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

[AJinFLA]

Originally posted by Andre Visser

If that was easy, all hi-fi's would have been perfect.
Technical, perhaps but I'm no scientist .

I made no mention of ease, perhaps this is a subconscious response? So you have no technical explanation or understanding of why a component is "revealing", but you have somehow managed to design it into your system?

Originally posted by Andre Visser

A revealing system is one that every component / signal path is designed to give "accurate and lossles" reproduction. I have my own ideas of what is necessary to achieve that but I don't want to get involved in another argument .

And obviously you designed your amplifiers to this criteria. So could you give an objective technical explanation of how every component / signal path in your system is designed to give "accurate and lossless" reproduction? Perhaps using your amp as an example. What physical reality measured parameters must be met?
Does this also mean that unrevealing Mid-Fi components were designed specifically so that component / signal path give "inaccurate and lossy" reproduction? Can you make these designers aware of the error of their ways by explaining exactly what it is you are doing to ensure signal accuracy and losslessness?
Argument? How about enlightenment, for those of us in the darkness?
BTW, I assume you have measured no changes in the frequency domain when scientifically comparing these various wires/cables. Would you mind posting the time domain performance of your loudspeakers revealing these differences? Thanks in advance.

cheers,

AJ

[ondesx]

Hi,

My personal feeling about esoteric and other peripheral in Hi-Fi can be resumed as follows :
1-yes, everything may change the sound of an audio system, but nobody can be sure that it's a real improvement in sound. I mean nobody can say if the "new" sound is closer to the original one QUAD claim !), since people aren't neither at the concert hall nor in the studio during recording, and even if it's the case, the audio memory is probably one of the worst of our memories !

2-Forget to try any improvent of a system if you aren't sure that everything from the power supply to the room and placement of speakers is perfect. Don't forget the match between pre and amps in terms of impedances and sensitivity, be sure you have corrected the room for some of the major imperfections with absorbing material at correct places, and finally that the power of amps and speakers and also their size are adapted to the listening room...

These are the principal rules. There are few other having some importance too... Then, may be you can play with one or another link. I'll be interested to know, if all important rules are correctly followed, how many guys will find enough improvement to pay 1 or 2 K$ for a link whatever its capacitance and/or resistance...

I'm now totally convinced that the worse the system the more links will introduce auditive differences !... This is why manufacturers sold their gear : in a bad system a link can change a lot the out coming sound ! And, you know what, these guys are right, unfortunately...

[Alan Hope]

Well all I know is that when my friends who own mid-fi systems come and listen to my system - their jaws hit the floor. (And I'm not exactly very high-end).

Comments have included - "Yes!" , "the musicians are there, I feel as if I could just reach out and touch them." "I could listen to this all day."

So what's the difference between their systems and mine?

Our FR traces are not the same - in fact mine is almost certainly worse (BLHs and Fostexes = lumpy FR, slightly raised mids, limited deep bass, rolled off highest freq).

SPLs are not the same - mine is worse, the Charlize is limited and not entirely offset by the efficient speakers.

Total distortion is not the same. But may not be poles apart - they have reasonable What hifi 5-star components (ah that world of real hifi!) which will measure up OK.

What's left? Information retrieval and presentation? If I swap cables, then there are areas where information get blurry/messy/grainy and not as good. Similarly swapping amps, speakers, sources (all of which I have multiple options).

I love some of the concepts presented here: that the original recording may have actually been a blurry, distorted, fatigue-inducing sound which is accurately reproduced by mid-fi, but which better systems are falsely reproducing as a much more realistic, less fatiguing, better imaged sound. (We don't know because we weren't at the studio etc)

I can alter the sound of my system by choosing different cables - ie can reduce the fine detail, produce a mid-bass hump if I want, roll off the highs if I want. While I might prefer particular sounds for some types of music - I know which cables work best for the largest percentage of my CDs.

OK, I unconsciously think of these as "better" cables. Perhaps I should think of them as different cables. I know if I simply stuck my silver ICs in my friends systems it might NOT be good. Similarly the BLHs.

How do the objectivists here quantify the reproduction of extremely low-level detail within a signal? Is there a measure for that? Units? An agreed methodology?

do you know, AJ?

[SY]

How do the objectivists here quantify the reproduction of extremely low-level detail within a signal? Is there a measure for that? Units? An agreed methodology?

Signal-to-noise and distortion.

[tnargs]

Originally posted by Alan Hope
Well all I know is that when my friends who own mid-fi systems come and listen to my system - their jaws hit the floor. (And I'm not exactly very high-end).

Comments have included - "Yes!" , "the musicians are there, I feel as if I could just reach out and touch them." "I could listen to this all day."

So what's the difference between their systems and mine?

Our FR traces are not the same - in fact mine is almost certainly worse (BLHs and Fostexes = lumpy FR, slightly raised mids, limited deep bass, rolled off highest freq)....<snip>

Their mid-fi systems' FR could actually be worse than yours....

But the biggest perceived sonic improvement would be down to your system *looking* far more exotic than theirs. Exactly like the OP said in post #1.

[Scottmoose]

I think 'different' might be a better phrase here. Andrew is using a pair of 6ft tall double horns I designed. Their presentation is completely different to, say, the average BR. Especially in sheer scale -no voodoo magic here; just that they're coupling to a hell of a lot more air than a 2in port tube does & operate with greater efficiency over a broader BW. Whether or not that's an improvement will depend on both circumstances & preference.

[planet10]

Originally posted by schumpe
theaudiocritic

I always thout that they had a pretty good satire magazine...

dave

[Alan Hope]

Originally posted by tnargs


Their mid-fi systems' FR could actually be worse than yours....

But the biggest perceived sonic improvement would be down to your system *looking* far more exotic than theirs. Exactly like the OP said in post #1.

Nah ...

My kit amp is boxed in a Woolworths keybox (£7) with part of the wood stained. It looks utterly amateurish and will need to be reboxed. The Quad CD spinner is a plain black box with tacky track counter - no looker but sounds superb. The speakers are home made - huge and intimidating, but they look, er, home-made.

Exotic-looking my system is NOT.

And my mates would not be hesitant about rubbishing the sound. One glanced at my birch phase-plugs and said - "looks like a little turd is coming out!"

However, I can't discount some psychological effect, they were aware that I thought it was ruddy good.

[AJinFLA]

Originally posted by Alan Hope

How do the objectivists here quantify the reproduction of extremely low-level detail within a signal? Is there a measure for that? Units? An agreed methodology?

do you know, AJ?

That is the question for Andre now isn't it? He is designing this into his system. Apparently, like the colonels secret recipe, he is unwilling to share.
BTW, can your friends also hear the wire burn in thing you claim to hear in your system? Might explain a great deal.

cheers,

AJ

[soongsc]

Originally posted by Alan Hope
Well all I know is that when my friends who own mid-fi systems come and listen to my system - their jaws hit the floor. (And I'm not exactly very high-end).

Comments have included - "Yes!" , "the musicians are there, I feel as if I could just reach out and touch them." "I could listen to this all day."

So what's the difference between their systems and mine?

Our FR traces are not the same - in fact mine is almost certainly worse (BLHs and Fostexes = lumpy FR, slightly raised mids, limited deep bass, rolled off highest freq).

SPLs are not the same - mine is worse, the Charlize is limited and not entirely offset by the efficient speakers.

Total distortion is not the same. But may not be poles apart - they have reasonable What hifi 5-star components (ah that world of real hifi!) which will measure up OK.

What's left? Information retrieval and presentation? If I swap cables, then there are areas where information get blurry/messy/grainy and not as good. Similarly swapping amps, speakers, sources (all of which I have multiple options).

I love some of the concepts presented here: that the original recording may have actually been a blurry, distorted, fatigue-inducing sound which is accurately reproduced by mid-fi, but which better systems are falsely reproducing as a much more realistic, less fatiguing, better imaged sound. (We don't know because we weren't at the studio etc)

I can alter the sound of my system by choosing different cables - ie can reduce the fine detail, produce a mid-bass hump if I want, roll off the highs if I want. While I might prefer particular sounds for some types of music - I know which cables work best for the largest percentage of my CDs.

OK, I unconsciously think of these as "better" cables. Perhaps I should think of them as different cables. I know if I simply stuck my silver ICs in my friends systems it might NOT be good. Similarly the BLHs.

How do the objectivists here quantify the reproduction of extremely low-level detail within a signal? Is there a measure for that? Units? An agreed methodology?

do you know, AJ?

Have you compared the CSD?