[R.G.]

I said I don't buy about the carbon comp don't mean I won't change as I need to be convinced. There are so many ways of introduce distortion that the voltage coef should not be important. But I can change my mind.

Good. An open mind is a very good thing to have.

I once did not think that carbon comps mattered, until I found the voltage coefficient of resistance and ... calculated ... the distortion it has on signals. It does not matter for small signals, because the voltage change is so small. However in tube amps where signals can go to 50-100V, it's enough to cause measurable - and notable, remember that 0.1db thing? - distortion. In situations where there is an AC signal, the distortion is symmetrical, and where there is a big DC offset and a big signal, it is almost entirely even-order distortion, about the right size to cause the tone variations claimed for carbon comp in tube amps. But you should not believe me. You should do the math.

Which is the point. You may have figured out by now that I found your comments that you were not interested in the details to be a little naive for a layman. Finding out that you have a technical background changed that to my being astonished that you'd bother to speculate but resist thinking about the numbers. I'm still a little appalled.

As for reading, I read a lot, I spent 3 hours a day six days a week in the last 10 years studying electromagnetics, rf and antennas. I work close to 30 years in designing analog circuits using transistors, opamp and all. I published two papers in the America Institute of Physics, Review of Scientific Instruments and I own a patent on multi channel detector in semi conductor metrology field. And I am currently writing a patent on guitar electronics. I have more books in the topics of EM, RF, Antennas, RF Power amps and communication than the Stanford University book store. I have two 7' book shelf just with text books just on these few subjects.
...
I am also frequently in Physics Forum advising college student in EE problems. My user name is Yungman. People should visit there as there are ex professors and high caliber people willing to help others with questions.

Good for you. I still find it amazing that with that background, you'd defend not wanting to know the numbers. That baffles me.

[Alan0354]

Good. An open mind is a very good thing to have.

I once did not think that carbon comps mattered, until I found the voltage coefficient of resistance and ... calculated ... the distortion it has on signals. It does not matter for small signals, because the voltage change is so small. However in tube amps where signals can go to 50-100V, it's enough to cause measurable - and notable, remember that 0.1db thing? - distortion. In situations where there is an AC signal, the distortion is symmetrical, and where there is a big DC offset and a big signal, it is almost entirely even-order distortion, about the right size to cause the tone variations claimed for carbon comp in tube amps. But you should not believe me. You should do the math.

Which is the point. You may have figured out by now that I found your comments that you were not interested in the details to be a little naive for a layman. Finding out that you have a technical background changed that to my being astonished that you'd bother to speculate but resist thinking about the numbers. I'm still a little appalled.

Good for you. I still find it amazing that with that background, you'd defend not wanting to know the numbers. That baffles me.

As I said so many time, I am not interested about the theory of the wires, in fact, anyone here? I just made a comment about big wires make a difference in #12 from my own experience which is only one person's opinion, then I was challenged from every side, being called elitist. I made the proposal that the inductance is important which turned out to be SUPPORTED BY THE LAST ARTICLE FROM THE EXPERT. I proposed that fine strands is needed and I gave and calculated the skin depth for copper to explain why solid conductor is not as good. I actually did the calculation using the formula to get 0.6mm. Those are facts. In fact the article really support my assertion that name brand and expensive cable not necessary better and the inductance is a factor.

Who does not make mistake? I am being hopped on for a mistake of the "u" and assumed I don't do calculation. I do plenty of calculations when it is called for. When I work on EM, I use multi variable calculus, differential equation and partial differential equation to solve Maxwell's equations, but for these simple things, you estimate first. Go onto Physics Forum and do a search under "yungman" and see how much formulas and calculations I do to answer questions there. Might not be in the posts in the last week, but just look in general. In fact someone build a guitar effect box and has white noise, I am in the process of helping him trouble shooting.

As for carbon comp, that's my first impression as there are so many ways of getting even harmonics than to buy expensive carbon comp. They don't make them anymore!!!

[Steve Conner]

I agree with Rod Elliott's explanation. I called you elitist because you said that $600 wasn't enough for a good pair of speakers. You are of course free to call me stingy because I won't pay more than $600 for speakers.

I also tried to make this point: The cheaper speakers could actually be considered better, because they don't have these nasty impedance dips. (The impedance dips come from complex crossovers and electrostatic panels with step-up transformers, all of which cost money.)

That means you can use a sensibly sized amp and normal speaker wires, and it'll still sound fine.

I can't remember the last time I used multi-variable calculus. Maybe I've never used it! I spent the whole of yesterday calculating noise figures for different op-amps in an ultrasonic transducer preamp circuit.

[JoeM]

....
As for carbon comp, that's my first impression as there are so many ways of getting even harmonics than to buy expensive carbon comp. They don't make them anymore!!!

Oh?

Ohmite: Little Demon Carbon Composition Molded Resistors

[Steve Conner]

Yup, plenty of carbon comps still available. It's all about the mojo!

[Alan0354]

Good. An open mind is a very good thing to have.

I once did not think that carbon comps mattered, until I found the voltage coefficient of resistance and ... calculated ... the distortion it has on signals. It does not matter for small signals, because the voltage change is so small. However in tube amps where signals can go to 50-100V, it's enough to cause measurable - and notable, remember that 0.1db thing? - distortion. In situations where there is an AC signal, the distortion is symmetrical, and where there is a big DC offset and a big signal, it is almost entirely even-order distortion, about the right size to cause the tone variations claimed for carbon comp in tube amps. But you should not believe me. You should do the math.

Which is the point. You may have figured out by now that I found your comments that you were not interested in the details to be a little naive for a layman. Finding out that you have a technical background changed that to my being astonished that you'd bother to speculate but resist thinking about the numbers. I'm still a little appalled.

Good for you. I still find it amazing that with that background, you'd defend not wanting to know the numbers. That baffles me.

As I said so many time, I am not interested about the theory of the wires. I just made a comment about Big wires make a difference in #12 from my own experience which is only one person's opinion, then I was challenged from every side, being called elitist. I made the proposal that the inductance is important which turned out to be SUPPORTED BY THE LAST ARTICLE FROM THE EXPERT. I proposed that fine strands is needed and I gave and calculated the skin depth for copper to explain why solid conductor is not as good. Those are facts.

Then I am being hopped on for a mistake of the "u" and assumed I don't do calculation. I do plenty of calculations when it is called for. When I work on EM, I use multi variable calculus, differential equation and partial differential equation to solve Maxwell's equations, but for these simple things, you estimate first. Go onto Physics Forum and look me up as see how much calculation I do to answer questions there do a search with my name. Who does not make mistake?

I am not an expert in audio field, I only spent a year or so in 1977 and 1978, then I left the field until a few months ago. But I have been around the block a few times.....quite a few times.

[Alan0354]

I agree with Rod Elliott's explanation. I called you elitist because you said that $600 wasn't enough for a good pair of speakers. You are of course free to call me stingy because I won't pay more than $600 for speakers.

I also tried to make this point: The cheaper speakers could actually be considered better, because they don't have these nasty impedance dips. (The impedance dips come from complex crossovers and electrostatic panels with step-up transformers, all of which cost money.)

That means you can use a sensibly sized amp and normal speaker wires, and it'll still sound fine.

I can't remember the last time I used multi-variable calculus. Maybe I've never used it! I spent the whole of yesterday calculating noise figures for different op-amps in an ultrasonic transducer preamp circuit.

As I said, to each their own, I consider spending $4000 for a beat up 59 Bassman is a waste of money and spending $10K for a vintage 60s strat is waste of money too. To each their own.
Value is in the eye of the beholder. Sensible to you is not sensible to me.

I designed the front end of a 64 elements phase array ultrasound medical scanner with color Doppler in the mid 80s where I had to design very low noise preamps. Maybe you can post your work here and we can talk more, that I am more interested. Just forget the speaker wire, I got my wire, I am happy, you people don't buy it, than just drop it.

As for carbon comp, the kind people sort after are very expensive, go on ebay for the 100K 1W that people use and see how much it cost. Any of those old style that guitar amp and audiophile used are so much more than the metal film.

[Steve Conner]

Well, does anyone here have (and care to admit it) a $10k Strat?

Full disclosure: I wanted one since I was about 14, but I settled for an American Standard reissue.

[Alan0354]

Well, does anyone here have (and care to admit it) a $10k Strat?

Full disclosure: I wanted one since I was about 14, but I settled for an American Standard reissue.

I was on Strat Talk and someone was buying one. As I said, to each their own!!! It's like I like giant tv, but I don't care about HD. I still use a 72" old projection that you can't even give away now a days while most of the people get into flat screen, blue ray stuff. I still buy recondition DVD recorder for about $70 each, I don't even have HD receiver. I always drive a car over 10 years while some change every 3 to 4 years. Now that is big money compare to a good stereo. To each their own.

Also, people spend money on I-Phone and all, I never get one that I have to pay. In fact I just got a new one only because the last one fell apart. I chose such a basic one that the sales person decided to gave me back $50 rebate for each of my two and I didn't pay a penny.

[R.G.]

I don't know about a $10K strat, but I saw a Les Paul at the Dallas Guitar Show a couple of years ago with a $250,000 price tag on it.

I bought a $500 Strat back in the MIJ era, and was astonished that those seem to be in demand too.

Pity my playing is so very bad indeed. 8-(