Passive preamp buzzing?

[Marco]

This is the post from Jez that kicked it all off: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?53922-Passive-preamp-buzzing&p=902732#post902732

Note my (initially) lighthearted response that followed, on post #183, and me challenging his assertion, which he's repeatedly swerved. Therefore, it wasn't ME who started that particular debate, so I'm not "forcing" anything from him, other than to explain why I'm supposedly wrong about what I wrote.

And what I'm supposedly wrong about, has got nothing whatsoever to do with electronics! It's to do with the (arguable) mechanical superiority of different plugs.

Marco.

[Barry]

Putting aside for the moment any discussion of differences in SQ, there is some difference in the quality and physical tolerance of RCA (phono) connectors and that of BNC and CAMAC connectors.

First RCA phono connectors were designed by RCA in the 1940s as a cheap way of connecting the pickup of a ‘phonograph’ (aka record player) to the audio amplifier of a radio set, replacing the far more superior but expensive ¼” telephone jack that had been used to date. The emphasis is on cheap. Both inner and outer conductors consisted of rolled nickel or tin plated copper sheet, with a disc of synthetic resin bonded fibre to separate the two. The American radio, TV and audio industry quickly adopted it as a standard.

After WW II the RCA connector was introduced to the fledgling Japanese consumer electronics industry, and because of that became the de facto standard for connector design for audio electronics. Over the years the original and simple design has been ‘tarted up’ through the use of better-machined conductors, now usually gold plated, and better insulating dielectrics, such as PTFE. The tolerance on the conductor diameters are still lax, which means some brands will have a tight fit when mated, whereas others will have a looser fit.

The outer diameter (of the socket) is 0.3” (= 8.25mm), and the diameter of the pin is 1/8” (= 3.175mm). However the outer diameter can be as large as 8.35mm, and the inner pin diameter can vary 3.0 ± 0.1mm; hence the variability in tightness of fit when the connectors are mated.


The BNC connector was designed from the outset to be used as a high frequency connector and one having a specific characteristic impedance. The concept of characteristic impedance has no relevance at audio frequencies, but it does impose far tighter tolerance on the dimensions of the coaxial conductors - far higher than that of the RCA design (which was not intended to be a constant impedance design). BNCs come in two varieties; those having a characteristic impedance of 50Ω and those having an impedance of 75Ω. For both the diameter of the outer conductor is 8.128 ± 0.025mm, whereas the diameter of the inner pin will depend on the characteristic impedance.

As such the BNC is a precision connector with less variation in the integrity of the connection when mated than the RCA. Interestingly, BNCs are only a little larger than RCAs and are only a little more expensive (though not as expensive as some brands of RCA). BNCs have one additional feature over the RCA, they are locked/latched when mated through the bayonet action of the plug.

For CAMAC connectors, I refer you to one manufacturer of such: LEMO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEMO. Suffice to say these are often the connector of choice in safety-critical applications, such as the nuclear and aerospace industry and for use in medical equipment. They are a little smaller in size than RCAs, but very expensive (although some brands of RCAs can be as expensive). Like BNCs CAMAC connectors also latch when mated.

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?3849-Basics-amp-General-Audio-Connectors

[Bigman80]

Great Info Barry.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[walpurgis]

Connection related. It's strange how long it took for decent speaker connections to be available and to a general extent standardised.

Mostly, up to the later sixties dreadful little screw terminals were common on amps and speakers. Very prone to shorting and a fiddle to use, also precluding the use of substantial cables. Not that those were popular yet. Then DIN plugs and sockets came along, a slight improvement, but too small for decent cables and still prone to shorting if the plug wires came loose. In the seventies 4mm banana connections gained popularity. This made life much easier and opened up cable options too.

[Marco]

Thanks for that, Barry. Most enlightening, as usual :)

It's pretty obvious from your factual summary of events, showing that RCAs are NOT the optimum connectors for audio use, as the design never at any point originated from a desire to engineer it as being the BEST POSSIBLE solution. The emphasis was always on cheapness, not quality!

And as such, particularly in reference to the variable (and lax) tolerance on the conductor diameters, is a compromised design, being of overall inferior mechanical construction, compared with higher quality connectors, such as BNCs. It is therefore inevitable that RCAs, when compared with BNCs, will offer a connection with compromised integrity.

Having established the facts of the matter, I wonder if Jez will now have the grace to admit that not only was he wrong, in terms of completely misunderstanding the point I was originally making (I'll admit partly because I didn't explain myself as clearly as I should've done) about plugs, claiming that I was referring to sound quality, and perhaps apologise for that, but that he was also wrong by stating what he did below, in reference to the 'adequacy' of RCAs:


Once you had started with something like "I believe phono plugs are sub optimal and BNC's sound better", there is, as I am only too aware, nothing that I or anyone else could say that would result in you changing that to "now its been explained I can see that phonos are perfectly adequate for audio and there is indeed nothing to be gained by moving to BNC's"


We wait in hope! The key word there is "nothing", which as has been shown, simply isn't the case.

Marco.

[Firebottle]

BNC connectors aren't the easiest to fit onto cable, you have to cut accurately, plus they are not all the same with respect to the shield clamping.

I've done quite a few.....

[struth]

BNC connectors aren't the easiest to fit onto cable, you have to cut accurately, plus they are not all the same with respect to the shield clamping.

I've done quite a few.....

indeed, they are fiddly but so can rca's. at least when fitted they are pretty secure.

[Marco]

Sure, Alan, but nothing is perfect. And of course it's not about 'easy', if you want the best. You just have to take your time, use the correct tools (and cable), and do a good job.

The key with plugs or anything else, is to adopt the use of that which offers the least compromises, and from what Barry has written above, it's pretty obvious that, overall, RCAs are more compromised than BNCs :)

Marco.

[Thebiglebowski]

Sure, Alan, but nothing is perfect. And of course it's not about 'easy', if you want the best. You just have to take your time, use the correct tools (and cable), and do a good job.

The key with plugs or anything else, is to adopt the use of that which offers the least compromises, and from what Barry has written above, it's pretty obvious that, overall, RCAs are more compromised than BNCs :)

Marco.

Nope, BNC was designed for high frequency use and delivers no advantages at audio freqs.

RCA performs well above the requirements for audio and using BNC would not improve the sound quality. Your use of 'best' is nothing but your interpretation that something more complicated or expensive is better.

Just because A is more compromised than B does not mean that it cannot perform 100% of the requirements for a task.

[Marco]

Nope, BNC was designed for high frequency use and delivers no advantages at audio freqs.


For goodness sake, does anyone actually READ what I write?? :doh:

I'm not talking about its performance at audio frequencies, or anything like that, I'm talking about its mechanical inferiority compared with a BNC!

Has it sunk in now?


RCA performs well above the requirements for audio and using BNC would not improve the sound quality. Your use of 'best' is nothing but your interpretation that something more complicated or expensive is better.


Well, your absolutist statement is no better or more valid than Jez's...

That *may* prove to be the case, but in terms of what *I* think on the matter, it'll be ME who's deciding that or not, not you, and forming my opinion accordingly. So don't come on here TELLING me what the result will be of something I test, as you'll receive very short shrift.

This is a staunchly subjectivist forum, and so ultimately we trust our ears here, above all else, and that's how it will remain!

Marco.

[The Black Adder]

I've tried Bnc connectors. They were good.. Can't say if it was an improvement over modern day RCA's Like WBT or ETI as it was a long time ago.

When I used to work in a recording studio the desk there was all BNC.. It was an analogue desk. Can't remember the make or anything but it was a very expensive one as it was all refitted shortly after I joined.

The only thin I see them used for in home audio is digital. But you can use them... I like them, they feel more secure than RCA and have a good fit.

Im sure there are lots of other options available.. So it might be good to have someone experiment say with a top notch Rca and a BNC?

Sent from my 9001X using Tapatalk

[Bigman80]

I've tried Bnc connectors. They were good.. Can't say if it was an improvement over modern day RCA's Like WBT or ETI as it was a long time ago.

When I used to work in a recording studio the desk there was all BNC.. It was an analogue desk. Can't remember the make or anything but it was a very expensive one as it was all refitted shortly after I joined.

The only thin I see them used for in home audio is digital. But you can use them... I like them, they feel more secure than RCA and have a good fit.

Im sure there are lots of other options available.. So it might be good to have someone experiment say with a top notch Rca and a BNC?

Sent from my 9001X using TapatalkThanks for that. I was beginning to thing I was alone in my thinking

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[struth]

I've tried Bnc connectors. They were good.. Can't say if it was an improvement over modern day RCA's Like WBT or ETI as it was a long time ago.

When I used to work in a recording studio the desk there was all BNC.. It was an analogue desk. Can't remember the make or anything but it was a very expensive one as it was all refitted shortly after I joined.

The only thin I see them used for in home audio is digital. But you can use them... I like them, they feel more secure than RCA and have a good fit.

Im sure there are lots of other options available.. So it might be good to have someone experiment say with a top notch Rca and a BNC?

Sent from my 9001X using Tapatalk


nothing ventured as they say. I like them too. a solid fit and the better ones Ive used were or appeared to connect better without becoming welded to the socket risking damage trying to get it back off

[Arkless Electronics]

Nope, BNC was designed for high frequency use and delivers no advantages at audio freqs.

RCA performs well above the requirements for audio and using BNC would not improve the sound quality. Your use of 'best' is nothing but your interpretation that something more complicated or expensive is better.

Just because A is more compromised than B does not mean that it cannot perform 100% of the requirements for a task.

That's entirely correct yes.

Line level audio is a generally "non critical" use for plugs and sockets, the single most critical being the input of a phono stage for MC.

We are talking at very most a couple of mA's of current (0.002A) and voltages around 1V generally. Large contact areas and very low resistance are simply not required. The only possible issue is one of diodic contamination causing partial rectification and hence distortion but this is ruled out by using gold plated connectors that don't oxidise. It applies equally to any non gold plated connector. Simply plugging and unplugging connectors a few times, with some contact cleaner for stubborn cases, will restore normal operation anyway.

BNC's are for RF as others have said, being constant impedance coaxial connectors available as 50 and 75 Ohm. Non of the factors that make them constant impedance or low loss at RF frequencies are even applicable at audio frequencies. Contact area is even less than a phono and they are a total twat to fit and vastly more expensive than phonos.... They're such a twat to fit that I could probably fit 10 phonos in the time it would take to fit one BNC!

[The Black Adder]

No need for the language, Jez.. Could you edit your post please?

[Firebottle]

There is one big factor that is being overlooked here, concerning practicality.

As has been mentioned the BNC and other RF connectors are made for a constant impedance. What this means is they are made to fit cable of specific sizes only. The ratio of the diameter of the inner conductor and outer shield is fixed and the connectors designed to match.

What you can't do is slap your favourite audio cable into an RF connector unless it matches the specific size for it, which audio cables generally don't do. Do you really want to use RG58 coaxial cable for your interconnects?

I've tried knocking up quick adapter leads with BNCs and it takes major surgery or lots of bodgeration to connect.

[Joe]

lots of bodgeration

What an excellent phrase!

[struth]

There is one big factor that is being overlooked here, concerning practicality.

As has been mentioned the BNC and other RF connectors are made for a constant impedance. What this means is they are made to fit cable of specific sizes only. The ratio of the diameter of the inner conductor and outer shield is fixed and the connectors designed to match.

What you can't do is slap your favourite audio cable into an RF connector unless it matches the specific size for it, which audio cables generally don't do. Do you really want to use RG58 coaxial cable for your interconnects?

I've tried knocking up quick adapter leads with BNCs and it takes major surgery or lots of bodgeration to connect.

Indeed i agree. Although that wasnt the initial point being made i dont think. It was, do they make a better contact

[Arkless Electronics]

No need for the language, Jez.. Could you edit your post please?

What language? What derogatory remark apparently removed by Marco? It reads the same as I recall typing. I'm not aware of anything having been removed and I know nothing of any derogatory remark.

[Arkless Electronics]

There is one big factor that is being overlooked here, concerning practicality.

As has been mentioned the BNC and other RF connectors are made for a constant impedance. What this means is they are made to fit cable of specific sizes only. The ratio of the diameter of the inner conductor and outer shield is fixed and the connectors designed to match.

What you can't do is slap your favourite audio cable into an RF connector unless it matches the specific size for it, which audio cables generally don't do. Do you really want to use RG58 coaxial cable for your interconnects?

I've tried knocking up quick adapter leads with BNCs and it takes major surgery or lots of bodgeration to connect.

That's an excellent point Alan!

Why wouldn't anyone want to use RG58 for interconnects? I do :eyebrows:

[The Black Adder]

That's entirely correct yes.

Line level audio is a generally "non critical" use for plugs and sockets, the single most critical being the input of a phono stage for MC.

We are talking at very most a couple of mA's of current (0.002A) and voltages around 1V generally. Large contact areas and very low resistance are simply not required. The only possible issue is one of diodic contamination causing partial rectification and hence distortion but this is ruled out by using gold plated connectors that don't oxidise. It applies equally to any non gold plated connector. Simply plugging and unplugging connectors a few times, with some contact cleaner for stubborn cases, will restore normal operation anyway.

BNC's are for RF as others have said, being constant impedance coaxial connectors available as 50 and 75 Ohm. Non of the factors that make them constant impedance or low loss at RF frequencies are even applicable at audio frequencies. Contact area is even less than a phono and they are a total twat to fit and vastly more expensive than phonos.... They're such a twat to fit that I could probably fit 10 phonos in the time it would take to fit one BNC!

As shown in bold... No need for it.. so please edit it.

Thank you.

[RothwellAudio]

Anyone who wants to use something other than RCA connectors is making life a bit difficult for themselves because so much equipment has RCA connectors as standard, and many of the RCAs found on commercial equipment are PCB mounted. Changing them for anything else would be a proper faff. Personally, I like cheapish RCA connectors because the contacts have some springiness which allows for the tolerance of manufacture and helps make a good connection.
Of course, if you're prepared to modify commercial gear or you're making your own and you don't care about the convenience of being able to quickly interface with standard commercial equipment, you have a wide range of alternative connectors to choose from. BNCs wouldn't be high on my list because, as mentioned by others, they're a proper pain in the backside to wire up and restrict your options for cable.
If you're looking for chunky connectors XLRs would be an option and you could carry both channels on one plug, but it might be wise to make it obvious that they're not wired as standard balanced connectors if anyone else will be using your gear.
Then there are lots and lots of others available if you're prepared to go off the beaten track. Farnell have 6,600 entries under "circular industrial connectors" and 204,000 entries under "circular MIL spec equivalent connectors" - and they have plenty of other types of connectors available too!
The idea that BNCs are "the best" doesn't sound convincing to me.

Personally, I don't think there's any advantage to using anything more fancy than RCAs - but there's a lot of inconvenience to tolerate.

[walpurgis]

Surely obtaining good quality examples of each socket and plug type concerned and measuring conductor resistance through them when each pair are plugged together would show any advantages or disadvantages. Disregarding ease of installing, ergonomics and durabilty of course. My betting is that there'd be little or nothing in it.

[RothwellAudio]

...obtaining good quality examples of each socket and plug type concerned and measuring conductor resistance through them...
I think you would need some very fancy measuring equipment to measure resistance as low as that.

[Firebottle]

I've got a PAT machine which puts 25A through a contact, a bit OTT for audio connectors maybe :D

[karma67]

As shown in bold... No need for it.. so please edit it.

Thank you.

you'd best not look at the 3 words daily thread then,cough cough :)

[Barry]

Why wouldn't anyone want to use RG58 for interconnects? I do :eyebrows:

So do I, along with almost anything I can lay my hands on: RG174, RG223, URM70, ....

Since the concept of characteristic impedance has no validity at audio frequencies, you can use more or less whatever coaxial cable you like with BNCs. I disagree that BNCs are difficult to fit - they are no more difficult than RCAs.

There are some very positive fitting RCA connectors out there, just as there are some absolute dogs. The good ones use solid metal bodies (pace Marco), whereas the poor ones don't.

No one is suggesting that BNC connectors sound any better than any others (I don't believe the choice of connector, if wired properly, makes any difference to SQ), and for domestic consumer electronics RCAs are fit for purpose. It is just that professional gear which often has to be proof against rough handling and abuse is rarely, if ever, fitted with RCAs.

[Barry]

I think you would need some very fancy measuring equipment to measure resistance as low as that.

I have a Sullivan 666 Micro-Ohmmeter. It is a very sensitive bridge circuit using a 4-wire measurement technique with Kelvin clamps. It can measure down to 10s of nOhm (10-8 Ohm).

[Arkless Electronics]

As shown in bold... No need for it.. so please edit it.

Thank you.

It's news to me if that's foul language.. people use the F word and worse on here and this is the first time I've seen such a comment. Marco got his SS out now eh...
After a bang out of order PM I got from Marco yesterday (No I won't be talking to you on the phone tomorrow Marco) I shall very likely be moving to another forum and ending all activity at AOS. A fait accompli anyway as I'll no doubt get banned for speaking my mind here and that's basically the problem. Marco. Nothing else. Too much of the "it's my ball" attitude... telling people to back down or else all the time just because opinions different to his own personal opinion are being expressed...

I don't want to part of a forum in which the owner thinks it's ok to say:

"Quote Originally Posted by Thebiglebowski View Post
Nope, BNC was designed for high frequency use and delivers no advantages at audio freqs.
For goodness sake, does anyone actually READ what I write??

I'm not talking about its performance at audio frequencies, or anything like that, I'm talking about its mechanical inferiority compared with a BNC!

Has it sunk in now?

RCA performs well above the requirements for audio and using BNC would not improve the sound quality. Your use of 'best' is nothing but your interpretation that something more complicated or expensive is better.
Well, your absolutist statement is no better or more valid than Jez's...

That *may* prove to be the case, but in terms of what *I* think on the matter, it'll be ME who's deciding that or not, not you, and forming my opinion accordingly. So don't come on here TELLING me what the result will be of something I test, as you'll receive very short shrift.

This is a staunchly subjectivist forum, and so ultimately we trust our ears here, above all else, and that's how it will remain!

Marco."

or this:

"Because I won't be rudely ignored like that. Therefore, when I ask someone what I consider is an important question, especially when it involves them telling me I'm supposedly wrong, I expect them to have the courtesy to reply and explain.

Normally, I wouldn't be so insistent, but Jez seems to be under the misapprehension that he can come onto threads, make absolutist statements like he did, and there will be no repercussions. I'm afraid he's in cloud-cuckoo land if he does!

Marco."

Worse still here's the PM I received:

"....because, Jez, this isn't working and hasn't been working for a while. And tonight's shenanigans has put the tin lid on it.

Especially now I've drawn your attention to how you completely misunderstood the point I was making on that thread, and haven't yet had the courtesy to ACKNOWLEDGE that and respond accordingly! You've no idea how much that pisses me off.

You need to understand who you're dealing with, Jez. I'm not some clueless oik, with no faith in my judgement, who'll easily back down and be told he's wrong by someone speaking authoritatively [even when they've completely misunderstood me].

You might have been used to getting away with that in the past, and folk thing you were the No1 expert on everything, but you *won't* get away with it here, especially with me.

So, are you in on Monday? If so, I'll call you and see whether there's any point in you remaining here or not. And *if* there is, Jez, you'll need to listen *very* carefully to what I have to say, as this will be your LAST chance.

ATB,
Marco. "

So long and thanks for the fish:mental:

[The Black Adder]

you'd best not look at the 3 words daily thread then,cough cough :)

Yes... but I can see Jez is becoming more and more agitated.. so I don't want this thread to carry on in a nasty way.. the 3WD thread is a lighter thread.

I don't like the word 'T**T'... To me it's very offensive and very innopropriate for his post. Swearing won't solve anything, it just degrades the posters perceived intelligence. I've asked nicely for him to remove it... that's all I asked.

I think Jez is one hell of a clever guy, and therefore I totally expect him to execute more control over his post.

I hope that answers your question.

[karma67]

Yes... but I can see Jez is becoming more and more agitated.. so I don't want this thread to carry on in a nasty way.. the 3WD thread is a lighter thread.

I don't like the word 'T**T'... To me it's very offensive and very innopropriate for his post. Swearing won't solve anything, it just degrades the posters perceived intelligence. I've asked nicely for him to remove it... that's all I asked.

I think Jez is one hell of a clever guy, and therefore I totally expect him to execute more control over his post.

I hope that answers your question.

i didnt ask a question,but thanks for your reply.

[Joe]

I don't like the word 'T**T'... To me it's very offensive and very innopropriate for his post. Swearing won't solve anything, it just degrades the posters perceived intelligence. I've asked nicely for him to remove it... that's all I asked.
.

It's not swearing, as such, just what used to be called 'bad language'. Bad language is a strange thing anyway. I got flak from a bloke on ANOther forum for using the word 'shit', even though it was a quote from a song lyric and not aimed at anyone personally.

[Marco]

Ok folks, Jez has been banned for publishing the contents of a Private Message, without the sender's permission (as evidenced on his last post), which is something we take a very dim view of here. Private means Private.

And since he has chosen to publish the contents of the PM I sent him, which in the circumstances were perfectly reasonable, the thread has been locked. Plus, in all honesty, it's run its course. Anyway, I'll be responding shortly to Jez's remarks, to sum things up, and that'll bring an end to the matter.

Marco.

[Marco]

It's news to me if that's foul language.. people use the F word and worse on here and this is the first time I've seen such a comment. Marco got his SS out now eh...


Jo's actions had nothing whatsoever to do with me. Mods here act on their own judgement, so if she considered that your language was offensive and chose to warn you over it, then that was entirely her decision. You may wish to consider, however, the inappropriateness of the term "twat" to someone who's female.


After a bang out of order PM I got from Marco yesterday (No I won't be talking to you on the phone tomorrow Marco) I shall very likely be moving to another forum and ending all activity at AOS.


We'll deal with the "bang out of order PM" in a minute. No phone call will be necessary now, as you've been banned for publishing the contents of a private message, although I have nothing to hide, hence why it's not been removed.


A fait accompli anyway as I'll no doubt get banned for speaking my mind here and that's basically the problem. Marco. Nothing else. Too much of the "it's my ball" attitude... telling people to back down or else all the time just because opinions different to his own personal opinion are being expressed...


You have an uncanny ability to either not read what's been written, or only reading what you want to read! There has never been any problem with me tolerating different opinions to my own, *providing* on how those opinions were expressed.

AoS has been going now for nearly 10 years, during which time I've been involved in many 100s of debates, on all manner of subjects, and some very robust ones too, with a whole variety of different people, where at the end the majority of those with diametrically opposed views to mine have 'lived to tell the tale', as it were, and remained as members.

So what was the key to their 'survival'?

Well, although we strongly disagreed on the subjects debated, none of them felt the need to TELL me what I can hear, and what I can't, as dictated by a blinkered objectivist's notion that, in hi-fi, one's 'science book' knows ALL. That was your mantra, and also Thebiglebowski's (now also banned for the ridiculous personal insults he made, which have been deleted), and coming on here with absolutist statements such as:


RCA performs well above the requirements for audio and using BNC would not improve the sound quality. Your use of 'best' is nothing but your interpretation that something more complicated or expensive is better.


Have you any idea how condescending that last bit comes across in particular? That's not what I think, for starters, and so he had no right to judge me in that way. Those who know me, will know that thinking "expensive is better" is fundamentally NOT what I'm about. I'm an 'SPPV' guy, so he was way off beam there, and simply showing his ignorance.

As for "more complicated", again that's simply untrue. I'm known for, whenever possible, Keeping Things, Simple, Stupid (the K.I.S.S principle), and advocating it accordingly. However, if something needs to be a little more complicated, in order to give better results, then I'll simply do whatever is necessary. All I care about, ultimately, is achieving the best performance from any item that makes up my system, and connectors are simply a small part of that.

Now, let's look at his (even more) absolutist statement of: "BNC would not improve the sound quality". Well perhaps not, but if that proved to be the case, I wanted to discover it for myself, using MY own ears, and by forming MY own conclusions, not be told so in such an arrogant manner, by someone who thinks that they have a right to dictate to me like that.

And that's why Thebiglebowski got such short shrift. It wasn't because his opinions were different from mine; it was because he didn't think I was entitled to one on Phonos Vs. BNCs, had already concluded the outcome, and was effectively telling me that was an end to the matter! That sort of arrogance, I simply will not stand for, and it's something you've also frequently been guilty of since you've been a member of AoS.


I don't want to part of a forum in which the owner thinks it's ok to say:

"Quote Originally Posted by Thebiglebowski View Post
Nope, BNC was designed for high frequency use and delivers no advantages at audio freqs.
For goodness sake, does anyone actually READ what I write??

I'm not talking about its performance at audio frequencies, or anything like that, I'm talking about its mechanical inferiority compared with a BNC!

Has it sunk in now?

RCA performs well above the requirements for audio and using BNC would not improve the sound quality. Your use of 'best' is nothing but your interpretation that something more complicated or expensive is better.
Well, your absolutist statement is no better or more valid than Jez's...

That *may* prove to be the case, but in terms of what *I* think on the matter, it'll be ME who's deciding that or not, not you, and forming my opinion accordingly. So don't come on here TELLING me what the result will be of something I test, as you'll receive very short shrift.

This is a staunchly subjectivist forum, and so ultimately we trust our ears here, above all else, and that's how it will remain!

Marco."


What, you don't want to be part of a forum where the owner robustly defends his right to have an opinion, without being conceitedly told the outcome of a test between two connectors, before that test had even taken place?? And you wonder why that pissed me off? You must understand I don't give two hoots that either you or Big LB don't think BNCs will sound better or are superior to RCAs, in terms of their mechanical integrity, and have TOLD me so - I need to find that out for MYSELF!

You just don't 'get', thus are never able to acknowledge, the fact that no-one here has the right to TELL anyone what they will hear, or won't, with ANY aspect of hi-fi. You're not qualified to do that, and neither was Big LB, simply because it doesn't fit with your objectivist dogma. Your job is to build equipment, not to tell people what they can or cannot hear.

In terms of the bit in bold, above, I totally stand by that statement. AoS is a staunchly subjectivist forum, predominantly populated by subjectivists. Objectivists are welcome, but they MUST RESPECT OUR ETHOS, and bear that in mind when making their contributions. That is something you NEVER did. "Speaking your mind", Jez, doesn't give you carte blanche simply to be blinkered and dogmatic, or just plain rude.

Did you read what AoS was about before you came here? If so, the 'ultimately trust our ears' mantra shouldn't have come to you as a shock!!


or this:

"Because I won't be rudely ignored like that. Therefore, when I ask someone what I consider is an important question, especially when it involves them telling me I'm supposedly wrong, I expect them to have the courtesy to reply and explain.

Normally, I wouldn't be so insistent, but Jez seems to be under the misapprehension that he can come onto threads, make absolutist statements like he did, and there will be no repercussions. I'm afraid he's in cloud-cuckoo land if he does!

Marco."


Well again, it's quite simple: you chose to have a dig at me, by telling me I was wrong about plugs (leaving aside for the moment that you completely misjudged what you thought I was wrong about, because you'd misunderstood the point I was making), and then ran off and refused to qualify why.

Did you HONESTLY expect to get away with that unchallenged?

If so, then you *were* deluding yourself, and so the 'cloud-cuckoo land' comment was entirely apt! Furthermore, I consider it rude not to answer someone, when it's patently clear that the question they're seeking an answer to is important to them, which is why you were pulled up about it. I'm sorry, but I don't like being so rudely ignored.


Worse still here's the PM I received:

[Details as before]


Firstly, what on earth possessed you into thinking that it was perfectly ok to publish a private message I'd sent you, without my permission?

Not that I have anything to hide, but that ably shows just how lacking you were in any kind of sensitivity towards others, or even basic self-awareness, in terms of knowing how to act appropriately or responsibly on a forum, otherwise you'd have known that was bad form (and also an instantly ban-able offence)!

So, you carry on regardless and publish my PM, in a futile attempt to paint me as the bad guy. Well, once again, I stand by every word I wrote in that message and don't regret any of it, because it simply states facts.

It wasn't working Jez, and indeed hasn't been for some time, despite all the chances you've been given to try and fit in, by RESPECTING the fact that this is primarily a subjectivist forum, and that as such, the majority of the membership will ultimately trust their ears, regardless of what you think to the contrary.

Unfortunately, you could just never 'get' that fact, and that you TELLING people (whilst often simultaneously insulting them), by referring to ancillary items they use in their system as "foo", "fairies at the end of the garden", or them themselves as "plonkers who think valves are automatically better", with their perfectly valid subjective views dismissed as "hogwash" - I could go on - will achieve precisely the sum total of nothing, other than aggravating them.

It was condescending and disrespectful in the extreme, but despite being warned, time and time again that your behaviour was unacceptable, you kept on going like a bull in a China shop, showing absolutely no consideration for others, as long as you got to 'slap down' those you thought were deluded, and felt 'superior' for it.

You might get away with that behaviour elsewhere, but not on AoS, where we *demand* that people are automatically treated with civility, no matter how much you may disagree with someone and think that they're talking crap, simply because hi-fi opinions aside, they're still human beings and deserve not to be ridiculed, just because their views don't align with the 'facts' contained in your precious science books...


So long and thanks for the fish...

Well, you certainly took the "fish" I offered, when you were banned from the pink forum of the same name, and were at rock bottom with nowhere to trade and hardly two pennies to rub together, and with your reputation in tatters - and I allowed you to trade here free for 12 months, in order to help you repair your reputation and rebuild your business, and have shown me little thanks since.

All the 'thanks' I got was the grief you've given me (and the mod team) during your time here, with your arrogant dogma and lack of sensitivity towards others, who haven't signed up to your scientific belief system.

Amongst that, however, there have been nuggets of genuine help you've offered to members, and the imparting of some valuable knowledge, because despite our differences I think you're a talented audio designer, certainly know your stuff around electronics, and you make some great gear. I fully recognise all of that.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that isn't enough if the person who has those skills simply isn't able (or willing) to treat people with due respect and civility. That is why, despite trying my level best to find a way of making your presence here work [and BOY did others and I try, especially Anthony], it was ultimately doomed to fail, because in the final analysis, your personality simply wasn't compatible with the core values of AoS.

Anyway, I'm sorry it didn't work out in the longterm, and I wish you well for the future.

I hope you can find another forum to post on, where you're both able to co-exist harmoniously with the owner, and there is an audience who appreciates your knowledge and experience, and can handle your 'quirks', as well as continuing to build and maintain a successful business, because I do believe that beneath all that arrogance and ego, there exists a good heart :)

Good luck! Over and out.

Marco.