With a DIY power cord that I just
made, (pure, solid .9999 12 gauge silver) the tubes in that mono amp seem to be a little brighter than the other amp
with the original power cord. So, do you think the tubes are brighter because
they are getting more power through the new DIY cord or is the amp having to
work harder and that’s why the tubes are brighter?
I just read a partial prereview of a new product out that emits DC through skinny wires that wrap around a power cord to prevent RFI from affecting it. The reviewer went on to say that that's what AudioQuest has been doing for years with their batteries attached to their cables, along with some other manufacturers.
I have no dog in this fight but it brings up the question that if it was no biggie then, it's no biggie now, so why all the hubbub?
That reviewer doesn’t understand the premise of the Audioquest/DBS system. It’s spelled out in their patent application, for which I posted a url earlier.
Well, that reviewer may not be aware of that patent, but it sure as hell looks like what he’s mentioning when he refers to AQ. I’ve seen one of their demos up close (there being only the rep and the two of us listeners) and it mirrors remarkably like what the reviewer described.
What difference does what it, "looks like" make, if he’s WRONG? The patent application spells out the goal of the DBS system. ie (verbatim): "FIELD OF INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to methods and apparatus of connecting and communicating signals between electrical devices. More particularly, the present invention relates to biasing a dielectric with an electrical or electrostatic potential to reduce undesirable electrical properties of the material such that signal quality between the electrical devices is enhanced. The invention has special utility within the field of audio and video equipment and signal transmission" The balance of the application contains nothing about RFI, but- everything about how the DBS system is supposed to enhance the transmission of various signals, by the biasing of a cable’s dielectric. Too bad so many are too lazy to bother reading, educating, or- informing themselves, rather than trying to be contrary. This conversation has become tedious. I’ll leave the ubiquitous last words to others. Best regards and happy listening, everyone!
More particularly, the present invention relates to biasing a dielectric with an electrical or electrostatic potential to reduce undesirable electrical properties of the material such that signal quality between the electrical devices is enhanced.
It doesn't say or mention what is biasing the dielectric.
As for reducing undesirable electrical properties of the material, that can be another way of saying that it's making it (the dielectric) resistant to RFI without the need to spell it out, rendering the patent moot so others can't copy it.
And, in that link you provided, AQ states that they finally found a way to use DC as a shield to reject RFI and EMI, so where did I misunderstand things, and just where did the reviewer get it wrong as well?
How you can read into it that I am being contrary is just plain silly.
"Flat Earth science" If you haven't considered it recently don't give us your uninformed opinion on it. Some people are finding it works for them. I have found that if I am listening to music, get up to change a cd and leave my beer by the player, then sit back down my beer stays where I left it. If the earth was round and spinning in a circle, my beer would come to me.
"...
that can be another way of saying that it's making it (the dielectric) resistant to RFI
without the need to spell it out, rendering the patent moot so others can't copy it."
Wouldn't that make patent more, rather than less, vulnerable to copying without protection?
There was at least one patent lawyer on Audiogon. If she/he is around, maybe clarification would help.
That " invention" of the patent linked to earlier has to do with polarization of dielectrics. It is based on the assumption that the dielectric of cables burn in and every time no current is running through the cable it reverts to its pre burn in state. We're talking about the positive and negative of the molecules in the insulation all lining up in a pretty row. So to avoid this catastrophe a constant electrical charge is applied to the dielectric which isn’t in the signal (can’t do that Monster Cable patented that brilliant idea). Of course even if this constant burn in state of dielectrics matters from a supply of current perspective there’s no evidence any of this would be audible to humans or porpoises.
@ OZZY= More ’’power’’ then the wall socket and the wall wiring can deliver? No. The power draw of all appliances is by its design. Not by the power cord. As (oldhvymec) said, brighter is not better.
That's not what he said. Goodness, the lengths some will go to.
I hope that the completeness makes it clear.
Wouldn't that make patent more, rather than less, vulnerable to copying without protection?
That was speculation on my part, not being well versed in such matters. The one you allude to would be Almarg, who is/was a patent attorney.
It's way over my head as well. It just so happens I read that pre review earlier in the day and thought it might be relevant, what with how the conversation was going sideways.
The proof would be in the listening so until then, it's all conjecture but interesting to read. I'm just waiting to read the full review once the reviewer had a chance to put it through it's paces.
If someone connects electricity to that particular dielectric for whatever postulated reason, is there a heat production? Just the way the world seems to work, I think there will be some heat produced. If that is true, how does that affect molecules that we are trying to put in order? Wouldn’t they go into some unruly state?
I hope it came out in English. If not, go to the top of the page and select English as the language and it should work.
What follows is a long trial and error saga of what the designers went through and what they encountered. I’ve yet to really read it as I just skimmed it. My eyes are tired and I’ll commit to reading it tomorrow (doesn't mean I'll understand it).
It is long(ish) and not that simple to follow. Maybe the part of it is because of translation.
One part caught my eye so maybe someone can clarify...
"Although it cannot be proved by numerical values or formulas, BOP QF appears to play a role of’accelerating by giving kinetic energy’ to the flow of current flowing through the audio cable on a similar principle to this cyclotron accelerator. That is, 1) a DC cable wound in a solenoid coil method on an audio cable creates an external magnetic field and an electric field, and 2) a magnetic field is generated by Ampere’s right-hand screw (right hand) rule even in the audio cable itself, where an electric current flows......"
(The rest of the passage switches towards why it would sound in a certain way.)
If it cannot be proven, what makes it appear that way? I think they are describing their hypothesis, rather than showing how and why it appears. Am I misunderstanding/misreading it? It surely went over my head but not as much as some things earlier.
I think you’re right in that it appears to be a hypothesis bases on existing theories with no real way of measuring. The translation is the sticking point. The proof will end up being in the listening.
That, and I can almost commiserate with the extremes the testers went through with all the cable samples and hands on trial and error testing. 8 years is a long time to put something through its paces.
I got just the opposite thought. I started thinking that geoffkait was, with all his shortcomings, keeping lunacy in check. Nowadays, everybody is geoffkait and then some.
Maybe better/nicer finish? Just guessing. And a lots of marketing/earned reputation (that is another can of worms). And the need to cover for all the overhead, marketing included, that you do not have to worry about. Then, you did not make your cable to make money while Audioquest has to make money. It all adds up. I am not sure to how much, but it is not negligible. Then comes the question "how much will the market bear" and you end up with $9800.
Thanks for the info over the Audioquest "DBS system: Noise-Trapping DBS Packs".
I see that it is a BS sleeve that Audioquest claims it will work on any cable: Interconnect, and speaker..." interconnect (analog or digital) or speaker cable ". https://www.audioquest.com/accessories/audio-enhancements/noise-trapping-dbs-packs The nature of those 3 is very different, especially of the line resistance to ground. This is a product that simulates the best snake oil over a cable, but it’s a solid with a battery and a LED.
They also lost me on this: https://www.audioquest.com/accessories/audio-enhancements/preamp-jumpers As directional on an AC signal is the greatest BS ever! To remind everyone, that Audio is an AC (sine wave) that flowers both directions, each 50% of the time. So, on which 50% is that benefit the signal and on which 50% it damages it.
Would you please be kind to ask Audioquest (a known cable maker for decades), what speaker cable do I need, if I use an Amp. with DF=400, and cable length is 3m?
Dang!, And I just lost my "Opinionater 5000" measurement device. The one that came inside the (Ballistic popcorn vault and Anechoic chamber" . "It fell of the back of the truck 'round that one turn".
It was Mr. rodman99999 post I ref. to. Sorry, I have no idea. I think it will have a 3-4 digits price tag. Save it. You can flush down the drain the same amount, it will give you the same feelling.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
