The End of Speaker Cables.?

[esldude]

Non-ionizing radiation is already a big concern - for example, about 90% of all skin cancer is caused by exposure to solar UV, and there's nothing complex or subtle about the mortality rate for melanoma or the extensive destruction and disfigurement resulting from morpheaform and other aggressive basal cell carcinomas. As I can't rid my environment of its extraneous energy and chemical content, I can only learn to live with it. But that doesn't mean that I accept its benignity. As a species, we ignore these risks at our own peril - we're screwing up our planet at a pace that absolutely mandates mutation if we're to continue to inhabit it.

 

I'm truly glad that I'm no longer young. It took me all these years to build up sufficient equanimity to sleep at night and go to work every day, and I don't think I'd be as mellow if I knew that I had enough lifespan left to suffer the consequences of our collectively poor planetary hygiene. At least now I have the answer to BB's classic query: everybody asks me why I sing the blues.

 

Wireless speakers? Bring 'em on. I won't live long enough to mount a cellular response, and my kids' heads are so thick that it'll take Goldfinger's laser to penetrate them.

Solar UV that causes melanoma is ionising radiation. Just below that in the near UV is where it no longer is ionising.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[sphinxsix]

Yesterday I watched the latest Werner Herzog documentary

 

 

There's an interesting part in which he shows people who have to live in a space with a minimal radiation otherwise they get quite sick. Some of them spend long years living in Faraday Cages! A small community of these radiation sensitive people lives in Green Bank, West Virginia area where the level of radiation of any kind is greatly reduced for scientifical reasons (telescopes picking up radio waves from space). The doc is worth checking out IMO!

[mansr]

Yesterday I watched the latest Werner Herzog documentary

 

 

There's an interesting part in which he shows people who have to live in a space with a minimal radiation otherwise they get quite sick. Some of them spend long years living in Faraday Cages! A small community of these radiation sensitive people lives in Green Bank, West Virginia area where the level of radiation of any kind is greatly reduced for scientifical reasons (telescopes picking up radio waves from space). The doc is worth checking out IMO!

 

There's no evidence that these symptoms are caused by electromagnetic radiation. Everything credible I've read about the phenomenon suggests it's all in their heads. For instance, a test subject has never, as far I know, passed a blind test where they have to identify whether a transmitter is on or off without seeing it.

[sphinxsix]

There's no evidence that these symptoms are caused by electromagnetic radiation. Everything credible I've read about the phenomenon suggests it's all in their heads. For instance, a test subject has never, as far I know, passed a blind test where they have to identify whether a transmitter is on or off without seeing it.

C'mon.. feeling something instantly and experiencing its long term effects are two different things. Can anyone rezognize instantly x-rays.? Yet we know the long term exposure can cause very serious problems. I've heard about cases of health problems of people living near cell phones' networks antennae - I'don't know whether somebody examined for instance this subject in detail.

[mansr]

C'mon.. feeling something instantly and experiencing its long term effects are two different things. Can anyone rezognize instantly x-rays.? Yet we know the long term exposure can cause very serious problems. I've heard about cases of health problems of people living near cell phones' networks antennae - I'don't know whether somebody examined for instance this subject in detail.

A lot of people claim to suffer various symptoms immediately in the presence of, say, a mobile phone. Somehow they still fail in a controlled test environment. It's like with audiophile cables, all in the head.

 

X-rays are, as has already been mentioned, ionising. That's completely different.

[sphinxsix]

A lot of people claim to suffer various symptoms immediately in the presence of, say, a mobile phone. Somehow they still fail in a controlled test environment. It's like with audiophile cables, all in the head.

 

X-rays are, as has already been mentioned, ionising. That's completely different.

The people in the Herzog's documentary don't make such claims.

 

As for (your favorite subject, my friend that's good 'cause I like to discuss it too;)) cables - if you use $50 computer speakers - I (for the second time if I remember correctly) agree with you, possibly yes...

[Iain]

I like to think of these as "bardo" threads.

 

...

 

I personally don't want anything wireless until it becomes more reliable for my use. I don't even like cell phones. Wired connections have just been more reliable in my own subjective experience.

 

... and secure as well, IMOO

[bluesman]

Solar UV that causes melanoma is ionising radiation. Just below that in the near UV is where it no longer is ionising.

Only UV with wavelengths below 125 nM is considered ionizing radiation. This is at the very end of the UVC spectrum (100-280 nM) and is absorbed by the ozone in the atmosphere - it's not a significant contributor to development of malignancy. UVA is 315-400 nm and UVB is 280-315 nm by definition, and these are the UV bands of importance. UVA and UVB are non-ionizing radiation - the damage they cause is technically photochemical. Non-ionizing UV induces the formation of covalent linkages at C=C double bonds and causes uracil dimers to accumulate in RNA (among many other deleterious effects).

 

I'm a board certified facial plastic surgeon, a full professor at one of our major medical schools, on the editorial boards of all our major journals, the medical editor of my academy's monthly publication for 20+ years, and the author of about 80 peer reviewed publications, chapters, etc in my field. But if you can't accept this on my authority, start with this typical study by Placzek et al in the British Journal of Dermatology (156: 843-7, 2007). The intro begins with

 

"One important component of the cellular response to irradiation is the activation of cell cycle checkpoints. It is known that

both ultraviolet (UV) radiation and ionizing radiation (IR)

[emphasis added by me] can activate checkpoints at transitions from G(1) to S phase, from G(2) phase to mitosis and during DNA replication."

 

and the study ends with

 

"UVA and IR induce radical-mediated strand breaks and DNA lesions, and UVB essentially induces thymine dimers that lead to excision repair-related strand breaks. Different cell cycle effects may be a consequence of different types of DNA damage."

[mansr]

Only UV with wavelengths below 125 nM is considered ionizing radiation. This is at the very end of the UVC spectrum (100-280 nM) and is absorbed by the ozone in the atmosphere - it's not a significant contributor to development of malignancy. UVA is 315-400 nm and UVB is 280-315 nm by definition, and these are the UV bands of importance. UVA and UVB are non-ionizing radiation - the damage they cause is technically photochemical. Non-ionizing UV induces the formation of covalent linkages at C=C double bonds and causes uracil dimers to accumulate in RNA (among many other deleterious effects).

 

I'm a board certified facial plastic surgeon, a full professor at one of our major medical schools, on the editorial boards of all our major journals, the medical editor of my academy's monthly publication for 20+ years, and the author of about 80 peer reviewed publications, chapters, etc in my field. But if you can't accept this on my authority, start with this typical study by Placzek et al in the British Journal of Dermatology (156: 843-7, 2007). The intro begins with

 

"One important component of the cellular response to irradiation is the activation of cell cycle checkpoints. It is known that

both ultraviolet (UV) radiation and ionizing radiation (IR)

[emphasis added by me] can activate checkpoints at transitions from G(1) to S phase, from G(2) phase to mitosis and during DNA replication."

 

and the study ends with

 

"UVA and IR induce radical-mediated strand breaks and DNA lesions, and UVB essentially induces thymine dimers that lead to excision repair-related strand breaks. Different cell cycle effects may be a consequence of different types of DNA damage."

 

Thanks for the thorough explanation. Nevertheless, all UV radiation has much, much higher energy than radio frequencies used for communication (up to 10 GHz or so). RF radiation simply doesn't have the energy to cause that kind of damage. Putting your hand in a hot oven is probably more dangerous. Do bakers have abnormally high incidence of anything?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - I'm joining this thread late. I guess the moral of the story is that wireless cables are going to give me melanoma, but only if I fail a triple blind A/B/X being filmed for a documentary?

 

Can we get back on topic?

[bluesman]

Thanks for the thorough explanation. Nevertheless, all UV radiation has much, much higher energy than radio frequencies used for communication (up to 10 GHz or so). RF radiation simply doesn't have the energy to cause that kind of damage. Putting your hand in a hot oven is probably more dangerous. Do bakers have abnormally high incidence of anything?

Maybe I wasn't clear enough - I do not hide from ambient energy. I don't think it's a direct and immediate hazard, and sunscreen is as far as I go toward mitigation. I'm not a doomsday dude and I'm happily living in the 21st century. But ambient RF has much more energy in toto than you seem to think.

 

It's unrealistic (at least, to me) to assume that the EMF in which we're now constantly bathed cannot possibly have any effect on the future of life on this planet. Although there's a huge difference in energy between ionizing radiation and simple EMF (e.g. gamma rays have about 10 to the 19th more energy than radio station signals), there's more energy in RF than you seem to believe. For example, a 100,000 watt AM radio station will induce 20 to 50 mW into your car's radio antenna. Researchers have generated 0.06µW at 1.2mV potential by converting a single WiFi signal using similar methods to those that convert RF input at the antenna into an audio signal at your tuner's output jacks.

 

There are currently about 7 billion active mobile phone accounts worldwide. WiFi signals blanket much of what we traditionally consider the civilized world (although I'm not so sure I agree with that term, thinking about how much more civilized life was when you couldn't be contacted 24/7/365...) and our power grids are pumping record levels of energy. Computers, monitors, even some kinds of mice (mouses?) emit RF. There are clearly many millions of devices emitting EMF around the world, and that number is growing. Every radiant emission carries energy that can be transferred to another carrier and/or form, and we humans are not perfect reflectors of energy (i.e. we do absorb, dissipate, and transduce at least a small fraction of the energy with which we're struck). So we are dissipating at least a small fraction of the ambient energy in which we swim. This has to have some effect on our future progeny, if only to make them more resistant to the very same energy.

 

"Do bakers have abnormally high incidence of anything?" In addition to burns, bakers have statistically higher incidences of many ills than non-bakers. Cardiovascular function is compromised by the higher ambient temperatures in which they work, so fainting and dehydration are much more common. The amylase in flour, along with many components and additives in foods of all kinds, causes a higher than normal rate of sensitization (cutaneous, respiratory, GI). The list also includes cuts, back injuries, falls, etc. But the most impressive fact about bakers to me is that "bakers' asthma" is still one of the most common occupational risks in the world - an estimated 10+% of all professional bakers develop it, and it drives many out of the profession.

[mansr]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough - I do not hide from ambient energy. I don't think it's a direct and immediate hazard, and sunscreen is as far as I go toward mitigation. I'm not a doomsday dude and I'm happily living in the 21st century. But ambient RF has much more energy in toto than you seem to think.

 

It's unrealistic (at least, to me) to assume that the EMF in which we're now constantly bathed cannot possibly have any effect on the future of life on this planet. Although there's a huge difference in energy between ionizing radiation and simple EMF (e.g. gamma rays have about 10 to the 19th more energy than radio station signals), there's more energy in RF than you seem to believe. For example, a 100,000 watt AM radio station will induce 20 to 50 mW into your car's radio antenna. Researchers have generated 0.06µW at 1.2mV potential by converting a single WiFi signal using similar methods to those that convert RF input at the antenna into an audio signal at your tuner's output jacks.

 

For electromagnetic radiation to cause ionisation or changes to molecular bonds, the individual photons need to have sufficiently high energy. In normal radio signals they do not. All they can do is heat the sample to a lesser or greater degree. Standing near a powerful radio transmitter or radar antenna will cook you alive. A mile away it has less effect than raising the room temperature by a degree. If it's not making you physically hot, RF radiation is harmless.

[bluesman]

For electromagnetic radiation to cause ionisation or changes to molecular bonds, the individual photons need to have sufficiently high energy. In normal radio signals they do not. All they can do is heat the sample to a lesser or greater degree. Standing near a powerful radio transmitter or radar antenna will cook you alive. A mile away it has less effect than raising the room temperature by a degree. If it's not making you physically hot, RF radiation is harmless.

I'm with Chris - I'm sorry I took the bait and I'll stick to the topic. We'll come back to whether or not RF radiation is harmless when we have a few generations of descendants to study.

 

No, I don't think that BT speakers will obsolete the cable industry. Almost all (probably 99+%) of the units reflected in the Stereophile piece are tiny speakers and simple "extension speakers" intended for patio and other secondary use. Although Dynaudio and other wireless speakers and systems are much better than earlier efforts, I haven't heard any wireless speakers yet that I'd want in my main audio system.

 

I'm not averse to wireless data transfer. Our home has an audio system in each room except the bathrooms, and all are fed via WiFi. I love the convenience and enjoy the sound. But when I really want to get serious, I use systems that are entirely hard wired. Vinyl goes from my '69 Thorens TD125/SME to my original (1976) Rogers LS3/5as through a Parasound pre & a Prima Luna amp. Digital goes from one of a number of players (Beaglebone Black, Pi 3, Asus Chromebox) to my Wadia 151 and Focal towers. And copper connects them all.

[bluesman]

Hi Guys - I'm joining this thread late. I guess the moral of the story is that wireless cables are going to give me melanoma, but only if I fail a triple blind A/B/X being filmed for a documentary?

 

Can we get back on topic?

No worries, mate - just keep a few cables handy. I read somewhere that copper cures cancer.

 

[NOMBEDES]

Goldmund is another high end company that is making active, wireless speakers. I from some of my European "golden ear" friends that these systems are some of the best sounding they have ever heard.

 

 

I have heard the Goldmund speakers. Agree 100% they sound amazing. Out of my price range, woe is me.

[Ajax]

In a perfect world we would have iso standard sizes and connections in digital speakers, that enable all kinds of companies to build parts of the system.

 

Hi Chris,

 

I have often wonder why speaker manufacturers have not embraced a modular approach to digital speaker design. Why couldn't you design four different size speakers (small bookshelf, large book shelf, small tower, large tower etc) and then simply offer a range of active cross overs, DACs, amps of various quality and price points that plug into the back of the speakers so that you could have a multitude of combinations, but at no additional overhead or manufacturing cost. You could have a "picking" list sent to the factory and they just select your components off the shelf and "insert' them into the rear of the speaker box. Maybe you also offer different drivers but that may get too difficult but I would not have thought the rest would be.

 

Something similar could be done for electrostatics (I know some do this already to some extent) by adding a subwoofer with cross over, DAC, amps etc in the base or in an accompanying separate sub.

 

Add a remote control and your done.

 

Ajax

[sandyk]

The LF response of a speaker is governed by the size of the LF drivers and the matching internal cubic capacity of the speaker enclosure.

Put a pile of electronics inside the bottom of the enclosure and you have reduced the available internal area for flattest LF response. Digital EQ for the speaker is not a good way to correct the resulting inadequacies.

 

figuring out the proper speaker encloser size | Steve Hoffman Music Forums