I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[Brett]

Originally posted by fredex
Brett, yeah, good engineering, well applied.

On those Quad IIs, I have to come clean and admit my present amps are Class D. But they are built using "good engineering, well applied."

I'm not using tubes at the moment either, but rather good SS amps (biamped and triamped for S/R, soon)

[Key]

Well I am sure they listened and measured. But still Peter Walker I think was on the record saying cables have no distinct sound unless they are futzed with or broken and I think he was also in the camp that believed amps are not imperative or vastly different if only people used them correctly.

Reallly the best speakers I've heard usually come from the objectivist side of things.

[Brett]

Originally posted by rdf
I also find it curious you and Brett find it such a performer when a chip amp trashes it in most any scientifically valid performance metric.

See later post for what I actually use.

I want the HK because I like Hegeman's design, and it was an excellent piece of engineering for the time. I can like a 60's musclecar because I like the looks and sound and feel and they can be fun to drive, but I am under no misconception that an Exige would eat it in trackwork.

[fredex]

Originally posted by Andre Visser
Who said it is too small to measure?

Sorry Andre it wasn't you, I was putting someone elses words in your mouth.

[rdf]

Originally posted by Brett
I want the HK because I like Hegeman's design, and it was an excellent piece of engineering for the time.

Fair enough, I keep an MC240 around for similar reasons.

[fredex]

Originally posted by rdf
fredex, how do you know the Quad engineers didn't use listening in the design process? I also find it curious you and Brett find it such a performer when a chip amp trashes it in most any scientifically valid performance metric.

1. I don't know. 2. The Quads have a sound, a pentode sound, a very beguiling pentode sound. Very nice euphonic presentation. Even objectivists can have soul.

So to answer your question the Quads are 'curiously' prized for reasons other than your "scientifically valid performance metric."

[analog_sa]

Originally posted by Key
But still Peter Walker I think was on the record saying cables have no distinct sound

I doubt he went as far as cables. His general stance was there was no difference between well designed amps. The Quad II was part pure luck and part proof it's really different to screw up with tubes.

[analog_sa]

Originally posted by SY


Quad ESL57s and the Quad tube amps
Snell A
Linkwitz's various dipoles
Drew Daniels's horn monster
Marantz 9s
Anything by Western Electric
RCA

The Linkwitz is sticking out like a sore thumb. That particular "science guy" must have lots more publications than the others

[pol_bct]

janneman wrote:

> So what's your conclusion,

I think I provide enough infos for your own brain machine
if you want to make that small effort and think about it.

If our gear use steam & dampf we could think that vapor and water are responsible for the day to day variations we notice, but our HiFi works with electricity, so we have to find an answer who starts with electricity.

it is not new, 1939
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

scott wurcer wrote:

> but this stuff is just noise.

yes, you're right, this is just noise, electrostatic noise modulated by all the spurious in our environnement, main noise, clock noise, CD noise, and so on.

have you ever noticed that the simplest HiFi gears generally sound cleaner that multi-heavy systems, less is more

Occam Law rules everywhere

POL

[janneman]

Originally posted by rdf


Have you considered the opposite? That being constantly told 'nothing to hear, move along' with the full force of a scientific authority you respect could mask differences?
Brad Meyer gave a speech to the BAS in which he related that in group intelligence testing the administrator's unspoken (and also fallacious and planted) belief that the group under test generated below-average results prior was enough to skew their performance downward. Just 'knowing', without conscious prompting or coercion, made subjects 'dumber'. Where does that leave some of the ABX trials you've read about?

Agreed, I am well aware of these effects. Simlarly, in group tests where you tell one group that they have been selected because of their intelligence, they perform better than when they are not told this. Such is the power of suggestion. Ask any football coach.

The way I see it, it only reinforces the need for tests that are controlled as best as possible. An ABX test isn't perfect, but runs rings around a casual, uncontrolled 'test'.

jd