This blog has now moved

Visit the Russ  Andrews blog on our website: www.russandrews.com/blog

The true test...

A recent edition of Engineering and Technology, the magazine of The Institution of Engineering and Technology, features a letter from Nick Arran, CEng. Basically Mr Arran was interested to read that loudspeaker manufacturer B&W had said that they trusted the ears of their master listener more than they trusted a spectrum analyser when they were designing equipment for the new Jaguar XF.

Mr Arran went on to question what he thinks is the Hi-Fi community’s ‘belief’ that the human ear and brain are a better measurement tool than any other available – including laboratory test equipment. He went on to say – with, I believe, more than just a hint of irony – how surprised he was that commonly accepted Hi-Fi practise hasn’t filtered through to engineering instrumentation – such as using Hi-Fi mains cables on testing equipment, specialist interconnect cables, supports and so on. His letter ends by questioning whether engineers, with their calibrated test equipment were missing something or whether the Hi-Fi consumers’ legs were ‘being pulled’.

This is a way of thinking that prevents progress and improvement. In its most extreme expression it says, “if we can’t measure it – it can’t exist”. The assumption being that we can measure everything of any importance. I believe, in fact, that we can measure very little of importance to the realistic reproduction of music.

At its root, conventional measurement is based on simple, steady state signals to quantify frequency response, harmonic distortion, signal to noise ratios etc. On the face of it, this approach produces quantifiable, repeatable, measurements of a range of important parameters. In reality all they do is tell you whether the device under test is working or faulty. They tell you nothing about how well the device handles music signals to deliver enjoyable and realistic music. In other words, they are not predictive and if they cannot describe exactly how something will sound, they are useless for that purpose.

I own and use lots of test equipment, but I don’t try and use it to tell me how good or bad something sounds. I use my ears for that. They are educated, trained and very discerning. They are consistent, predictable and I trust them.

Until we have a measurement system, based on dynamic, complex, real world, real time signals (like music!), we have no choice but to base our assessments on listening tests. To do that, we must trust our senses and know that what we hear is real world and not imaginary.

The truth will out...

My revelations regarding CFLs have produced a very substantial response from readers of Connected. Quite a few respondents, unfortunately, misread or misunderstood the points I was making. I failed to make myself clear enough. I will attempt to clarify my objections to CFLs.

I do not reject CFLs out of hand, but I strongly object to the misleading claims made for them. First, they cost you at least twice as much to run as they claim. En-masse they will give electricity suppliers problems to solve that will raise the cost of electricity.

Second, the light output equivalents they claim are misleading. My measurements show that it needs a 26W CFL to be as bright as a 100W incandescent, which costs you 52 watts – a near 50% saving, but not the 85% many are claiming.

Third, the life expectancy of 8000 hours seems, anecdotally at least, to be another exaggeration.

Fourth, there are several health questions concerning CFLs. And there is the issue of the mercury disposal problems.

Fifth, I disputed that the heat produced by incandescent lamps is wasted power. It contributes to home heating and is taken into account by the central heating thermostat.

All in all, CFLs are a solution to a problem that hardly exists, foisted on us by politicians desperate to be seen to be doing something about ‘Global Warming’.

At this point, I think I should make it absolutely clear that I do not support the consensus view that “Global Warming” is substantially man made or that we can do anything about it. I do, however, strongly support conservation, recycling, reusing, organic farming, whole foods, a healthy diet, and lots of exercise.

I abhor closed minds, censorship of ideas, and the demonisation of those with other opinions, beliefs or cultures, waste and the chemicalisation of our environment. These are just a few examples. I hold strong opinions on most things and am willing to discuss them with anyone capable of conducting a civilised argument. My opinions are based on moral, ethical, logical and evidential principles and are, therefore, open to modification and change.

How green are low energy bulbs?

The EU has ruled that ordinary 40W / 60W / 100W incandescent lamps will be banned from 2012. The decree is that domestic lights will be replaced with ‘energy saving’ lightbulbs (or, more correctly ‘compact fluorescent lamps’ or CFLs) in the interest of energy saving and reducing our carbon footprint. It is claimed that these CFLs use 25% of the energy and last eight times as long as the equivalent incandescent lamps – and so will help “save the planet”.

To understand more, some key things to know about are apparent power, real power and the power factor. Apparent power is the amount of energy an electricity company needs to supply to produce the real power required by a component or a piece of equipment. Electrical equipment where the apparent power is the same as the real power has a power factor of 1. If a piece of equipment requires more apparent power to produce the real power, it has a power factor of less than 1. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that equipment with a power factor nearer 0 is not as ‘green’ or ‘environmentally sensitive’ as an electrical component with a power factor nearer 1.

Knowing this, I’ve tested several CFLs with surprising results: taking a sample 60W light bulb as a reference against the equivalent 13W CFL, the CFL used more than twice as much apparent power as real power. Compared with ordinary incandescent light bulbs, CFLs have a poor power factor because they require more than the minimum apparent power to supply the real power.

My tests have shown that the CFLs use half the power of a 60W lamp, not quarter as stated and that’s before taking into account the extra power the supplier must generate.

The power difference between the real power consumed by the CFL (in the case of the Osram, it’s almost 15 watts) and the apparent power is wasted in more ways than one. The electricity supply becomes less efficient because it senses the difference between the real and apparent and becomes unbalanced by the redundant currents swilling around. The result is that it must generate more power than is really being used and the system needs to be upgraded to handle it. The cost of generation goes up and so the cost to the consumer goes up with it. The net result of using CFLs is that there is no saving whatever… quite the opposite; the electricity supply system has doubled its output and doubled its carbon emissions. The more people use CFLs, the worse the problem will become. And that’s before we’ve even talked about the fact that CFLs use mercury in their construction, which leads to more issues in their disposal. Utter stupidity… isn’t it better just to switch off a few lights?

What has all this got to do with your system? Hi-Fi and Home Cinema systems contain transformers and often have a low power factor. A 100W amplifier can demand up to 100 amps from the electricity supply for a millisecond to reproduce a drum transient. The lower the power factor, the less current is available to accurately reproduce the dynamics of your music – it’s effectively being used as ‘apparent’ power. And the more CFLs you fit, the worse the situation becomes. Me? I’m going back to candles!

The concensus view

I recently read a very interesting article by Ruth Lea in The Daily Telegraph. It was titled 'The consensus view is frequently very wrong indeed'. It struck a cord with me straight away as the consensus view in the Hi-Fi industry finds it hard to accept my philosophy on Hi-Fi.

The Hi-Fi Establishment believes that getting good sound is all about choosing the best hardware. My view is that the infrastructure is more important than the hardware. The Hi-Fi Establishment advises spending 90% of your budget on the hardware and 10% on all the rest. I can show that that is completely the wrong way around!

The article in The Daily Telegraph I came across looks at consensus views from the past and just how wrong they also turned out to be. Click on the link below to see the article:

'The consensus view is frequently very wrong indeed'

Sound Solutions

My new book - Sound Solutions: The Definitive Guide to achieving a more musical Hi-Fi system has been printed and is available to buy now! Sound Solutions gathers together the five information booklets that we've published in the past - completely updated - into one handy book, and sets out my philosophy on upgrading your Hi-Fi system.

It explains the reasons why it's important to upgrade your Hi-Fi system in a particular way, and highlights some of the upgrading pitfalls so that you can avoid them.

Sound Solutions has 120 pages packed with tips and practical advice - perfect for Upgrading your Hi-Fi system, whatever its cost. What's more, much of the advice is still valid whether you use Russ Andrews or Kimber's cables or those from any other manufacturer. Just £9.95, click here to view it or to buy it!

Mains cables & recording studios

I was contacted recently by someone who was questioning whether our mains cables really do work. He stated that he'd worked in recording studios and claimed that they didn't spend money on mains cables so why should anybody else?

Well, my reaction was one of amusement, as it shows just how little this guy actually knows. Any work you do on the mains supply of your Hi-Fi equipment improves the sound quality. And by the same token if recording studios upgrade their mains - the quality of recordings will be better. I know studio managers and producers that know this and the recording studios they work at do use our cables: if he wants to find out from recording professionals whether our products really work he should contact Phil Taylor who is studio manager at David Gilmour Music: or Ken Nelson who produces Gomez and Coldplay.

Or maybe he should take a look at this article - working at the Astoria

Hi-Fi News show next week

If you are attending the Hi Fi News Show (at the Renaissance Hotel at Heathrow) on Saturday 23rd and Sunday 24th of September, make time to take in some of the Seminars. I mention it because I am one of the Keynote speakers!

My topic is 'The Mains: So what's the problem?' I'm lecturing in the York Theatre both mornings at 11am.

As part of our twentieth anniversary celebrations, we're officially launching our new products - the PowerMax mains cable; my Desktop Audio range of equipment; Crystal-24 speaker cable; and Platinum Ultra Purifier. The sales team (and me when I'm not lecturing) will be on hand to answer your questions and take your orders… look out for the special Show Discount and Free Gift when you place your order. Plus there will be a number of competitions running and some very special prizes!

If you're a Russ Andrews customer, you'll be pleased to hear that we've negotiated with Hi-Fi News to give us free tickets to the show (saving you GBP 8!) Your free ticket will be arriving with your brand new catalogue any day now! If you have had problems receiving your ticket, contact us.

If you need more information about the show, go to www.hifinews.co.uk/show2006