Please stop using "accurate" as a replacement for "realistic". These are different words with different meanings. We already had this discussion some thousand posts ago. Sound reproduction most of the time is not "realistic" but it can be "accurate".
As to "accuracy ready": I'm happy with a system that is accurate enough.
So why use these "special" cables if they don't make a difference??? Just to show off?
I know the meanings very well.Not interrested in numbers,sorry.
I'm glad you find your system "accurate enough".Mine is "accurate enough" too.I mean measures "accurate enough".😀
They made a difference to me.I haven't even said what they are nor how much they cost.Where did you see the "show off" ?
Is that a form of bias? I really want to know,not kidding you.
So what is the difference if cables don't improve sound quality? Or do cables improve sound quality only on good recordings but not on bad ones? Or are we just talking about the "gold coating" problem one might experience in high end plates?
No.They cause a chane that someone may like.And if you think my cables have any peculiar LCR,no they don't.Still,I like their contribution in the final sound of my system,so I bought two pairs.The other cables I am using,are all diy.I admit that my diy ones did not managed to convince me they are as good as the other two.
Let's do the time warp again
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ke-difference-any-input-1256.html#post2125780
Hey, Panicos & markus 😉
You pair ever heard of msn or yahoo
Ooops, sorry for going off topic - my bad 😛
Regards, Mark 🙂
You pair ever heard of msn or yahoo
Ooops, sorry for going off topic - my bad 😛
Regards, Mark 🙂
You pair ever heard of msn or yahoo
I'd prefer Skype but guess we need an audience 🙂
Hey, Panicos & markus 😉
You pair ever heard of msn or yahoo
Ooops, sorry for going off topic - my bad 😛
Regards, Mark 🙂
You are right Mark 🙂
Now,Markus.....
Last edited:
Good news. We are officially in the month of the DBT to conclude this thread. Tic toc doc. Tic toc.
Dan
Dan
Both right and wrong
I hyave no deep knowledge about Radio Shack's products. But it seems to me that the Radio Shack cable is quite a good one. It is reasonable you don't hear a difference between "500$" and "Radio Shack". But I think you would hear a difference between "Radio Shack" and a "standard" electrical-power cable of the kind you use for vacuum cleaners, lamps, etc.
BTW, a better way than spending 500$/meter on a loudspeaker cable would be to spend some 100-s of $ on external power amplifiers. You will certainly not have to use expensive "extra-super" cables from the pre-amplifier. And why wouldn't you use bi-amp? Separate cables for bass and midrange/treble. The active crossover _with balanced outputs_ placed near the pre-amplifier. Balanced input to the power amplifiers. I think it would be fully possible to use CAT6 TP cables, i.e. with separately shielded pairs and multi-wired conductors. It is easy to establish a "loop through" connection, so that there would be only a cable from the crossover to one of the power amps (say the left) needed, and a cable between the power amps. In that cabling system you could also include a remote power on/off for the power amplifiers; which, with some help from a small "start battery" at each power amp, would consume _zero_ standby power. I'll publish a description if there is the interest...
I hyave no deep knowledge about Radio Shack's products. But it seems to me that the Radio Shack cable is quite a good one. It is reasonable you don't hear a difference between "500$" and "Radio Shack". But I think you would hear a difference between "Radio Shack" and a "standard" electrical-power cable of the kind you use for vacuum cleaners, lamps, etc.
BTW, a better way than spending 500$/meter on a loudspeaker cable would be to spend some 100-s of $ on external power amplifiers. You will certainly not have to use expensive "extra-super" cables from the pre-amplifier. And why wouldn't you use bi-amp? Separate cables for bass and midrange/treble. The active crossover _with balanced outputs_ placed near the pre-amplifier. Balanced input to the power amplifiers. I think it would be fully possible to use CAT6 TP cables, i.e. with separately shielded pairs and multi-wired conductors. It is easy to establish a "loop through" connection, so that there would be only a cable from the crossover to one of the power amps (say the left) needed, and a cable between the power amps. In that cabling system you could also include a remote power on/off for the power amplifiers; which, with some help from a small "start battery" at each power amp, would consume _zero_ standby power. I'll publish a description if there is the interest...
It probably will, but the idea that any null results from the test would convince the faith based is pretty naive, IMO. A positive result (i.e., significant identification) would be a pretty big deal to the evidence-driven crowd, I suspect.
I think you are probably correct SY, but I'd bet even the evidence crowd would still want proof of improved accuracy and not just audibly different. Difference doesn't imply more or less correctness, though probably less. I'm betting one could build a cable that could transmit sound less accurately--in fact I believe I have. Still, I sent it to a friend who could not hear the difference. None the less, I bet the evidence crowd will see it as more significant if they are shown to be audible though they won't see it as a reason to buy more expensive cables. In fact it will probably give them less reason to do so.
Dan
Edit: this is just a guess. 😉
see page 50
http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf
Dan
Edit: this is just a guess. 😉
see page 50
http://theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_17_r.pdf
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.