As I said before I am making a power supply unit after a customer not being able to buy something which I thought would be common . Priced carefully it should cost about as much as sourcing the components one off .
I was shown a mains cable 2.5 times the cost of my power supply . When I doubted the sanity of the customers I was told they would not hesitate to buy the cable . However my PSU will be difficult to sell . No problem as I need it's key component for another application . I suppose it would be like Porsche making a water pump . Doubtless the same story .
I remember one guy saying his customer had a brainwave to make cables out of mercury . Long plastic pipes perhaps with platinum electrodes ? How did it sound I asked ? " Absolute S..t " . I suspect it probably did . The guy apparently paid up . The health and safety of it ... ! My friend kept hidden a mercury vacuum pump at the lab . Uniquely good and forbidden .
I was shown a mains cable 2.5 times the cost of my power supply . When I doubted the sanity of the customers I was told they would not hesitate to buy the cable . However my PSU will be difficult to sell . No problem as I need it's key component for another application . I suppose it would be like Porsche making a water pump . Doubtless the same story .
I remember one guy saying his customer had a brainwave to make cables out of mercury . Long plastic pipes perhaps with platinum electrodes ? How did it sound I asked ? " Absolute S..t " . I suspect it probably did . The guy apparently paid up . The health and safety of it ... ! My friend kept hidden a mercury vacuum pump at the lab . Uniquely good and forbidden .
This is the pure unadulterated BS typical of the commercial audio scene at the moment 
. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be going away, almost as if it is getting worse. It's just a load of profiteers exploiting peoples lack of technical knowledge to know better. Just think of how much better most people's systems could be if they invested that vast amount money wasted on 'magic' interconnects/speaker cable on what really matters, mainly the speakers in any system.
That's not to say that I wouldn't buy decent quality interconnects/cable, it's just important to know where to draw the line between fantasy and reality.
. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be going away, almost as if it is getting worse. It's just a load of profiteers exploiting peoples lack of technical knowledge to know better. Just think of how much better most people's systems could be if they invested that vast amount money wasted on 'magic' interconnects/speaker cable on what really matters, mainly the speakers in any system. That's not to say that I wouldn't buy decent quality interconnects/cable, it's just important to know where to draw the line between fantasy and reality
.The thing I find so difficult is that Audio is now an aging collection of obsessives who are the customers . I said this before . I went to a gig of the young son of my friend . I almost cried . It was 1980 again , Marshall amps and real music . Far too loud and possibly illegal . It was magical . I came away saying the kids still love music , they don't love hi fi .
I see this linked to the rise of CD . A cynical way to sell the back catalog of music .
In 1957 we hit a high spot technically . Up until 1980 we made this available to ordinary people at better prices ( AR , NAD ) . After that we sold things not worthy of the title hi fi . What we have now is even worse albeit amassing how compressed the data is . Packet soup is amassing . We don't get that at a restaurant I imagine ( hope ) .
The best system I ever heard allowing for it being what all of us could buy was . Garrard 301 , Heath valve amplifier , 4 x Quad ESL 57's . The amplifier used EL 84 and was a low distortion design . I doubt the double Quads were required ( replace extra Quads by wood ) . I am not sure if it wasn't 2 sets of amps . The bass power was impressive and every bass note was a note . My guess is 35 Hz - 3dB .
I suspect the obsession about cables is us desperately trying to retrieve a lost world when it did work . As a friend said the system he owned years ago seemed more magical .
Anyone can work out the origins of Hi Fi . Cinema and broadcasting is as good a way as any of tracing it . After the war there were many highly trained people and many little factories without work . Hi Fi must have seemed noble and so different from war work . I sometime shudder when looking at better valve designs . They look like aircraft equipment . Some of the best valves have Nazi symbols . My beloved Marantz 9 looks very military . I should add I only mention valves as they work very well . 80% of amplifiers I would talk about are not valves . It is the time line , not the device .
When reading the origins of Hi Fi the stream of inventions seemed to slow down after 1955 ( Wireless World ) . Someone who taught in that period said easy to explain . The inventors had been effectively unemployed compared with their wartime past . Now they found jobs in the computer industry . With the greatest respect Hi Fi has been in decline since then . Yes there have been wonderful microphones and great op amps . However most is a backwards move . I will say my mid priced Panasonic TV has a decent attempt at OK sound . Perhaps it's resemblance to the Quads and no option for a speaker box is doing a little bit of magic . It is not great hi fi , it is good enough to call it progress in TV sound .
The Best Hi Fi I ever heard was FAL of Japan . Friend of Kondo , less well known . They shared the same translator / organizer .
FAL Speaker
The saddest part of the speaker cable story is that Jimmy Hugues tried to tell us bog standard 0.6 mm cable is what we need . I have always used it since and agree . DNM promote this idea . I do suspect if any will find speaker cable in any way important they should try solid core first . If like me they do hear it as different it will be like this . Solid looses the ultra high frequencies or has less mush ? If using 2.5 mm it looses too much . If 0.25 mm it is a bit bass light . I went to a church in Belgium with a pair of Bose 901's . They sounded very good for the first time ever in that church ( the system belonging to my father in law ) . The speaker cables were 79 strand . The cable was too short . I asked an electrician friend if he could get some 1 mm twin and earth cable . I gave him enough money to get a reel . He came back with 5 metres . The interesting discovery is the addition of the 1 mm to the 79 strand cable did what it usually did . If sounded less congested . This contradicts the solid core debate who talk of smearing . They will have you believe once smeared forever smeared . From this I realized I like solid core for how it processes sound . Being honest it might be doing something and the mufti-strand is doing less . I think it good it was the Bose . The inductance and resistance I strongly doubt to be important . The Bose has no HF worthy of discussion . I have also used solid interconnects made from AT95 cartridge wire ( I had many dead ones ) . I would say unshielded solid core spaced by sellotape an excellent interconnect ( it breaks easily , pull it up 300 ohm sleeve if you can ) . I find I strongly dislike the expensive Neutrik RCA plugs and love their cheap ones . Even unshielded from pick up to preamp works . Some take the wire from the side of the PU to reduce wire resistance ( to pre amp ) . Hum is not a problem if the wire is dressed to avoid it . Schroeder arms as far as I know are unshielded ? What is so sad about this is often what sounds best is almost always cheapest . Sadder still if you disbelieve what I have just said , it will cost you very little to find out . The better RCA plugs were the old type hollow ones . They look awful . DIN far better if the Preh versions .
I see this linked to the rise of CD . A cynical way to sell the back catalog of music .
In 1957 we hit a high spot technically . Up until 1980 we made this available to ordinary people at better prices ( AR , NAD ) . After that we sold things not worthy of the title hi fi . What we have now is even worse albeit amassing how compressed the data is . Packet soup is amassing . We don't get that at a restaurant I imagine ( hope ) .
The best system I ever heard allowing for it being what all of us could buy was . Garrard 301 , Heath valve amplifier , 4 x Quad ESL 57's . The amplifier used EL 84 and was a low distortion design . I doubt the double Quads were required ( replace extra Quads by wood ) . I am not sure if it wasn't 2 sets of amps . The bass power was impressive and every bass note was a note . My guess is 35 Hz - 3dB .
I suspect the obsession about cables is us desperately trying to retrieve a lost world when it did work . As a friend said the system he owned years ago seemed more magical .
Anyone can work out the origins of Hi Fi . Cinema and broadcasting is as good a way as any of tracing it . After the war there were many highly trained people and many little factories without work . Hi Fi must have seemed noble and so different from war work . I sometime shudder when looking at better valve designs . They look like aircraft equipment . Some of the best valves have Nazi symbols . My beloved Marantz 9 looks very military . I should add I only mention valves as they work very well . 80% of amplifiers I would talk about are not valves . It is the time line , not the device .
When reading the origins of Hi Fi the stream of inventions seemed to slow down after 1955 ( Wireless World ) . Someone who taught in that period said easy to explain . The inventors had been effectively unemployed compared with their wartime past . Now they found jobs in the computer industry . With the greatest respect Hi Fi has been in decline since then . Yes there have been wonderful microphones and great op amps . However most is a backwards move . I will say my mid priced Panasonic TV has a decent attempt at OK sound . Perhaps it's resemblance to the Quads and no option for a speaker box is doing a little bit of magic . It is not great hi fi , it is good enough to call it progress in TV sound .
The Best Hi Fi I ever heard was FAL of Japan . Friend of Kondo , less well known . They shared the same translator / organizer .
FAL Speaker
The saddest part of the speaker cable story is that Jimmy Hugues tried to tell us bog standard 0.6 mm cable is what we need . I have always used it since and agree . DNM promote this idea . I do suspect if any will find speaker cable in any way important they should try solid core first . If like me they do hear it as different it will be like this . Solid looses the ultra high frequencies or has less mush ? If using 2.5 mm it looses too much . If 0.25 mm it is a bit bass light . I went to a church in Belgium with a pair of Bose 901's . They sounded very good for the first time ever in that church ( the system belonging to my father in law ) . The speaker cables were 79 strand . The cable was too short . I asked an electrician friend if he could get some 1 mm twin and earth cable . I gave him enough money to get a reel . He came back with 5 metres . The interesting discovery is the addition of the 1 mm to the 79 strand cable did what it usually did . If sounded less congested . This contradicts the solid core debate who talk of smearing . They will have you believe once smeared forever smeared . From this I realized I like solid core for how it processes sound . Being honest it might be doing something and the mufti-strand is doing less . I think it good it was the Bose . The inductance and resistance I strongly doubt to be important . The Bose has no HF worthy of discussion . I have also used solid interconnects made from AT95 cartridge wire ( I had many dead ones ) . I would say unshielded solid core spaced by sellotape an excellent interconnect ( it breaks easily , pull it up 300 ohm sleeve if you can ) . I find I strongly dislike the expensive Neutrik RCA plugs and love their cheap ones . Even unshielded from pick up to preamp works . Some take the wire from the side of the PU to reduce wire resistance ( to pre amp ) . Hum is not a problem if the wire is dressed to avoid it . Schroeder arms as far as I know are unshielded ? What is so sad about this is often what sounds best is almost always cheapest . Sadder still if you disbelieve what I have just said , it will cost you very little to find out . The better RCA plugs were the old type hollow ones . They look awful . DIN far better if the Preh versions .
Couldn't agree more. We've just finished putting together a late 80's vintage Turbosound system for a client. Original spec boxes with original drivers, vintage BSS amps with crossovers, all refurbished. Magnificent. Would give any modern system a run for its money.
John who I drink with every Tuesday uses Turbosound and C-Audio . He would love to go class D as the weight is killing . He would expect slightly less good sound . Practicality would exclude him using solid core cables ( they break ) . John and I have come to an understanding that connectors matter and often the Pro Audio ones are better ( what Hi Fi shunned ) . XLR and DIN should have been used . John always uses the Pro RCA of Neutrik which I strongly dislike . He also dislikes them . He has no choice . 1000 W PA needs to disconnect cleanly if someone trips over the cable . As John says his objection is to RCA more than version . He like me would never use Pro RCA on his home hi fi . Pro cost $15 a pair the others $1.20 . From all points of view the cheap ones are better ( look beautiful also ) . The Pro ones send the signal through a spring . The PA use of RCA is where something domestic has to be used . It should be modified if used often .
The Japanese have an industry which is almost like the production of wine . The import of western hi fi is a curiosity about how they succeeded to conquer the world market . One could say Japanese hi fi was very like American and Heath especially comes to mind . Middle market excellence ( Sansui , Kenwood valves ) . The Japanese seem to have continued the development of 1950's ideas . They also seem to have little interest in exporting it . Kondo is more notable for his contact with us more than being the very best .
One commentator said the Japanese developed good sounding hi fi until specmanship came about . The US wanted power , the Germans specs , the Brits the sound . The specs killed it was said .
I remember being asked to flog off some Trio ( Kenwood ) KA 2002A and Sansui AU101 in 1974 ( October , burnt into my memory ) . I was intrigued by the KA2002A , it sounded wonderful . Reading the Sansui book it said approximately " whilst Sansui respects measurements it employes a golden ear listening test for all products ." The Sansui spec was modest , the sound was wonderful . After that good Japanese sound was a lottery . Cheap Sony's great , expensive ones not . I was told the young engineers did the cheap ones . They then went to video where the big money was made .
Sony TA 5650 if running hot enough is notable . The ones that were repaired not so good . Customers pushed them too hard . The power amp especially good . You will know if you get a good one they get very hot . I guess turn the bias up . Not sure if the repaired ones had different MOS FET's ? The old Yamaha amps with class A option are great . The class B sounds almost as good .
Hitachi MOSFET's ( Best modern version Exicon ) were a fantastic attempt at a valve in transistor form . The FET was in fact the more likely transistor as it was mentioned in 1925 . This debunks a lot of the Roswell theories . However the common type transistor is unlike anything known at the time ( 1947 ) .
US Patent 3 448 397 HC Lin 1969 June 3 is for a MOS FET . How many times has this man been forgotten in all of out talks ? My friend lives in his town . I wish I had known as I would have visited him . He probably was the one who invented practical op amps ? Released very early from Military secrecy as not as usable for weapons systems .
Oral History Lin Index RCA Germanium Transistors Audio
One commentator said the Japanese developed good sounding hi fi until specmanship came about . The US wanted power , the Germans specs , the Brits the sound . The specs killed it was said .
I remember being asked to flog off some Trio ( Kenwood ) KA 2002A and Sansui AU101 in 1974 ( October , burnt into my memory ) . I was intrigued by the KA2002A , it sounded wonderful . Reading the Sansui book it said approximately " whilst Sansui respects measurements it employes a golden ear listening test for all products ." The Sansui spec was modest , the sound was wonderful . After that good Japanese sound was a lottery . Cheap Sony's great , expensive ones not . I was told the young engineers did the cheap ones . They then went to video where the big money was made .
Sony TA 5650 if running hot enough is notable . The ones that were repaired not so good . Customers pushed them too hard . The power amp especially good . You will know if you get a good one they get very hot . I guess turn the bias up . Not sure if the repaired ones had different MOS FET's ? The old Yamaha amps with class A option are great . The class B sounds almost as good .
Hitachi MOSFET's ( Best modern version Exicon ) were a fantastic attempt at a valve in transistor form . The FET was in fact the more likely transistor as it was mentioned in 1925 . This debunks a lot of the Roswell theories . However the common type transistor is unlike anything known at the time ( 1947 ) .
US Patent 3 448 397 HC Lin 1969 June 3 is for a MOS FET . How many times has this man been forgotten in all of out talks ? My friend lives in his town . I wish I had known as I would have visited him . He probably was the one who invented practical op amps ? Released very early from Military secrecy as not as usable for weapons systems .
Oral History Lin Index RCA Germanium Transistors Audio
Last edited:
I have to disagree with Nigel just a little. I was happy to switch to CD's, even as horrible as the first ones were. Why? So I could spend my time PLAYING music, not playing WITH music. An LP is really only good the second time it is played. It's all down hill from there. Do I miss my Grace F9e or Denon 300? Sometimes. I still can appreciate a Linn or Rega. But with digital sources I can just pop them in and concentrate on building better speakers. I don't miss the shhhhh-tick, shhhhh-tic and I don't miss having to buy several copies of my favorite recordings. Let's face it. The record was a terrible design that was hammered into acceptable performance over many decades. It is still a bad basic design.
Unfortunately, portability is the focus on recording media not not quality, so we are not seeing the advances the same way for those of us where the music is the end goal. ( I have a 192K 24 bit DAC but only 44K 14bit effective source material) Plus, a lot of my generation, and the ones that followed are mostly deaf already and they can't hear what some of us who were carefull do. They don't care because they can't tell. Between Who concerts, Disco bars, and ear-buds, the get rich scheme I see is in hearing aids. Three generations of hearing are lost.
I do agree, spec wars were easier to sell than sound. Learning about sound is a lot harder that looking for three or four numbers the "reviewers" said were important.
Unfortunately, portability is the focus on recording media not not quality, so we are not seeing the advances the same way for those of us where the music is the end goal. ( I have a 192K 24 bit DAC but only 44K 14bit effective source material) Plus, a lot of my generation, and the ones that followed are mostly deaf already and they can't hear what some of us who were carefull do. They don't care because they can't tell. Between Who concerts, Disco bars, and ear-buds, the get rich scheme I see is in hearing aids. Three generations of hearing are lost.
I do agree, spec wars were easier to sell than sound. Learning about sound is a lot harder that looking for three or four numbers the "reviewers" said were important.
I was thinking about this . By about 1938 78's were reasonably good . If pressed on vinyl perhaps >15 kHz was already possible ? 32 kHz said to be on the very last 78's like Decca FFRR ( less due to material used ) . Some say the late 30's direct cut 78's were in some ways the best ever sound . If you have never heard high quality 78 playback you would be very surprised . Use of tape recorders took things back a step .
Mono Vinyl was a slightly upgraded 78's . FFRR used the same lathe with different cutting screw and stylus . To playback correctly the EQ is different to RIAA .
Stereo set back sound yet again due to slight restriction of dynamic range compared with mono .
So it seems the recording industry has on many occasions taken backwards steps in sound quality . As someone said . Perhaps LP's were good by default . Linn probably made us understand how good even if it is a bit cheeky of them to see the LP12 as exulted as they did .
Mono Vinyl was a slightly upgraded 78's . FFRR used the same lathe with different cutting screw and stylus . To playback correctly the EQ is different to RIAA .
Stereo set back sound yet again due to slight restriction of dynamic range compared with mono .
So it seems the recording industry has on many occasions taken backwards steps in sound quality . As someone said . Perhaps LP's were good by default . Linn probably made us understand how good even if it is a bit cheeky of them to see the LP12 as exulted as they did .
78rpm is NOT hifi!
Nigel, recording technology was NOT reasonably good in 1938. You couldn't get over about 8-10KHz with the available technology then (and that's optimistic, even with Blumleins swanky new systems).
As someone who listens to (and restores) 78rpm shellac discs using top notch stuff, I'm quite surprised at what you said. You are right though, as hearing high fidelity 78rpm playback is surprising, surprisingly noisy! Attached is a short sample and spectrogram of a 1938 recording (FLAC in a zip folder, no longer copyright! No virus's I promise 
) by Jack Payne and His Band (A Thick Thick Fog in London). All that has been applied is eq. and a mixdown to mono of the stereo channels of the cartridge (I used a Shure M78s, 3 mil spherical, with a flat level preamp and a 48k 24 bit USB audio interface).
The recording is very good for the era. Many are a lot worse. As it is at the beginning of the disc, fidelity is at it's highest because the linear speed is at it's highest on the outside of the disc. Looking at the spectro, we see lots of noise, especially high up in the 20K region. There is also a lot of rumble too. Just listening to it will show the flaws, poor high frequency response (around to about 7.5KHz, everything above is distortion) and lots of surface noise. It's not good, but is reasonably acceptable.
The use of tape recorders was a major breakthrough in sound quality, far better frequency response than 78s (Decca FFRR managed 50Hz-12KHz on a 78 at best, not 32KHz!) dramatically lower noise and lower distortion. The main 3 components needed for high fidelity audio. How you can say it set it back I'll never know. FFRR isn't that much different to RIAA, the only real difference is just a 3KHz rolloff instead of a 2.122KHz one, and a 100Hz shelve instead of a 50Hz one, it is also actually inferior to RIAA in terms of recording/playback performance. I would rather listen to my Teac X3 reel to reel recorder at 7.5IPS than an LP.
You are correct that stereo loses dynamic range, but only 3dB usually (or less). Totally worth it for the stereo though!!!
A common misconception about 78s is that the higher linear velocity results in better frequency response. Frequency response is usually propotional to the ratio of the linear speed to groove width. For wide groove 78s (all 78s) this is actually lower than a microgroove vinyl disc. Hence, frequency response is actually worse.
Also red book digital audio is better than vinyl in every way, get over it. Like tvrgeek said, it was a bad design that was hammered into acceptable performance.
Nigel, recording technology was NOT reasonably good in 1938. You couldn't get over about 8-10KHz with the available technology then (and that's optimistic, even with Blumleins swanky new systems
).As someone who listens to (and restores) 78rpm shellac discs using top notch stuff, I'm quite surprised at what you said. You are right though, as hearing high fidelity 78rpm playback is surprising, surprisingly noisy
! Attached is a short sample and spectrogram of a 1938 recording (FLAC in a zip folder, no longer copyright! No virus's I promise ) by Jack Payne and His Band (A Thick Thick Fog in London). All that has been applied is eq. and a mixdown to mono of the stereo channels of the cartridge (I used a Shure M78s, 3 mil spherical, with a flat level preamp and a 48k 24 bit USB audio interface).The recording is very good for the era. Many are a lot worse
. As it is at the beginning of the disc, fidelity is at it's highest because the linear speed is at it's highest on the outside of the disc. Looking at the spectro, we see lots of noise, especially high up in the 20K region. There is also a lot of rumble too. Just listening to it will show the flaws, poor high frequency response (around to about 7.5KHz, everything above is distortion) and lots of surface noise. It's not good, but is reasonably acceptable.The use of tape recorders was a major breakthrough in sound quality, far better frequency response than 78s (Decca FFRR managed 50Hz-12KHz on a 78 at best, not 32KHz!) dramatically lower noise and lower distortion. The main 3 components needed for high fidelity audio. How you can say it set it back I'll never know. FFRR isn't that much different to RIAA, the only real difference is just a 3KHz rolloff instead of a 2.122KHz one, and a 100Hz shelve instead of a 50Hz one, it is also actually inferior to RIAA in terms of recording/playback performance. I would rather listen to my Teac X3 reel to reel recorder at 7.5IPS than an LP.
You are correct that stereo loses dynamic range, but only 3dB usually (or less). Totally worth it for the stereo though!!!
A common misconception about 78s is that the higher linear velocity results in better frequency response. Frequency response is usually propotional to the ratio of the linear speed to groove width. For wide groove 78s (all 78s) this is actually lower than a microgroove vinyl disc. Hence, frequency response is actually worse.
Also red book digital audio is better than vinyl in every way, get over it
. Like tvrgeek said, it was a bad design that was hammered into acceptable performance.Attachments
I've heard it (maybe it was 80 RPM) and I was surprised at how good it was. Not hi-fi in the modern sense, but great sounding and very life-like. It has its limits, but within those it can be very good. The noisy, scratchy Victrola stuff most of us know simply does not compare.
78's was about potential . The stampers had up to 15 kHz in 1938 if pressed on Vinyl ( later on for transcribing where masters had been kept ) . Tape recorders were unknown outside of Germany then . The true production 78's were good for about 10 kHz on a good day . This probably dropped to 5 kHz after one playing ! The BBC had special styli cut to play back untouched groves . Sometimes various ones just to master a rare disc .
78's are making a small comeback , here is one .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxW3Ed7GrhQ
Decca FFRR was said to be capable of cutting 32 kHz . I made a EQ box for a Decca engineer . He said FFRR was paid for by the government . It was a Sonar device .
This recording if truly 1925 is not even electrical ! You will need headphones not computer speakers . Now that say something doesn't it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-O1WxDf40&feature=related
This is possibly before AC bias ? It is said that it was discovered by accident when a very high powered Long-wave transmitter helped a recording ( Berlin 1 MW circa 1938 , the recording engineer is said to have thought a recording far better than usual and thought it might be linked , a mini urban myth I am sure ) .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA1oDxRo_lI&feature=relmfu
This is even more interesting . How can anyone make great music when the world was falling apart ? I am not sure this isn't the best version I have ever heard of this . I certainly cried .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY7lvuVjjX4&feature=related
78's are making a small comeback , here is one .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxW3Ed7GrhQ
Decca FFRR was said to be capable of cutting 32 kHz . I made a EQ box for a Decca engineer . He said FFRR was paid for by the government . It was a Sonar device .
This recording if truly 1925 is not even electrical ! You will need headphones not computer speakers . Now that say something doesn't it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-O1WxDf40&feature=related
This is possibly before AC bias ? It is said that it was discovered by accident when a very high powered Long-wave transmitter helped a recording ( Berlin 1 MW circa 1938 , the recording engineer is said to have thought a recording far better than usual and thought it might be linked , a mini urban myth I am sure ) .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA1oDxRo_lI&feature=relmfu
This is even more interesting . How can anyone make great music when the world was falling apart ? I am not sure this isn't the best version I have ever heard of this . I certainly cried .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY7lvuVjjX4&feature=related
Last edited:
guys, are we still on Burn-in Speaker cable? i can lock this thread if you have nothing more to say about burning-in speaker cables.......OK . I think it is probably best to think cables do improve with use . Dr Smith from Harwell thought cable effects did spoil some of his experiments and said he was prepared to believe it in Audio . I lost contact with him years ago . I would have loved to invite him to comment . He had problems with colleges who thought his experiments very costly . They were at the limits of measurement ( nothing to do with hi fi ) . He said cables were a big problem ( residual current , 10 - 9 ampere ) .
More importantly to this debate is that solid core might suit you better and your pocket ?
People forget the voice coil or output transformer uses something like this .
Scientific Wire Company Enamelled Copper Wire
More importantly to this debate is that solid core might suit you better and your pocket ?
People forget the voice coil or output transformer uses something like this .
Scientific Wire Company Enamelled Copper Wire
That's OK . Nobody is asking you to waste your valuable time trying it for yourself . Nor less £1 . To escape the nonsense that is cables one should at least have some respect for your pocket . Some friends allegedly took some mains cables to a hi fi show wrapped in fancy sleeves as speaker cable . They said all were convinced and some wanted to buy them . I think that is very brave as they used them for demonstrations . If spending upwards of £5000 for a room would you be so brave ? I sort of doubt the story . Nice that it was from the ones accused of the nonsense . It also proves my point that it is customer led . Frankly if cheap speaker cable is a yawn life must be a challenge ? I recently learned how a cheap diode could enhance an amplifier . I should have known as I have seen it used in TV circuits . I was grateful although not convinced it to be safe . My reaction was the polar opposite of yawning .
Actualy if you have a look at my contribution to this thread and others we have discussed all possible effects that cables could have some feffect on the sound quality of cables. Understanding quite well how signals propagate down cables, PCB traces etc and the effect dialectricshave on the signal propagation, I have yet to see one theory regarding cable break-in from the audiophiles that is in anyway based on science, or any measurments that show the change that effects signal propagation. As toworking with cables, it is somthing I do get involved in, but not inb he esoteric world of audiophilia, but real world situations where myths and pseudo science are not allowed.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.