Article on Skeptic Magazine Website

[superted]

Here are two links:

From Rane (pro gear manufacturer)
http://www.rane.com/note145.html

Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook (By Douglas Self)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qpmi4ia2nhcC&pg=PT502&lpg=PT502&dq=crosstalk+capacitive+6db&source=bl&ots=hAC2m8JKYl&sig=luJgfRJ50cRzp6fWruW767JaPpo&hl=en&ei=Jo9WS7GwBYj6NYq83N0E&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=crosstalk capacitive 6db&f=false

or Google something like crosstalk + capacitive + 6db

It's good to question claims/statements but remember I am not selling anything

This does not hold true for final product designs though, where circuit layouts are such that crosstalk is reduced - of course it usually increases with frequency, but no 6dB/octave rule applies in the end, usually far from it. No consumer should therefore calculate and compare between specs - chances are you'll be a good 20dB out.

You should look at the actual product measurements on the testbench. Here's the first one I came across from Miller Audio Research lab tests archive:

Arcam CD37 CD Player: -105.01dB @ 20Hz, -104.94dB @ 53Hz, -105.02dB @ 118Hz, -105.87dB @ 472Hz, -106.48dB @ 1060Hz , -106.27dB @ 3360Hz, 105.40dB @ 5300Hz, -105.07dB @ 6000Hz, -103.76dB @ 8500Hz -103.19dB @ 9500Hz -102.53dB @ 10700Hz, -101.85dB @ 12000Hz, -100.35dB @ 15100Hz, -99.41dB @ 17000Hz, -97.74dB @ 20000Hz

Sorry if you took it personally, but so did I on behalf of those "fooled". Indeed, I am a friendly guy - forums dont transmit the nuances you want sometimes. Just rigorous questioning - to benefit all of our knowledge, thats all.

 

[Boerd]

This does not hold true for final product designs though, where circuit layouts are such that crosstalk is reduced - of course it usually increases with frequency, but no 6dB/octave rule applies in the end, usually far from it. No consumer should therefore calculate and compare between specs - chances are you'll be a good 20dB out.

You should look at the actual product measurements on the testbench. Here's the first one I came across from Miller Audio Research lab tests archive:

Arcam CD37 CD Player: -105.01dB @ 20Hz, -104.94dB @ 53Hz, -105.02dB @ 118Hz, -105.87dB @ 472Hz, -106.48dB @ 1060Hz , -106.27dB @ 3360Hz, 105.40dB @ 5300Hz, -105.07dB @ 6000Hz, -103.76dB @ 8500Hz -103.19dB @ 9500Hz -102.53dB @ 10700Hz, -101.85dB @ 12000Hz, -100.35dB @ 15100Hz, -99.41dB @ 17000Hz, -97.74dB @ 20000Hz

Sorry if you took it personally, but so did I on behalf of those "fooled". Indeed, I am a friendly guy - forums dont transmit the nuances you want sometimes. Just rigorous questioning - to benefit all of our knowledge, thats all.

Best designs avoid the capacitive crosstalk simply through dual-mono preamps/amps/etc. Good designs simply shield the circuits prone to leak.
I know and fully agree.
The point I was trying to make is that you can come up with a cheaply implemented (and poor design) amp/preamp/etc and just show only one crosstalk figure - the one at 1Khz. In such cases I apply the 6db/octave rule - I think it is only fair to be given full/correct specs; otherwise as a conscious consumer I assume the worst.
Secondly - I don't take this discussions personally - life's too short for that; I wish my life was that rosy to look for this kind of "problems".
And one more thing - Dacs and CD players have much better numbers in crosstalk - the currents there are small.
Generally I am not worried about crosstalk in a Dac/CD/SACD/BD player. The problem is in the amp/preamp.

 

[ski2xblack]

from the article: "Only four parameters are needed to define EVERYTHING that matters for audio reproduction..."

Either the author is truly a skeptic who chose poor language, or he is of the dogmatically objectivist league and has a poor understanding of skepticism or the scientific method. (I guess the author is a firm believer that nothing more will EVER be discovered in the area of psychoacoustics. Must be reassuring to be omniscient, but it kind of takes the fun out of scientific inquiry!) A real scientist/skeptic would have prefaced such a statement with "Current empirical evidence strongly supports the conclusion that..." I'll let that one slide, but it seems to me to be awfully sloppy language for a dedicated 'skeptic' website.

Otherwise, this article does speak the truth.

It's even relatively kind to us SET lovers, aknowledging that some of us simply prefer such things without derogatory commentary. (Although I admit to really enjoying my SETs, my cables come off a spool at a few cents/foot, no exotic interconnects, no crystals, maple plinths, cable lifters, or anything else woo-based. I also have a very respectable ss system, and glad for that. I don't think I could be happy with either as my sole source of music reproduciton. I guess I'm kind of an odd ball; disparaged by the objectivists for actually liking my SETs, and by the SET community for not subscribing to unsubstantiated woo.)

Between this article and the exposing of the blatant rebranding reported lately, Audioholics is a veritable vortex of truthiness! Keep up the good work.

 

[highfigh]

from the article: "Only four parameters are needed to define EVERYTHING that matters for audio reproduction..."

Either the author is truly a skeptic who chose poor language, or he is of the dogmatically objectivist league and has a poor understanding of skepticism or the scientific method. (I guess the author is a firm believer that nothing more will EVER be discovered in the area of psychoacoustics. Must be reassuring to be omniscient, but it kind of takes the fun out of scientific inquiry!) A real scientist/skeptic would have prefaced such a statement with "Current empirical evidence strongly supports the conclusion that..." I'll let that one slide, but it seems to me to be awfully sloppy language for a dedicated 'skeptic' website.

Otherwise, this article does speak the truth.

It's even relatively kind to us SET lovers, aknowledging that some of us simply prefer such things without derogatory commentary. (Although I admit to really enjoying my SETs, my cables come off a spool at a few cents/foot, no exotic interconnects, no crystals, maple plinths, cable lifters, or anything else woo-based. I also have a very respectable ss system, and glad for that. I don't think I could be happy with either as my sole source of music reproduciton. I guess I'm kind of an odd ball; disparaged by the objectivists for actually liking my SETs, and by the SET community for not subscribing to unsubstantiated woo.)

Between this article and the exposing of the blatant rebranding reported lately, Audioholics is a veritable vortex of truthiness! Keep up the good work.

The truth is that people sometimes prefer the one with sound that's not necessarily accurate, for reasons that may, or may not, be stated/thought through. If I listen to tube amps for a long time, SS sounds far too bright because my hearing has become accustomed to the warmer sound. Eventually, it doesn't seem too bright, even though no other changes have been made. At this point, I'm not totally convinced that tubes are the best for re-producing music but they sure sound great for instrument amplification.

I think the snake oil sellers have misunderestimated our gullableness and our ability to be the decider when it comes to what we like to hear.