If you are saying that a cable should have low capacitance, then that is something that could be specified - and is specified in the professional world where a metre of cable could set you back $10 - low capacitance cable is not expensive. But then some 'high end' cable manufacturers make a feature of their cable's high frequency roll off (it's good for absorbing non-harmonic frequencies and harmful energy coupling apparently). Cable capacitance should not be of any importance with typical competently-designed audio equipment should it?
In discussions of $2000 cables I'm always noticing people who, for reasons of balance, play devil's advocate by introducing such low level concerns as cable capacitance, effectiveness of shielding and robustness of connectors. To me, it's an almost ridiculous juxtaposition, where engineering 'problems' that are 100% solved in the professional world for a fraction of the price are being wheeled out in a desperate bid to justify the cost. I think we can take it as read that a cable costing more than a few quid has pretty much got the capacitance/shielding/connectors thing under control (unless, ironically, it's being made by one of these 'high end' cowboy outfits - see the power conditioner photos yesterday). For a few more quid it will meet military specifications where actual lives depend on its ability to transmit the signal intact.
the pro audiophile cable arguments are not necessarily stupid if the ear is proven to be more sensitive to some aspects compared to other applications (instrumentation etc).
what I don't get is how some types come up with formulas for the price. "if your system costs 30k, why not spend as little as 10% on the cables? doesn't a good system like that deserve some good cables?"
what I don't get is how some types come up with formulas for the price. "if your system costs 30k, why not spend as little as 10% on the cables? doesn't a good system like that deserve some good cables?"
Last edited:
But this ostensibly reasonable comment assumes as a given that there is something fundamentally different between an audiophile cable and an instrumentation cable, that the wondrous human ear can latch onto. There isn't. Can anyone demonstrate that there is? It really does seem that we are in the realms of taking any old marketing person's word unquestioningly that something is 'audiophile' if it is called audiophile and priced accordingly.
No wire it with Belden rubber mic cable..Bell wire for the speakers.. it will sound great..cringe...
Don't forget to wire the inside of the amp with it as well...
remember if you can hear the cable the system is no good anyway...LOL
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Hm ..... 14-bits gives anyhow a s/n ratio of 80 dB, better than the LP!
The CD was developed in the days that 8-bit and 12-bit integrated computerchips were becoming most popular.
Philips had developed its own 14-bit processor for administrative purposes and for cost reasons wanted to use that.
The laboratory CD development ran on DE PDP-11 machines. DE had already developed an integrated 16-bit processor and was soon followed by Intel and Motorola.
Sony recognized this development and pushed for 16-bit processing and the the likewise change of the CD-format. It also had the advantage that it made Sony less dependent of Philips' IC-factory.
Integrated A/D and D/A converters in 16-bit were hardly available at that time so at introduction of the CD lots of machines used 14-bit D/A converters.
CD opened up a whole new market for mass-producing such chips so development and production speeded up like hell.
I believe that is called a Straw Man argument!
There are real engineering for not using thin wire for your speakers, and yes, bell wire would sound bad. But just buy thick enough cable at a few dollars per metre and you'll have exactly the same performance as the most expensive speaker cable in the world.
People used to come up to the Quad stand at shows, very impressed by the sound, and ask where they could buy the special orange speaker cable they used. It turned out to be lawnmower cable.
Yes a long time ago telecom cable interconnects were the way to go..Silver from the jewellers left it for dead oups..
I don't like the straw man argument...I was just having a laugh..
I think at the end of the day..use what works for you..
Nothing wrong with solid copper from mains cable for high current..
I would ditch the PVC...I don't like OFC<<<oups there I go again..LCOFC or solid standard with PTFE sleeving..
Nothing wrong with Belden cables either
just not the rubber kind..NB no mention of SUPER cables<<< Oh Audio quest..Digital interconnect..also ditched for a home made silver twist..oups done it again...LOL
Monster cable<<<ditched again for a home made version...
No stick with RS twin screened much more interesting..if you want adventure use RS twin screened with semi conductor shield<<<Yawn...
Used in industry for years just like the 741 Op amp<<<got to be good hasn't it..Does what it says on the tin!..LMAO..sorry
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
No stick with RS twin screened much more interesting..if you want adventure use RS twin screened with semi conductor shield<<<Yawn...
Used in industry for years just like the 741 Op amp<<<got to be good hasn't it..Does what it says on the tin!..LMAO..sorry
But that's a bit like saying
"Why not use multicore solder with flux?! ... ROFL... Or copper tracks on fibre glass PCBs!... LOL... I bet you think gold contacts sound good... WTF... Been around for years, must be good, yeah? LOL"
In other words you haven't actually justified why RS twin screened is bad. You're just taking it as read that because it is a commodity part then it is beneath contempt for an audiophile. Do you really think you could hear or measure the difference between RS twin screened and Shinwa Agamemnon? Where is it that RS has gone wrong with its screened cable? Well there's no liquid shield I suppose. And no crystals taped to it. It hasn't got some of this stuff on the outside
Buy Cable Sleeves Cable Sleeving Polyester Braid 25mm HellermannTyton 170-12500 online from RS for next day delivery.
then heatshrinked around the outside of the phono connectors, so that might be part of the problem.
(The 741, of course, is another Straw Man).
14 bit linear encoding gives a 'useful' dynamic range with distortion artifacts below 3% of between 30 and 40 db. I actually have a couple of LPs mastered from 14 bit digital from the late '70's, and there is a near absence of lower level acoustical detail in them. Also decent analog encoding allows audible recovery of musical information as much as 20-30 db below a noncorrelated wide spectrum weighted acoustical noise floor which reproduces basically spread across the sound stage in 2 dimensions allowing spatially and/or spectrally localized sound sources at lower levels to be identified. This feature which CDs, which were mostly never encoded for improved noise weighting, lacked. And if raw measured SNR was the end all and be-all of sound quality, why hadn't DBX encoded LPs which boasted SNR's exceeding 100db, taken over the field?
Last edited:
stumbled upon this video today: Penn Jillette on Why Tolerance Is Condescending - YouTube
just ignore the religious part and try to get the substance. I hope it won't get reported because of the religious content, I'm confident that the majority of the readers are intelligent enought to ignore it.
I wanted to state this a few times but for some reason I didn't.
the guy says at some point that he wants to be called on his BS and that's the world he wants to live it. this is how I view these subjective/objective arguments: without an opposing view and a group of adepts to sustain it there's no equilibrium. subjectivists are right many times. they're also wrong many times. same goes for objectivists. it is the confrontation that brings balance. I think intelligent people are capable of changing their views, given the right arguments. my belief is that whoever thinks they reached the "audio Zen" where all is clear, is wrong. regadless of them being subjectivists or objectivists.
I have encountered many subjective arguments and had real-word experiences that challenged some of my views and I'm glad it happened. I also have encountered very close-minded and self-sufficient subjectivists that made me be ashamed that we breathe the same air. goes both ways.
funny that the guy also states something I wrote in this thread: this tolerance is just BS, it just means that everyone is free to believe and preach everything they want which I absolutely believe is wrong. sure, no-one gets killed, but just expect to be called on your BS
I have great respect for Nelson Pass, John Curl, Bruno Putzeys etc. they have quite differing views but they do their thing and don't get caught up in arguments. I have noticed that they have the admirable talent of redrawing from an argument at the right moment. and not because they're not up to it, but because they know better.
which does not apply to some hypocritical types that pretend to have reached some sort of Zen. they preach this tolerance and "let it be" Bible but it is my conviction that they're just the opposite of what they try to display. they work by posting meaningless one-liners that are actually intended to enrage the ones they view as opponents and the straw-man argument is their favourite technique. boy, do I love the ignore feature of this forum.
just ignore the religious part and try to get the substance. I hope it won't get reported because of the religious content, I'm confident that the majority of the readers are intelligent enought to ignore it.
I wanted to state this a few times but for some reason I didn't.
the guy says at some point that he wants to be called on his BS and that's the world he wants to live it. this is how I view these subjective/objective arguments: without an opposing view and a group of adepts to sustain it there's no equilibrium. subjectivists are right many times. they're also wrong many times. same goes for objectivists. it is the confrontation that brings balance. I think intelligent people are capable of changing their views, given the right arguments. my belief is that whoever thinks they reached the "audio Zen" where all is clear, is wrong. regadless of them being subjectivists or objectivists.
I have encountered many subjective arguments and had real-word experiences that challenged some of my views and I'm glad it happened. I also have encountered very close-minded and self-sufficient subjectivists that made me be ashamed that we breathe the same air. goes both ways.
funny that the guy also states something I wrote in this thread: this tolerance is just BS, it just means that everyone is free to believe and preach everything they want which I absolutely believe is wrong. sure, no-one gets killed, but just expect to be called on your BS
I have great respect for Nelson Pass, John Curl, Bruno Putzeys etc. they have quite differing views but they do their thing and don't get caught up in arguments. I have noticed that they have the admirable talent of redrawing from an argument at the right moment. and not because they're not up to it, but because they know better.
which does not apply to some hypocritical types that pretend to have reached some sort of Zen. they preach this tolerance and "let it be" Bible but it is my conviction that they're just the opposite of what they try to display. they work by posting meaningless one-liners that are actually intended to enrage the ones they view as opponents and the straw-man argument is their favourite technique. boy, do I love the ignore feature of this forum.
FTFY. I won't bother linking to Werner Ogiers's demonstrations for the umpteenth time.
here's a typical example:
here you go. this is a typical. personal attacks and straw man arguments.
let people post what they want to post (as long as there's no rule/law braking) - it's none of you business.
no. what are you doing here? haha.
thanks for letting us know how you feel, it is world-reforming. somehow, you posted a few meaningless and cliched replies on a thread you pretend not to care about and find hilarious.
even if "we" (who is we?) don't, it's none of your business.
I'll have a go at it: because you like cr@pping on people's beliefs with the same intensity you pretend otherwise.
here you go. this is a typical. personal attacks and straw man arguments.
Most audio equipment that includes D/A conversion processing allows a non-negligible amount of RF noise to exist on its analog outputs. It then depends on the immunity of whichever piece of equipment it is feeding to reject interference between the analog signal and the digital 'onlay' such as by rectification effects inside op amps. If this immunity is lacking, then the audible 'differences' between cables with varying inductance/capacitance ratios which will tend to suppress the digital artifacts by differing amounts will tend to be made more noticeable.
As said...Nothing wrong with RS twin screened...used it for a long time...
Until I tried other things..
The 741 is just a seems like...was Ok in 1970's..You seem to think I like things like crystals etc...you might be wrong..
Regards
M. Gregg
Hi Ron,
With all due respect to your view point I'd like to mention that homeopathic medicines are very widely used even today. Dr.Hanneman of Germany who started the system was also hounded and driven out of Germany and fled to France where you now probably have the largest homeopathic manufacturing company..Boiron. They appear to be present in the US also.
It has stood the test of time and as a user of homeopathic medicines I will say that it has done a lot of good for me and a whole lot of family members and friends over here. So after 200 years it should have died if it was a bogus system. However it is expanding here !
If one doesn't understand how it works ( many don't) you should try it and see if it works . In most cases it's harmless though some times it has to be used with care. A majority of the 'medicines' are just solutions of plant extracts in an alcohol base or diluted solid plant matter in lactose pills. Only some medicines are of in-organic origin.
It's interesting to read about some of the 'dangerous' plants that work perfectly well and safely in homeopathic doses ! One of the medicines is Rhustox ( from the Poison Ivy plant !) . It cures muscular pain ( due to over exertion) in a few minutes . It works , I have used it for years and so have several others whom I know. You can't make it into an allopathic pill because the key ingredient would 'kill' in concentrated form ! Besides,the key ingredient needs all the other chemicals present in the plant for it to work safely.Pharmaceutical companies did investigate the possibility of making pills and gave up.
Another simple remedy for cramps . As simple as Magnesium Phosphate . But taken in miniscule doses unlike allopathic medicines.
Another doctor developed a system called Biochemic Tissue remedies. This is similar to Homeopathy as it works mostly with dilute doses but is based on just 12 chemicals. Theses 12 ( which are present in larger amounts than the many others that are present in the body ) are present in all living tissues. If their proportions are changed we have a 'medical symptom'. Replace it and the problem goes away. However it isn't a cure for the cause of the problem !
Like cold might be the cause of the cramps. So taking MagPhos 6X tabs will stop the cramps but if the cause ( cold) isn't removed you will again have cramps and need to take more MagPhos ! You get muscle cramps when Mag Phos is depleted from your muscles. The body requires more MagPhos to counteract the cold and takes it from the muscles and you end up having cramps until the MagPhos level is brought up.
Try this on yourself or others and see what happens. Especially painful cramps you get by stretching at night will be gone in 5 minutes ! All you need to do is stick three or four small pills ( of MagPhos 6X) under the tongue. In very severe cases you might need to dissolve three or four pills in some warm water and sip it slowly!
Read up on Biochemic Tissue remedies and you will not believe what they say. Then buy some of the remedies and try them out yourself. They do not cost much. They are also very safe . You can swallow a whole bottle at one time and waste it but it will not harm you. All excess medicine is just washed away by the body. In any case a whole bottle will contain only a fraction of a gram of the key 'medicine'. The rest is just a neutral carrier..lactose. Increasing the number of pills does not increase the strength of the medicine. In fact you need only ONE pill. The reason you take three or four is because at such high dilutions ( millionths) some pills may not have the 'medicine'. So you take three or four and at least one will carry what you want ! Yes , it sounds funny the first time you hear about it ! Note that some new companies make large pills about 5 mm dia or more. You need to take only one of these . Traditionally they were about 2mm or less in dia .
Note that since all these remedies use very dilute doses of plant extract or chemicals, they will work or work well only in a clean environment. No smoking and alcohol or strong allopathic medication ( or even foods like raw garlic and onions !) when taking these 'medicines' is almost mandatory. Otherwise they get 'drowned' in nicotine or tar or alcohol or whatever else.
This is why it works VERY well with children and women ( at least from large parts of Asia). Modern young Asian women seem to have started smoking and drinking so they will probably miss out on a great opportunity !
Homeopathy is also alive and well in Europe ! I hear they even have Homeopathic pharmacies at some train stations in Germany ! Maybe our German members can tell us if that is true !
Cheers.
PS: 6X means a millionth dilution. So a 2 gram pill ( of lactose) will only contain a couple of millionths of a gram of the 'medicine' !
Last edited:
Arrrrrgh!
Is it just me or did this thread start as 'name the stupid theories you've heard' and rapidly degenerate into cries of 'but the theories are true and the engineers don't know anything cos they're boring!" ????
Anyway, on the basis of what I thought this thread was meant to be, my favourite review I read online was one where the designer was with the reviewer, 'tweaking away'.
This involved such things as taking the lid of his boxes to show off the expensive capacitors used, and WHAM! the sound got better.
This process is described in the review until they get to the point where they turn the rug on the floor around, because the fibres were pointing in the right direction.
Absolutely hilarious.
I also LOVE that my local 'High-End' Hi-Fi shop refused to let me bring in my computer as a digital interface many years ago (when I was using a pro-tools rig and would have used the Pro-Tools HD interface) as they claimes my lossless-compression wasn't lossless and the only way to listen to high fidelity was on CD or vinyl. Now they're selling USB DACs everywhere and screaming about how good they are.
Same goes for what-HiFi, reviewing digital cables and saying there's a difference between a £25 cable and a £185 cable. It's actually crazy.
They do the same for HDMI cables - they review HDMI cables at £75 as "fantastic picture quality mated with dynamic and powerful sound" then go on to describe a £5 cable as "brilliant way to spend a fiver, will give rivals up to £20 something to think about"
Maybe they're unaware of all the tests done showing there's NO difference between two working HDMI cables, or even the $1,000,000 reward for anyone that can show (scientifically) or perceive (in blind tests) the difference?
blows my mind.
Is it just me or did this thread start as 'name the stupid theories you've heard' and rapidly degenerate into cries of 'but the theories are true and the engineers don't know anything cos they're boring!" ????
Anyway, on the basis of what I thought this thread was meant to be, my favourite review I read online was one where the designer was with the reviewer, 'tweaking away'.
This involved such things as taking the lid of his boxes to show off the expensive capacitors used, and WHAM! the sound got better.
This process is described in the review until they get to the point where they turn the rug on the floor around, because the fibres were pointing in the right direction.
Absolutely hilarious.
I also LOVE that my local 'High-End' Hi-Fi shop refused to let me bring in my computer as a digital interface many years ago (when I was using a pro-tools rig and would have used the Pro-Tools HD interface) as they claimes my lossless-compression wasn't lossless and the only way to listen to high fidelity was on CD or vinyl. Now they're selling USB DACs everywhere and screaming about how good they are.
Same goes for what-HiFi, reviewing digital cables and saying there's a difference between a £25 cable and a £185 cable. It's actually crazy.
They do the same for HDMI cables - they review HDMI cables at £75 as "fantastic picture quality mated with dynamic and powerful sound" then go on to describe a £5 cable as "brilliant way to spend a fiver, will give rivals up to £20 something to think about"
Maybe they're unaware of all the tests done showing there's NO difference between two working HDMI cables, or even the $1,000,000 reward for anyone that can show (scientifically) or perceive (in blind tests) the difference?
blows my mind.
Its interesting,
So none of this makes any difference...Ok except the speakers..perhaps the transport..the rest can be disregarded if its engineered to achieve reasonable performance..
OK so at what point as we go up the scale from bottom end gear to Super Fi can we compare and not hear the difference..?
So if we get a super fi system and put standard screened interconnects between the components..we won't hear a change of sound due to construction twisted pair or other or core material in a listening test (unless its worse)..So what is the point of different cable construction?<<..Its all snake oil..Is it?
Yes some of it is....but we all know that..
Regards
M. Gregg
So none of this makes any difference...Ok except the speakers..perhaps the transport..the rest can be disregarded if its engineered to achieve reasonable performance..
OK so at what point as we go up the scale from bottom end gear to Super Fi can we compare and not hear the difference..?
So if we get a super fi system and put standard screened interconnects between the components..we won't hear a change of sound due to construction twisted pair or other or core material in a listening test (unless its worse)..So what is the point of different cable construction?<<..Its all snake oil..Is it?
Yes some of it is....but we all know that..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
That doesn't follow. There's all sorts of total nonsense that won't die as long as there are people willing to suspend critical thinking and embrace it. Complete lack of good evidence for these notions and their repeated failure in controlled testing discourages people not a whit.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.