Interesting that the direction can make such a difference on a coaxial cable, I guess it is not audible though.
Ok, lets clear things up
Seeing as i brought up the possible effects of audio being a little like radio & where some effects might be happening that don't just depend on good old LCR.My power amplifiers are a good 7M+ from the pre amplifier & i use what i'd regard as good but "cheap" cable to connect them up, this is the stuff. Notice we are not talking £500 per M
However, where i did invest was in the cables between the CD transport, DIP24/96 interface processor (de jitterer) & DAC. I think even you'll have to admit that effectively we are dealing with RF stuff here, so i paid particular attention to making sure all cable impedances were matched.
This wasn't as easy as it looked as i was using the AES/EBU balanced line out of the transport when the DIP24/96 only had a phono or optical input. I got round this by winding a balanced to unbalanced TX on a small ferite & incorporating it into the phono plug. My bad the phono is all over the place impedance wise...
Anyway, to cut a long story short the Van Den Hul "The Second" & their AES/EBU cable sounded significantly better than MIDI (again 110 ohm) cable i was using to test it out to make sure my little TX would do the trick
Subjectively of course...
Hmmm, still puzzling...might it be that expensive cables have an effect nobody selling them would mention?
You have spent mega$$$ you make sure about the routing...I have yet to see a monsterbuck cinch cable laid snugly in parallel with the mains. Wouldn´t want to listen to the result either.
Just throwing a spanner in the works, nasty bastid I am.
You have spent mega$$$ you make sure about the routing...I have yet to see a monsterbuck cinch cable laid snugly in parallel with the mains. Wouldn´t want to listen to the result either.
Just throwing a spanner in the works, nasty bastid I am.
I believe you have summarized the actual problem very nicely. However I think you missed seeing your own important points. Yes, the terms discussed do revolve around clarity, sound stage/depth, detail, etc. Yes any musician can pick out another musicians emphasis, even from a table radio, so can most musicologists. In fact many musicians prefer not to have extremely revealing systems for this activity.
The thing I think is being overlooked is that very few people, in modern times, have any effective training as a musician. They do not have the tools to easily recognize that emphasis and so are driven to extreme lengths to obtain enough clarity, so that they can communicate with that emphasis, so easily discerned by a well trained musician.
This is an emotional bond, even though emotions only arise from intent which arises from mentation. I think we are all well aware of how easily we can be manipulated once we have opened our emotions to external influence.
This is why we should perform DBT on cables, but it must be with the understanding that clarity, sound stage/depth, detail, etc. are not the issue. These characteristics are actually not what is being sought, and some clever cable makers have realized this and make products that have characteristics other than clarity etc. as their primary goal. This is also true of many high end electronics and speaker manufacturers and it is the reason they are successful.
So, any DBT on cables must be done with the understanding that the listener is going to be emotionally exposed, or they are unlikely to be able to pick out those emphasis differences, that under the normal "safe" conditions of home music reproduction, allow them to "open up" and expose their emotional preferences and obtain satisfaction, or not.
Bud
Interesting that the direction can make such a difference on a coaxial cable, I guess it is not audible though.
I rolled up the plots and they sound the same in both ears no matter how I turn them!
If someone tells me they don't hear anything I believe them.
Then there was the case of hysterical paralysis.
A nurse who had lost feeling was being jabbed with a needle as a demonstration. I.E. doctor stabs her on the back out of her sight with a needle and asks "Do you feel anything." She responds "No." Doctor keeps on exploring the area of numbness and she keeps answering no after each jab even thought the doctor stops asking the questions!
The open question is can you personally hear a difference? Do you care if anyone believes you? Why?
I'd agree. The primary goals are the payment for the BMW, the cocaine, the massage parlor, and regular dinners at French Laundry. And sometimes the kids' orthodontist.
But don't you think that the emotions you feel (or not as may be the case) come from the musical performance, not from the system or cables? IOW, there's music that gives me goosebumps anyway I hear it, on my main best system as well as on the iPod or kitchen radio. I don't believe that cables can do anything about that pro or con.
jd
Yes.... I.... think exactly as you do. However, .....I..... recognize that my level of openness to experience and my own particular musicianship, no mater how rusty I have become, does not provide anyone else with their necessary level of stimulus.
As my friend Romy would say, "let me to explain". When I set out to develop guitar amplifier transformers many years ago, I set out with one goal in mind. To build a component part, and an extremely important one, of a musical instrument. I took known qualities of closely coupled, high information retention audio reproduction transformers and ended up twisting their coupling characteristics, using stacked dielectric materials, skewed the coils dielectric circuit and matched reduced hysteresis core construction to that lot, always with the lowest resolution core materials showing up as the choice, for a musical instrument.
The straight application of high resolution design parameters did not provide a musical instrument, unless your taste ran to only Death Metal. Huge raging chords and vast layers of distortion were all those transformers were good for. What I discovered is that there appears to be a "speed of information uptake" that a musician can work with. And that for him to portray his music and for it to be "musical" my transformers had to be a twisted wreck, when compared to a purely mathematical derivation of what should be correct.
I then turned around and applied portions of that, new to me knowledge, to audio reproduction transformers. The end result is a transformer that, deliberately, is flat in phase and frequency response, from 15 to 50 kHz, at any power level. Has less than optimal distortion, though still very low, and has two to three times the perceived information retention, of audio transformers that are technically superior. The technically superior transformers have better frequency response, lower distortion, faster rise time and equivalent settling time, but are not nearly as graceful when the signal goes non linear. In DBT these lower measured performance devices are chosen as better, although I will not claim the tests are any more than anecdotal. The reason given most often, for this choice, is that they make the musical values, spoken of above, more accessible.
They appear to portray more of the internal structure of notes, but they do not measure as well. The better measuring transformers are doing a better job with signal integrity issues, under linear signal conditions, but their overall "speed" of information is too quick. Just as the "fast" guitar high resolution transformer is too quick.
The lesson I learned from this is that measured perfection may be too good. The test equipment might not be providing the best indication of musical performance and reproduction when the numerical values are at their very best. Professionally, I am insulted to find this to be the case. Commercially, I have learned to shut my mouth, when someone like Rene' Jaeger or Lynn Olson states that they are the best transformers they have heard.
I do think that your your portrayal of a table radio as good enough is very telling, in light of what I have just provided. And, I think quite a lot of designers of various consumer electronics, know these comments as facts and apply them, ruthlessly, to their successful products. I am not at all sure this practice warrants the term "snake oil", though SY will attest to my being willing to wear that label too.
Bud
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2004
I don´t consider LCR as problematic either, rather they´re intrinsic. Best cable is no cable and only with very short lengths or self-powered monitors you can get rid of those parasites. But then you´ll have to deal with the interconnects...
If an obligatory length of cables is required between amp and speakers, you´re left with the RLC to achieve the best possible match. You do it by cleverly dosing the parameters, since they´re interelated: change inductance, and capacitance will change proportionally. Change resistance and the former two will change as well. I´m not an EE so someone correct me if I´m wrong, please.
Take Naim amplifiers: most low output impedance SS amps feature a coil at the outputs to filter out the high-frequencies above audio range that would otherwise return to the feedback path through capacitive coupling of fairly high capacitive cables, to prevent self-oscillations.
Now, since in those amplifiers a high inductance is already present, for safetiness, we in principle don´t want any more of it, or the sound will turn dull. For that we just need to twist the wires, or run them in a close figure of 8, or join the ribbons as close as possible, or whatever that will null the magnetic fields. This procedure increases capacitance, which is ok since the protection is already at the output, but in my view too much capacitance not only adds noticeable colourations, the constant charge/discharge leads to time-smearing = slow and quirky musical timing/cadence. Best way to minimize it is to use the best dielectric available.
Naim cuts the problem by the root, by ditching the output coil and suplying their own inductive, non-capacitive cables. Thus not only the cable itself assures the needed protection, it doesn´t present the timing problems associated to capacitance. Hence their well-known PRAT.
One of the modifications some ppl do here to other SS amps is to "naimize" the coils and cables. If they after dare to use say a Kimber 8TC or a Goertz , it´s bye-bye amp.
Giving the importance of inductance, why 1dB cutting at 15KHz wouldn´t be relevant? Not counting limited hearing ability and musical instrument limited octave range (despite some generate overtones beyond 20k), I suspect that is enough to induce (sorry) a perceived loss of clarity and worse, a loss of instrument tone colour, or timbre.
OTOH the cutting might as well relief the tweeters of high frequency "rubbish"
pff I hate this.
"Goosebumps" do not belong to the subtle parts of any music
...and surely can easily be noticed through a kitchen radio......and imo usually not to the emotional part of it.Human voices on the other hand,can definitely show the emotional part of music.One of the reggae LPs I sometimes use to "judge" is Bob Marley's "rasta man" and one of the tracks is "Johnny was".When Marley sings "......Johnny was a good man......" he does that with his usual and expressive way.Nothing quite wrong with any cable(but here I'd like to add tubes as well),but with a "better" cable and/or tubes,listening to him,you just feel that "Johnny was......."well,not just a good man,but a very good man.I just can't find a better way to describe this.If imagination is playing tricks,it does so with live music too.In our rooms,we are lucky to have at least some of that imagination exited.There are countless recordings like this one,and are not necessarily of "reference" quality.
To be completely honest with you Terry I don't believe you have any problems worrying whether or not I or anyone else here will be offended by what you ask or state. In fact, although you apologized you've previously were quick to assume the worse about me based soley on how often I posted here or not. So from what I've seen it's quite easy for you to assume the worse about others and then jump to incorrect conclusions based strictly on your assumptions.
Strangely enough soon after having making one incorrect assumption about me and having your assumptions be wrong, you're right back at making yet another incorrect assumption about me based soley on reading a some of my posts on Prophead over at Audio Asylum. So Terry before you go down this rabbit hole too deeply allow me to set the facts straight for you, ok?
First: If I was you I wouldn't jump too quickly at making assumptions about me based soley on how I see me behaving on another audio forum! That can led to incorrect assumptions especially when you're choosing to use an audio forum that's not noted for it's quick moderation of it's socially unacceptable or uncivil behavior.
Second: It is always my preference to converse with others in a civil manner. However "if" someone begins to converse with me in a socially unacceptable or uncivil manner i.e., the persons's behavior towards me is not presented with the same courtesy they'd give me when we're speaking face-to-face as opposed to when they're hiding behind the anonymity of a moniker, that me will cause me to negate my preference towards civility and respond back in what you describe as a 'strong talking' manner!
Third: Before making more assumptions and jumping to more incorrect conclusions about me I highly suggest you make an valiant effort to try and go back and determine what led to these "strong talking" communications between and whoever else. That won't be easy because the socially unacceptable or uncivil behavior may not have even started on the thread you're reading or even on that particular part of Audio Asylum. For Example: the socially unacceptable or uncivil behavior may have started in the High Efficiency forum yet, you saw "strong talking" over on Prophead a few months or a year or two later. Terry you'd have to first deteremine who was disrespectful or uncivil first! Otherwise you'll have no idea of why I spoke to any individual the way I did.
Am I now to believe you'd prefer we stop conversing civilly? Do you want or communications to be of the 'strong talking' variety? I can assure you it's not what I want and if such a thing should start between us it won't end quickly or nicely.
Yes! That's absolutely correct. I believe live, unamplified music is the ONLY reference standard we can use to gauge how well our audio systems are capable of replicating music correctly. To that end I attend as many symphonies as I my disability allows me to at the Bob Carr Performing Arts Centre here in Orlando, FL. http://www.orlandovenues.net/other_info_files/bob_carr_centre.php In the past I also played acoustic guitar in both a four man ---{America and/or Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young}--- type of all acoustic band and an acoustic/electric band ---{we later added and electric guitar and bass}--- when I was a lot younger. So I have a pretty good idea of what live unamplified music sounds like.
Now before anyone attempts to derail my philosophy with the misguided argument that an instrument/singer will sound different in different venues and from different locations in those venues, let me state I understand that is 100% true. However that's a completely different issue than what I'm actually discussing and it actually relates more to soundstaging and sonic image localization, than it does with training our ear/brain to recognise the unique harmonics and timbre of an individual instrument and/or singer and that's precisely what proponents of using live, unamplified music as a reference, standard are doing!
I believe this is the the most important thing an serious audiophile/music love can do, i.e., teach our ear/brain to recognise how different instruments and singers sound. This can only be accomplished through as much exposure as possible to the sound of these instruments and/or singers in as many different venues and from as many different locations in those venues as we can obtain. Personally I believe the easiest way to understand what and why we're do what we do, is to ask yourself the question; "Why do different instruments sound different when they're all playing the same note?"
The first thing you must grasp is the fundamental frequency of any note is fixed and it's what determines the name of the note. It does'nt matter if it's a guitar, an accordian, a human voice, a flugel horn, a violin, an oboe, piano, etc. that produces the fundamental frequency's tone. For example, the note A4 is heard when a vibration with a fundamental frequency of 440 Hertz (Hz) is produced. The note C4, or "middle C," is produced by any instrument that produces vibrations of 261.63 Hz.
However, that fundamental frequency played on a violin will sound different from, say, a flute or a saxophone because of the harmonics produced by each of these instruments are! Harmonics are the subtle frequencies produced by an instrument or singer that are multiples above the fundamental frequency. Different instruments create different harmonics that contribute to their unique timbre, and it's this which allows you to distinguish the instruments apart and this is what we are training our ear/brain to recognize when we go listen to instruments in a live, unamplified venue.
I cannot stress the importance of this enough. I cannot tell you how many people I've met that cannot distinquish between the sound of a clarinet and a soprano saxophone! I ask you if a person cannot tell a a clarinet and a soprano saxophone, how can they tell if their audio system is replicating the sound of these instruments correctly? The answer is they cannot and belive me the sound of their audio systems reflect their inability to do so!
To be quite honest I don't understand what this has to do with why I or anyone else uses live, unamplified instruments and singers as a refernence standard. Please clarify what you're attempting to say...
Ah perhaps now I'm understanding the point you were trying to make. I do understand the value of room treatments. However that said, first you have to admit that haven't the foggest idea of whether I paid $10K or $10 for that interconnect do you? Yet here you are once again you're making assumptions about me. Do I need room treatments? Maybe. I can tell that my wallpaper is made from bamboo and has lots of ridges that definitely made a change in the room. I also have a large soft chair, couch and ottoman, with lots of pillows. I can honestly tell you more than one person has commented on how you can get up and walk around my audio room, out of the room into the kitchen and from the kitchen into the dining room and the sound doesn't change.
Granted there's no stereo image in the kitchen or dining room but, it sounds the same and in some ways even better, it's more like being seated in a small jazz club off to the side of the band. This trait has fascinated me and many others who've visited my home. If soundstaging & imaging isn't important to you you can sit at my dining room table and throughly enjoy the recordings I play on my system rooms away! That's because my system does the different instruments harmonics and their unique timbre correctly. In addition to that due to the high efficiency of the speakers ---{95db}--- the dynamics are incredible, the transient response is lightning fast and the decay fades slowly into a black background when called for.
Yes! That's correct. I could have purchased anything I wanted $8K and under and this is what I chose.
Neither do I! That's why I switched to using single ended triode amps ---{but mine has some nut with 40W/ch}--- with high efficiency single widerange speakers! The coherency of a single driver, is awesome provided one takes the time to deal with this type of speaker's deficiency. But EVERY speaker made has deficiencies that must be dealt with, no? These speakers are capable of producing the different unique harmonics and timbre of different instruments and singers more closely than any multi driver, crossovered speaker I've ever heard. In fact a couple of sales people have to the door and asked me: "Was that you or your wife playing piano?" after hearing my system playing some piano from outside! You should have seen their faces when I told them it was my stereo!
No Terry it hasn't been my reference all the time. I hope you realise I could have purchased any speaker I wanted to $8K and under. I purposely chose these speakers! However to give you some idea of what I previously owned before buying these...
I used the Monsoon FPF-1000 for awhile. These are ribbon/dynamic hybrids that are now in my wife's audio system aka the home theater. Other ribbon/dynamic hybrids I've owned includes; Carver Original Amazings, ESS AMT1, (I still have 2 pairs of the large HEIL drivers) Infinity Quantum 2, Infinity RS 2.5, Clements RT-7 and Fostex RP 1001.
I owned one set of planars from Museatex called the Melior Two. I also owned and used the Aliante Pininfarina Ones from Italy. Others I've dynamic speakers owned and used include; KEF 105, Swan Diva 6.1, Sound Dynamics 300ti and Tannoy 800.
Ok Terry, now you've become uncivil and disrespectful, telling me I don't have a clue about what I'm saying because I have a different POV on audio?! Just remember YOU chose this mode of communication, not me! Now live with it, I'll never address you civilly again! How can you possibly know what my audio system sounds like? Only a IDIOT talks about how another person's system sounds BEFORE they've heard it! I'm assuming you've heard single driver system that sounded terrible, so that means mine has to? Guess what I've heard single driver systems that sound terrible as well. I used to be a rep for Louis at Omega until I purchased the Aliante speakers!
What type of speakers do you use Terry? Dynamic? Horns? Electrostats? I'll bet I've heard a type of those speakers that sounded terrible to me, so I guess your speakers must sound terrible too. All I can tell you is the audiophiles who've heard my system from Central Florida Audio Society, Space Coast Audio Society and SETriodes Group ---{only one who also uses single driver speakers]--- have told me my speakers sound like Quads with real bass and real-world dynamics. You can choose not to believe me, which I believe you'll do. So you'll just have to wait until SY visits my home. I'll ask SY honestly state here what his assessment ---[whatever that is]--- of my speakers/system is, based on his listening impression, after he's heard it.
Yes! That's 100% correct. You can have your opinion but, until you've heard my system with single drivers that have been treated with Mike Rispoli's incredible, 5-step, propriety, process you'll have no idea of just how well and realistic these speakers sound. After two days of listening to them I removed and sold a pair of $5000 Aliante Pininfarina Ones monitors from Italy, that received great reviews:
1) ALIANTE - Audiophile speaker systems - High fidelity loudspeakers - Sistemi di altoparlanti hi-end - HiFi Lautsprecher - Diffusori acustici stereo
2) Aliante One Loudspeaker Review By Steven R. Rochlin
Neither the Aliantes speakers nor any other I've owned or ever heard hold a candle to the speakers I own now. You can choice to remain ignorant and claim what you will but, I and those who heard these new single speakers no how good they are!
Says the FOOL who believes he can talk about how another person's system sounds BEFORE he's heard it or spoken to someone, anyone he knows or trusts that has! Ha ha ha ha ha
Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnn.
You're the one under some sort of delusion if you think you can describe how my system sounds without hearing it! Spoken like a true measurements and specs clown
Repeat to yourself over & over measurements and specs are the only reality. Human perception plays no part whatsoever. Ha ha ha What a load of tripe. Talk about being deluded? Terry perhaps you should know I've owned some very nice solid state amps as well such as the CM Labs, Harmon Kardon Citation 16, Mark Levinson ML-2, Audio Analogue Puccini OCM 200 & I still own a JungSon DIA-200. Guess what my Mastersound Reference 845 doesn't measure as well as any one of those amps but, damn if it doesn't sound a lot more like live, unamplified music does.
I just don't understand how people like you can believe after owning these fine amps and the fine speakers I previously mentioned above, that I'd choose a high distortion, colored device. Whether it's my amp or my speakers. All I know is since owning the both Mastersound for 8 years and the Sachiko/Fostex FE206ES-R I've not once considered upgrading! I never owned any amp or speaker I've been happier with. I listen to music almost daily for 8-10 hours a day. Sad part is the more you talk Terry the more ignorant you're looking. That's ok because I won't be communicating with you very much or at all in the future.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Well, I've got some bad news for you. If you are ascribing possible sonic differences in wires to something as boring/non-mystical as LCR, you're a rationalist, not a "believer".
So how do you know when it is your imagination or not? Do you listen today and say "it must be the thin gauge of the wire" and then listen tomorrow and say "it must be my imagination"? How do you discriminate between?
Who said that? LCR is everything in (audio) wire signal transmission. Which is an insignificant part of music reproduction (from a sound waves perspective, though obviously not brain waves). Do you remember all the significant stuff I pointed out to you about music reproduction, like amplifier clipping, polar response, diffraction, etc, etc? That you ought to be able to hear, plain as day, in your stereo....unlike wires and cables?As long as we agree that LCR is not everything in music reproduction,I have no problem whatsoever to agree with you on anything
You seem to have overlooked (chosen to?) something. The recording wire(s).
Exactly how is that "detail" and sad/pleasant "emotion", etc. etc. supposed to get onto the recording via the "cheap" "unrevealing" studio cabling, only to be magically "revealed" by the wonderwires?
Have you figured out where Andre might have heard (dirt)"cheap" 25 cents/ft Mogami yet (without knowing of course)?
cheers,
AJ
You seem to have overlooked (chosen to?) something. The recording wire(s).
Exactly how is that "detail" and sad/pleasant "emotion", etc. etc. supposed to get onto the recording via the "cheap" "unrevealing" studio cabling, only to be magically "revealed" by the wonderwires?
Have you figured out where Andre might have heard (dirt)"cheap" 25 cents/ft Mogami yet (without knowing of course)?
cheers,
AJ
I don't think that all recording studios use "cheap,unrevealing...cables".But even if they do,this does not mean that their recordings would not have been better if they were using "better" cables.What you seem to overlook(choose to?) is the FACT that no matter what was used in the studio,what you have in hand to judge,is the final product,that is their LP's,CD's etc.........Now,do you want to tell us what you think about the majority of recordings we buy?What is revealed in their "monitor systems" in the studio,can be revealed in our systems too,at least equally well.
Member
Joined 2004
BudP, I´ve read Brian Eno when producing used to run anything through cheap Zoom processors, stomp boxes and such just to dirty the sound, claiming it would just sound better. In the early nineties when 16-bit and high bandwith samplers were all the rage, a british band called LFO started a new trend by used resampling previously clean digital sounds through old cassette tapes claiming " a bad sample sounds good because it sounds so bad". I posted a sound clip on the Electro-music forum where i recorded a synthesizer through cheap mains transformers to mess with the impedances and add low bandwith and grain on purpose, to show how the sounds could then subjectively fit better in the mix.
It´s no secret, I think, the more detail is perceived in the sound during performance, the less focus will be on the actual meaning of a sequence of notes. But I dont think that necessarilly aplies to sound reproduction. It´s ok to listen to the kitchen radio or mp3. I enjoy listening to mono myself. I think stereo actually distracts one from the performance, since it was created with "spacial illusion" in mind, not music.
But not all music is recorded equal. With a good resolving system it´s possible to enjoy certain nuances that are part of the performance. Speciffically real tone colour of acoustic instruments, and some are very rich harmonically. You need all the bandwidth you can get. Dynamics: a live drum kit can be brutal and ear-bleeding if a rock drummer wants to (supposedly most of the time). The pianoforte has a wide dynamic range also. A violin player can add subtle changes in level to emphasize expression of notes or full phrases. Pitch: if one has a musical ear, some systems are able to show microtonal variations in a solo instrument doing vibrato or an ensemble trying to stay in tune, and it can be very enjoyable to listen. PRAT: it´s an audiophile acronym but it exists, and some systems (and even cables) are better at it than others.
These are the subtleties I was talking about in my other post...
It´s no secret, I think, the more detail is perceived in the sound during performance, the less focus will be on the actual meaning of a sequence of notes. But I dont think that necessarilly aplies to sound reproduction. It´s ok to listen to the kitchen radio or mp3. I enjoy listening to mono myself. I think stereo actually distracts one from the performance, since it was created with "spacial illusion" in mind, not music.
But not all music is recorded equal. With a good resolving system it´s possible to enjoy certain nuances that are part of the performance. Speciffically real tone colour of acoustic instruments, and some are very rich harmonically. You need all the bandwidth you can get. Dynamics: a live drum kit can be brutal and ear-bleeding if a rock drummer wants to (supposedly most of the time). The pianoforte has a wide dynamic range also. A violin player can add subtle changes in level to emphasize expression of notes or full phrases. Pitch: if one has a musical ear, some systems are able to show microtonal variations in a solo instrument doing vibrato or an ensemble trying to stay in tune, and it can be very enjoyable to listen. PRAT: it´s an audiophile acronym but it exists, and some systems (and even cables) are better at it than others.
These are the subtleties I was talking about in my other post...
Actually Tom, you may not have to wait that long. I believe SY is actually considering building a Fostex system based on his listening impressions...and SAF suggestions.
I heard the 206ES-R last year at Earth Shaking Music in Atlanta. The owner Dave, had a pair (like tubes too). Didn't perform too badly. So I measured them (he asked) for him - more linear than I anticipated, relatively free of any major peaks across the spectrum.
Didn't know you had Tannoys before (or recalled you mentioning). What didn't you like about them?
cheers,
AJ
Me neither, because those are psychogenic maladies of believers, not sound wave related issues, so we agree. But if you look at your media library, the vast majority will not have used any expensive "revealing" magic cabling/wires. Just look at the studios where they were made for a reality check.
Imagined "better", or "better"....how??
Umm...yeah, that's what I said....hence, exactly how are we to get wine from the water?
Eh?
Like clipping, compression, diffraction, polar response, etc, etc, etc...
I thought you said you couldn't hear any or all of that, revealed by your system, equally well...or not
You think that is what they hear on monitors in most studios?
Like clipping, compression, diffraction, polar response, etc, etc, etc...
Is this how your system sounds?
You seem to have stucked on my smaller system.Logical.It suits your comments.
Do you really find it so difficult to accept that a small speaker and amp in a small room can sound great?
Why do you intentionally pretent you don't remember that I have a pair of larger speakers too?Just to let you know,these are Focal Electra 946 driven by a Krell KSA 250,in a bigger room.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.