Ron’s New System

[Ron Resnick]

how does that work?

on this forum reporting impressions = expecting advice/interpretations/ruminations. especially on this 'hang-out' thread how can you stop that without some sort of authoritative thread rule?

you need a private read only blog for that.

obviously for newbies we all behave and go very easy. but you are fair game.

Hi Mike,

I agree.

I wrote only that I did not "ask" for advice. I did not write that I was not expecting to receive advice from thoughtful and well-intentioned members seeking to help and diagnose.

Ralph's point about zero feedback tube amplifiers putting more power into higher frequencies as the load impedance rises was something I was unaware of. I have never had any tube amplifier that was not push-pull and that did not use some feedback, and so I did not know this.

Advice/interpretation/ruminations are part of the lifeblood of WBF! I do this constantly myself.

 

[fbhifi]

Sorry Ron, the forum has nice people who as good citizens do what someone would when they see a person in a mess

Ked, I am deeply moved by your compassion.

 

[Holmz]

Time to close this thread.

Yeah-No…
We have 500+ pages, what s the problem with have a few hundred more?
It is not like it is NOT going to sink the titanic if the iceberg is bigger.

Thank you. I apologize for questioning the veracity of the report.

I have been reporting my sonic impressions. I have not been asking for advice.

A lot of people hear something nice and think “I need” or “I want” that.
Then there are some that think “What makes it nice?”

I think I was just getting a little annoyed with these examples of various issues which are not relevant to my particular components under review. There has been a lot of discussion of incompatibility between loudspeaker cables and solid-state amplifiers when I have not been reporting my sonic impressions of any solid-state amplifiers. (This also was Brad's point.)

Sorry you’ve feeling annoyed, but again some block diagram could be useful here.
The components seem to be changing more quickly that I am accustomed to, or that I have experience with.
It can sometimes take time to get a system together, and I usually stop when it is working… And I am not blessed with the ability to redo it as much as you.
And some of the issues are at least worth discussing whether they can be the causal mechanism of your subjective dislike.

Sonic impressions are usually based on some physical/electrical thing happening. There are not some dark arts being practiced inside of the boxes, it is physics and engineering. That gets out of the speakers as both objective facts and subjective like or dislike.

If that was your main point you would not have taken things off on the oscillation tangent...

I think I also had a hand in the oscillation tangent. It was not all Morricab.
And I did pose the question as to whether preamps can cause that problem.

I am still so damned confused I can hardly stand it… We have Italians and French mentioned, and it started out as Dane’s I think.

This is not relevant to my 2.0 meter Purist Audio Design Musaeus or my 2.0 meter Cardas Clear Reflection, neither of which is very high in capacitance, and both of which pass the exact same edginess/brightness to the speakers.

OK

The Cardas Clear Beyond Fiasco was a valuable lesson regarding Bandwidth/Capacitance. I still use Cardas Clear Beyond Interconnects and have no gripes with Cardas. They remain a good company. As Brian explained not all amplifiers are a good match with the Clear Beyond Speaker Cables. Nils at Gryphon explained the design of the Clear Beyond is what Gryphon suggests to AVOID: "Avoid Coaxial Designs, Active Shielding, Or Special Filtering As These Can Interfere With Amplifier Speaker Interaction"

Ron @Ron Resnick I wouldn't have shared my experience if it wasn't "True" or "Valid". I didn't pull this out of thin air and carelessly share it. Let me know if you or anyone can find a Capacitance Rating on the Clear Beyond Speaker Cables. As I indicated the Cardas Clear Rating is available. Which at 278 pF (per foot) is high. Imagine if that was doubled...

wow 278.
That is not a low capacitance cable, unless one is comparing it to gawd-knows-what.

Hi Mike,

I agree.

I wrote only that I did not "ask" for advice. I did not write that I was not expecting to receive advice from thoughtful and well-intentioned members seeking to help and diagnose.

^Good for you.^
However
some
people just like helping.
And other people may have similar subjective issue that can later possibly stumble upon those “helpful hints” and find them useful.

What is the point of it being a duplex tread then?
It should be a blog if it you’d rather it be simplex soliloquy.
(And maybe that “Not asking for advice” part, was rhetorical as below…)

Ralph's point about zero feedback tube amplifiers putting more power into higher frequencies as the load impedance rises was
some
thing I was unaware of. I have never had any tube amplifier that was not push-pull and that did not use
some
feedback, and so I did not know this.

See!

…
Advice/interpretation/ruminations are part of the lifeblood of WBF! I do this constantly myself.

So it is OK for people to offer advise and ruminations?

 

[Atmasphere]

Ralph, I would think your MA-2 OTLs could be the perfect amplifiers. Two hundred twenty watts/channel of Class A OTL drive could check all the boxes.

Actually I think our class D could do an even better job since the speakers are 4 Ohms; no need for any crossover since they can run the speaker full range.

As far as I was told the problem with the Joule Electric VZN 160 was finding good, matched, stable and long lasting 6c33's and feeding them with a constant mains. The 6c33 tube had not been designed for audio amplifiers!

A bigger problem is that tube eats its socket fairly quickly. We were the first adopter of that tube in the US in the early 90s and found that out pretty quickly. The tubes often last longer than the sockets!

I don't really want to go back to the Jadis.

I was never a fan of them...

What is the basis for your hypothesis that the amp is unstable and oscillating into a 4.0 to 4.8 ohm resistive ribbon driver load out of its 4 ohm tap? In other words, why would this be?

I don't think it is. But since it has no feedback its not reducing power as the impedance rises with frequency. That can lead to simple brightness, although I no longer think that is what is happening here, since the impedance curve is now known (and more benign than you suggested).

I no longer suspect the ZOBEL will do much useful at the values I previously suggested. It would be a band-aid rather than a solution. My plan was to simply linearize the typical impedance rise with frequency. But as you rightly stated, its insignificant. So a ZOBEL network would work more like a tone control, which was not my goal.

So an analysis of the amplifier seems the next step. Some output transformers can lose a bit of bandwidth going from 8 to 4 Ohm taps. Sometimes HF resonances can show up that were not problematic on higher impedances. Since the amp is zero feedback, altering anything in its circuit can often be audible. For this reason the designer has to be very careful selecting components so as to avoid compensating a bright sounding part with a dull one to complement. That usually leads to higher distortion.

I can identify a Bode plot, but I am just not a EE.

The fact that this can happen with just changing speaker cables - and the fact that one can see it clearly on an o-scope well outside of our hearing range, is why one may want to consider using an o-scope.

Since this is a zero feedback amplifier, its unlikely to oscillate. Bode plots are quite handy for sorting out the phase margin in an amplifier when designing the feedback loop. I doubt this amp has enough loop gain to support any feedback since it was designed without it.

At this point if the amp were in my system I would put a sine wave through the system and measure the Voltage on the speaker terminals as the frequency of the signal is increased. The speaker has a fairly flat impedance curve at audio frequencies so if the Voltage were to rise at higher frequencies that would suggest the amps have something to do with that. A similar test at the output of the preamp could be used to verify this.

After a few minutes thinking about this something else has occurred to me. This speaker, being 4 Ohms, has efficiency 3 dB less than the stated sensitivity of 88dB. So its really only about 85dB 1 Watt/1 meter (a much more useful metric when tube amps are being used) as previously pointed out. Most SETs don't make that much power; unless this speaker is in a smaller room I'm doubting it has enough to really drive the speaker properly. I think the Jadis did. So it might simply be the amp is making so much higher ordered harmonic distortion that its sounding a bit bright without obviously breaking up.

 

[Holmz]

…
At this point if the amp were in my system I would put a sine wave through the system and measure the Voltage on the speaker terminals as the frequency of the signal is increased. The speaker has a fairly flat impedance curve at audio frequencies so if the Voltage were to rise at higher frequencies that would suggest the amps have something to do with that. A similar test at the output of the preamp could be used to verify this.
…

^Nice^
I was thinking similar but with a resistive load, which sort of ignores the speaker, but easier on the tweeter.
Wold you also use a scope or just meter?

 

[Atmasphere]

^Nice^
I was thinking similar but with a resistive load, which sort of ignores the speaker, but easier on the tweeter.
Wold you also use a scope or just meter?

A 'scope is always handy! These days they are so inexpensive and small... https://siglentna.com/product/sds1052dl-2/

 

[marty]

Do not use Rhodium with any brass contacts. It won't work. Rhodium to Rhodium, or, Rhodium to Gold.
Or gold to copper. Just try and remove anything brass.
And Caig Deoxit G100 or GN5S every connection from the wire to panel, wire to duplex, duplex tines and cord ends.

Sorry Rex, but the science of metallurgy does not support your recommendations. Respectfully, I disagree about your concerns about brass, which as you know is mostly copper. Conversely, your preference for rhodium to gold is one of the worst pairings possible. Here's why.

Anodic Index (a measurement)

• The anodic index is a ranking of materials based on their electrochemical potential in a given environment, usually a standard electrolyte.
• It represents the tendency of a material to corrode when in contact with another material. Materials with a higher anodic index are more anodic (less noble) and tend to corrode more easily.

Battery Effect (a process, also called the Galvanic Effect)

• The battery effect occurs when two dissimilar metals are electrically connected .
• The anodic index helps predict the severity of the battery effect. The greater the difference in anodic index between the two metals, the more severe the galvanic corrosion.
• The "battery" analogy comes from the fact that the process involves electron flow between metals, just like in a battery.

In short, the anodic index provides the groundwork for understanding and predicting the battery effect, but it is not the same as the galvanic process itself. Here are the approximate anodic index values for the specified metals in a standard environment (assuming a neutral pH and standard conditions):

Metal	Anodic Index (approx.)
Rhodium	0.6 - 0.7
Gold	0.0 - 0.15
Copper	0.35
Palladium	0.5
Brass	0.4 - 0.5. (brass is mostly copper)

Calculating the Differences:

The difference in anodic index between two metals helps determine the likelihood and severity of galvanic corrosion (battery effect:

1. Rhodium and Gold:
   • Rhodium: 0.6 - 0.7
   • Gold: 0.0 - 0.15
   • Difference: 0.45 to 0.7
2. Rhodium and Copper:
   • Rhodium: 0.6 - 0.7
   • Copper: 0.35
   • Difference: 0.25 to 0.35
3. Copper and Palladium:
   • Copper: 0.35
   • Palladium: 0.5
   • Difference: 0.15

4. Rhodium and Brass

• Rhodium: 0.6 - 0.7
• Brass: 0.4 - 0.5
• Difference: 0.1 to 0.3

interpretation:

• Differences greater than 0.25: Likely to cause galvanic corrosion in the presence of an electrolyte. The severity depends on environmental factors and the relative surface area of the metals.
• Differences less than 0.15: Low risk of galvanic corrosion, generally considered compatible.

Summary of Galvanic Risks:

• Copper and Palladium: Low risk of galvanic corrosion.
• Rhodium and Brass: Low to moderate risk, with brass corroding.
• Rhodium and Copper: Moderate risk, with copper corroding.
• Rhodium and Gold: Moderate to high risk, with rhodium corroding.

In all cases, the actual corrosion rate will depend on factors such as the presence of an electrolyte, the relative surface areas of the metals, and environmental conditions. From a sonic perspective, the major considerations as I have mentioned previously are not just what metals your a using for your cables and connectors, but what metal(s) one is connecting to (which is typically overlooked). Nothing wrong with a sonic preference as YMMV certainly applies here. But since the battery effect highly correlates to sonics as per many people far more knowledgable than me on this subject (i.e., Caelin Gabriel and George Cardas), I'll stick with science in looking for good guidance on this complex subject.

 

[Kingrex]

Sorry Rex, but the science of metallurgy does not support your recommendations. Respectfully, I disagree about your concerns about brass, which as you know is mostly copper. Conversely, your preference for rhodium to gold is one of the worst pairings possible. Here's why.

Anodic Index (a measurement)

• The anodic index is a ranking of materials based on their electrochemical potential in a given environment, usually a standard electrolyte.
• It represents the tendency of a material to corrode when in contact with another material. Materials with a higher anodic index are more anodic (less noble) and tend to corrode more easily.

Battery Effect (a process, also called the Galvanic Effect)

• The battery effect occurs when two dissimilar metals are electrically connected .
• The anodic index helps predict the severity of the battery effect. The greater the difference in anodic index between the two metals, the more severe the galvanic corrosion.
• The "battery" analogy comes from the fact that the process involves electron flow between metals, just like in a battery.

In short, the anodic index provides the groundwork for understanding and predicting the battery effect, but it is not the same as the galvanic process itself. Here are the approximate anodic index values for the specified metals in a standard environment (assuming a neutral pH and standard conditions):

Metal	Anodic Index (approx.)
Rhodium	0.6 - 0.7
Gold	0.0 - 0.15
Copper	0.35
Palladium	0.5
Brass	0.4 - 0.5. (brass is mostly copper)

Calculating the Differences:

The difference in anodic index between two metals helps determine the likelihood and severity of galvanic corrosion (battery effect:

1. Rhodium and Gold:
   • Rhodium: 0.6 - 0.7
   • Gold: 0.0 - 0.15
   • Difference: 0.45 to 0.7
2. Rhodium and Copper:
   • Rhodium: 0.6 - 0.7
   • Copper: 0.35
   • Difference: 0.25 to 0.35
3. Copper and Palladium:
   • Copper: 0.35
   • Palladium: 0.5
   • Difference: 0.15

4. Rhodium and Brass

• Rhodium: 0.6 - 0.7
• Brass: 0.4 - 0.5
• Difference: 0.1 to 0.3

interpretation:

• Differences greater than 0.25: Likely to cause galvanic corrosion in the presence of an electrolyte. The severity depends on environmental factors and the relative surface area of the metals.
• Differences less than 0.15: Low risk of galvanic corrosion, generally considered compatible.

Summary of Galvanic Risks:

• Copper and Palladium: Low risk of galvanic corrosion.
• Rhodium and Brass: Low to moderate risk, with brass corroding.
• Rhodium and Copper: Moderate risk, with copper corroding.
• Rhodium and Gold: Moderate to high risk, with rhodium corroding.

In all cases, the actual corrosion rate will depend on factors such as the presence of an electrolyte, the relative surface areas of the metals, and environmental conditions. From a sonic perspective, the major considerations as I have mentioned previously are not just what metals your a using for your cables and connectors, but what metal(s) one is connecting to (which is typically overlooked). Nothing wrong with a sonic preference as YMMV certainly applies here. But since the battery effect highly correlates to sonics as per many people far more knowledgable than me on this subject (i.e., Caelin Gabriel and George Cardas), I'll stick with science in looking for good guidance on this complex subject.

Whats aluminum and copper and aluminum and tin?

 

[John T]

My rule of thumb which isn't etched in stone is match metallurgy...

 

[marty]

My rule of thumb which isn't etched in stone is match metallurgy...

John, that's always a good approach but it just isn't possible all the time. There are two alternate approaches that are useful. First, just ask Chat GPT the anodic index of any two metals and calculate the differences between two metals as in the examples I showed previously. A less useful "general" guide for more compatible metals (less battery effect) is to pair yellow metals to yellow metals and similarly, white to white metals . But really, finding the specific anodic indexes of two metals of interest and calculating the galvanic risk is pretty straight forward, very easy, and far preferred.

 

[marty]

Whats aluminum and copper and aluminum and tin?

From Chat GPT
The anodic index measures the tendency of a material to corrode when in electrical contact with another material in an electrolyte. The further apart two materials are on the anodic index, the higher the potential for galvanic corrosion.
Here are the values and differences:

1. Aluminum and Copper
   • Aluminum: ~0.90 (depends on the specific aluminum alloy, generally in the range 0.70–0.95)
   • Copper: ~0.35
   • Difference: Approximately 0.55
2. Aluminum and Tin
   • Aluminum: ~0.90
   • Tin: ~0.65
   • Difference: Approximately 0.25

Notes:​

• Differences of 0.15 volts or more can lead to significant galvanic corrosion, depending on environmental conditions.
• Aluminum is highly anodic compared to both copper and tin, making it more susceptible to corrosion in these pairs.

 

[tima]

From Chat GPT
The anodic index measures the tendency of a material to corrode when in electrical contact with another material in an electrolyte. ...

WBF banned AI generated posts, attributed or not. Perhaps you were unaware of that.

 

[Kingrex]

I don't know Marty. I think there is more to it than math. I guess it would take more listening. I currently have rhodium to Palladium. I did not see a response to that. The aluminum to copper is pretty high. And I have heard severe noise generated by aluminum lugs and neutral bars with copper wire to them. So, maybe your right about the rhodium to gold. I have a hubbell I can try. See what that does.

 

[John T]

I don't know Marty. I think there is more to it than math. I guess it would take more listening. I currently have rhodium to Palladium. I did not see a response to that. The aluminum to copper is pretty high. And I have heard severe noise generated by aluminum lugs and neutral bars with copper wire to them. So, maybe your right about the rhodium to gold. I have a hubbell I can try. See what that does.

Just had a conversation with Kevin Main. He said your panels are 2nd to none, top notch, no better...Didn't mean to get off topic...

 

[Kingrex]

Just had a conversation with Kevin Main. He said your panels are 2nd to none, top notch, no better...Didn't mean to get off topic...

I shipped this yesterday. Client is using a 240 volt output isolation transformer. Completely guttted, contacts polished, then cleaned and every contact and electrical surface Deox G100. Took about 3 days.

 

[morricab]

Sorry Rex, but the science of metallurgy does not support your recommendations. Respectfully, I disagree about your concerns about brass, which as you know is mostly copper. Conversely, your preference for rhodium to gold is one of the worst pairings possible. Here's why.

Anodic Index (a measurement)

• The anodic index is a ranking of materials based on their electrochemical potential in a given environment, usually a standard electrolyte.
• It represents the tendency of a material to corrode when in contact with another material. Materials with a higher anodic index are more anodic (less noble) and tend to corrode more easily.

Battery Effect (a process, also called the Galvanic Effect)

• The battery effect occurs when two dissimilar metals are electrically connected .
• The anodic index helps predict the severity of the battery effect. The greater the difference in anodic index between the two metals, the more severe the galvanic corrosion.
• The "battery" analogy comes from the fact that the process involves electron flow between metals, just like in a battery.

In short, the anodic index provides the groundwork for understanding and predicting the battery effect, but it is not the same as the galvanic process itself. Here are the approximate anodic index values for the specified metals in a standard environment (assuming a neutral pH and standard conditions):

Metal	Anodic Index (approx.)
Rhodium	0.6 - 0.7
Gold	0.0 - 0.15
Copper	0.35
Palladium	0.5
Brass	0.4 - 0.5. (brass is mostly copper)

Calculating the Differences:

The difference in anodic index between two metals helps determine the likelihood and severity of galvanic corrosion (battery effect:

1. Rhodium and Gold:
   • Rhodium: 0.6 - 0.7
   • Gold: 0.0 - 0.15
   • Difference: 0.45 to 0.7
2. Rhodium and Copper:
   • Rhodium: 0.6 - 0.7
   • Copper: 0.35
   • Difference: 0.25 to 0.35
3. Copper and Palladium:
   • Copper: 0.35
   • Palladium: 0.5
   • Difference: 0.15

4. Rhodium and Brass

• Rhodium: 0.6 - 0.7
• Brass: 0.4 - 0.5
• Difference: 0.1 to 0.3

interpretation:

• Differences greater than 0.25: Likely to cause galvanic corrosion in the presence of an electrolyte. The severity depends on environmental factors and the relative surface area of the metals.
• Differences less than 0.15: Low risk of galvanic corrosion, generally considered compatible.

Summary of Galvanic Risks:

• Copper and Palladium: Low risk of galvanic corrosion.
• Rhodium and Brass: Low to moderate risk, with brass corroding.
• Rhodium and Copper: Moderate risk, with copper corroding.
• Rhodium and Gold: Moderate to high risk, with rhodium corroding.

In all cases, the actual corrosion rate will depend on factors such as the presence of an electrolyte, the relative surface areas of the metals, and environmental conditions. From a sonic perspective, the major considerations as I have mentioned previously are not just what metals your a using for your cables and connectors, but what metal(s) one is connecting to (which is typically overlooked). Nothing wrong with a sonic preference as YMMV certainly applies here. But since the battery effect highly correlates to sonics as per many people far more knowledgable than me on this subject (i.e., Caelin Gabriel and George Cardas), I'll stick with science in looking for good guidance on this complex subject.

As neither Rhodium or Gold tend to corrode, I don’t see how you will get corrosion (corrode to what exactly?) between these two metals.
Rhodium is commonly used as a corrosion resistant coating on “white gold” jewelry.

That said, I don’t even see a circumstance in audio where Rhodium would be plated on gold. You would have Rhodium on copper or silver or Gold on copper or silver but there would be no reason to have two non-corroding , not great conducting metals plated onto each other.

 

[Kingrex]

@marty
I got almost the opposite from chat GPT. It said Rhoidum and Gold are both noble and very good as a cord to duplex connection. It said Palladium and brass were not as good.

I don't know which is correct. AI is such a lying mess. I am finding it less and less accurate. But, I will mix and match and try stuff. I am actually not sure the Oyaide duplex I put in the wall is better than the 20A tin coated GFI that was there. I have to take a listen. The cord I was given made a notable difference. That was apparent in the GFI. I don't know about the change when I swapped the Oyaide in. I should have let things settle more before switching. I still need to get a gold Furutech.

As neither Rhodium or Gold tend to corrode, I don’t see how you will get corrosion (corrode to what exactly?) between these two metals.
Rhodium is commonly used as a corrosion resistant coating on “white gold” jewelry.

That said, I don’t even see a circumstance in audio where Rhodium would be plated on gold. You would have Rhodium on copper or silver or Gold on copper or silver but there would be no reason to have two non-corroding , not great conducting metals plated onto each other.

I think we were talking about metals in contact. Not plating. But I don't know how Marty asked the question. I asked and it started talking about plating metals. I then told it I was using a cord with one metal and a duplex with the other. It said that was different and gave a different answer. It said brass was not a noble metal and would have more issues. I just don't know. It will come down to listening.

 

[Holmz]

@marty
I got almost the opposite from chat GPT. It said Rhoidum and Gold are both noble and very good as a cord to duplex connection. It said Palladium and brass were not as good.

I don't know which is correct. AI is such a lying mess. I am finding it less and less accurate.

But, I will mix and match and try stuff. I am actually not sure the Oyaide duplex I put in the wall is better than the 20A tin coated GFI that was there. I have to take a listen. The cord I was given made a notable difference. That was apparent in the GFI. I don't know about the change when I swapped the Oyaide in. I should have let things settle more before switching. I still need to get a gold Furutech.

Why?

I think we were talking about metals in contact. Not plating. But I don't know how Marty asked the question. I asked and it started talking about plating metals. I then told it I was using a cord with one metal and a duplex with the other. It said that was different and gave a different answer. It said brass was not a noble metal and would have more issues. I just don't know. It will come down to listening.

I would defer first to a metallurgist.
Have people A/B tested any of this stuff? Seems like something should exist that points to general preference.

 

[bonzo75]

. AI is such a lying mess. I am finding it less and less accurate.

Looks like ChatGPT belongs to the peanut gallery of metallurgists

 

[John T]

I shipped this yesterday. Client is using a 240 volt output isolation transformer. Completely guttted, contacts polished, then cleaned and every contact and electrical surface Deox G100. Took about 3 days.

I take it this is the subpanel coming off of the 240V output for the rest of the clients system...