Amazing. A story perhaps confirming your findings, one of the more prominent members of the old DEC (computer company) Audio notes (ASCII inter-company) board claimed he used 2 Radio Shack 90 deg RCA adapters, in order to get his equipment to set back far enough on the shelf, as the cables wouldnt bend. This was a temporary fix, so he could listen at all before the good ones came in the mail. He claimed he could hear the difference with the adapters inserted.
What a discussion ruckus ensued! People were telling him he was crazy, there's NO WAY blah bla blah... He wouldnt self-question nor back down from his perception...
This was, maybe 40 years ago? The only thing I learned from that thread is you never challenge what another audiophile claims they can hear. Unless you have a lot of Watt-hours to expend.
What a discussion ruckus ensued! People were telling him he was crazy, there's NO WAY blah bla blah... He wouldnt self-question nor back down from his perception...
This was, maybe 40 years ago? The only thing I learned from that thread is you never challenge what another audiophile claims they can hear. Unless you have a lot of Watt-hours to expend.
People often tell me this, too! As I noted above, contact do sometimes do funny things, only a small oxide film can perhaps form a diode instead of a connection.
Back in the 90's there was an oil called 'Tweaks' as I recall, for keeping RCA contacts happy. I just use a lubricating switch cleaner when I remember, the oil keeps the oxygen away and makes a huge difference.
I discovered this also worked for electric model trains, after a short 'clean, train stops, clean, train stops' cycle of oo guage in the garden - below some trees (tree sap seems impossible to completely clean off LOL), I decided that the black stuff on the wheels was probably manufactured by a combination of the sparks and oxygen, so instead I oiled the track. After the first faltering circuit the train run better and better, and the locomotive wheels were shiny clean too - hence showing that simply keeping oxygen away from metal worked very well 🙂
So yes, insisting the witness is wrong, often leads to cul de sacs of belief 🙂
RCA is just such an awful connector, why does anyone put up with it still? Just fit BNC sockets, problem solved (and you can get BNC/RCA adaptors if you have to).
Designing an audio connecter that connects signal first, then ground, is a horror!!
I wonder where that came from, a company caled RCA? Just guessing.
Perhaps being off-patent and simple was the reason everyone jumped on it?
The surface area etc is Ok, easy to clean etc - but non optimal when cheap and abandoned to the forces of nature 🙂
I wonder where that came from, a company caled RCA? Just guessing.
Perhaps being off-patent and simple was the reason everyone jumped on it?
The surface area etc is Ok, easy to clean etc - but non optimal when cheap and abandoned to the forces of nature 🙂
One of the first things I did with this amp was clean the pots and terminals.
I am going to see what my equalizer can do for the sound of it.
I am going to see what my equalizer can do for the sound of it.
Those are cross sections of 50 Ω and 75 Ω BNC's with crimped on centre pins (male). The male and female parts were connected and then cut in half for our education.
F-connectors are only made for 75 Ω and only have a female connector part, the male part is the solid strand of the coax cable itself.
F-connectors are only made for 75 Ω and only have a female connector part, the male part is the solid strand of the coax cable itself.
Nope. But he might have paid attention to some of the work of Cyril Bateman. May or may not help out with your amp problem.
Same for the ground loops; they can sound bright and overly analytical, not necessarily only like hum.
Yes, those are BNC connectors - clearly. I wouldn't want to use BNC connectors in my audio system, nothing wrong with them at all but it is overkill. The RF performance is what a BNC was all about.
RCA connectors are not so bad. However you are not supposed to make connections while the equipment is running.
Another thing people do not seem to understand is that the actual connection is supposed to be gas-tight. The Tiffany style does this poorly from what I have seen of modern connectors. The basic "cheap" Japanese connection is far better if the ground skirt has been done properly. The tuning fork style inner connection has a much effective higher force on the centre connector. It is a gas-tight connection. You do not need to block oxygen with oils and such.
RCA connectors are not so bad. However you are not supposed to make connections while the equipment is running.
Another thing people do not seem to understand is that the actual connection is supposed to be gas-tight. The Tiffany style does this poorly from what I have seen of modern connectors. The basic "cheap" Japanese connection is far better if the ground skirt has been done properly. The tuning fork style inner connection has a much effective higher force on the centre connector. It is a gas-tight connection. You do not need to block oxygen with oils and such.
What people report hearing is more often than not imaginary when performance of two connections are measured properly and close to equal. If you have a poor connection - that can be so easily seen with test equipment. Way back when that original report was done, we couldn't measure down that far normally, and often people didn't bother to investigate.
Working in a lab, and on my bench, it is pointless to measure anything with a connection problem The very first thing we are taught is to ensure connections are made properly without problems. Only then do you invest the time to measure anything. In other words, whether you listen or measure, it has to be done with proper care. The more acute you believe your hearing is, the more important this step is. I'm talking about really making sure the connections are good, not spraying or applying "goo" to them. Never assume anything.
Working in a lab, and on my bench, it is pointless to measure anything with a connection problem The very first thing we are taught is to ensure connections are made properly without problems. Only then do you invest the time to measure anything. In other words, whether you listen or measure, it has to be done with proper care. The more acute you believe your hearing is, the more important this step is. I'm talking about really making sure the connections are good, not spraying or applying "goo" to them. Never assume anything.
Agreed. When I was a lot younger than I am now, I was way more susceptible to suggestion, maybe even gullible.
I now have the benefit of hindsight and a lot of what I thought back then turned out to be imaginary. That does not mean I don't enjoy listening to music, I do so very much, even more than back then.
I started my Hifi adventure early 1990s when I purchased my very first CD-player, a mainstream JVC. Moving on to a Marantz CD-62 which I soon replaced with a Nakamichi CD-4 and then with the Primare D20 I still have now. Later came the addition a Marantz UD7007 Universal Disc player/network streamer and a Metrum Octave DAC. All of which I still use daily.
It was that Metrum NOS DAC that taught me a thing or two. By no conventional way of thought should a non oversampling DAC with only a lightly filtered output in the analogue domain sound any good yet I couldn't tell the difference with oversampled R2R (the CD-4) or Delta Sigma type DACs (the D20 and UD7007). Sure I put an oscilloscope on its output and I saw the steps in the sinewaves, it still sounded perfectly natural.
Later I also realized I couldn't distinguish if I was listening to a device fed by a linear PSU (D20, Octave) or a SMPS (UD7007).
Does that mean I don't hear any differences? Of course not. If I switch from my Sennheiser HD600 to my HD820 and back, there's a huge difference every time which my hearing then adapts to in a matter of minutes. It is that adaptive capability which made me realize that most perceived differences may be very real in the short run but not so relevant in the long run.
Coming back to that JVC CD-player, it still sounds pretty good, closer to what I have now than I would have thought possible, teaching me the meaning of diminishing returns.
I now have the benefit of hindsight and a lot of what I thought back then turned out to be imaginary. That does not mean I don't enjoy listening to music, I do so very much, even more than back then.
I started my Hifi adventure early 1990s when I purchased my very first CD-player, a mainstream JVC. Moving on to a Marantz CD-62 which I soon replaced with a Nakamichi CD-4 and then with the Primare D20 I still have now. Later came the addition a Marantz UD7007 Universal Disc player/network streamer and a Metrum Octave DAC. All of which I still use daily.
It was that Metrum NOS DAC that taught me a thing or two. By no conventional way of thought should a non oversampling DAC with only a lightly filtered output in the analogue domain sound any good yet I couldn't tell the difference with oversampled R2R (the CD-4) or Delta Sigma type DACs (the D20 and UD7007). Sure I put an oscilloscope on its output and I saw the steps in the sinewaves, it still sounded perfectly natural.
Later I also realized I couldn't distinguish if I was listening to a device fed by a linear PSU (D20, Octave) or a SMPS (UD7007).
Does that mean I don't hear any differences? Of course not. If I switch from my Sennheiser HD600 to my HD820 and back, there's a huge difference every time which my hearing then adapts to in a matter of minutes. It is that adaptive capability which made me realize that most perceived differences may be very real in the short run but not so relevant in the long run.
Coming back to that JVC CD-player, it still sounds pretty good, closer to what I have now than I would have thought possible, teaching me the meaning of diminishing returns.
Last edited:
Maybe so for you. Not everyone is equally adaptable. Some other people may be judged on accuracy by professionals. If you are recording a record, or if you are mixing the sound for a 2,000 seat orchestral concert with a wooden amplified flute, or mixing a 3,000 seat acoustical concert in an outdoor amphitheater, people are going to be judging the quality of your work. If you are imagining things and or adapting to things that reviewers and or experts in sound production will be hearing and judging, then you may not stay employed very long.
Which makes it all the more important for technicians to choose their preferred devices and stick with them.
It is also why studio engineers have access to calibration software that lets them correct the frequency response of headphones or monitor speakers and room acoustics.
It is also why studio engineers have access to calibration software that lets them correct the frequency response of headphones or monitor speakers and room acoustics.
We had frequency analyzers and calibrated mics for tuning systems 50 years ago. Nothing new there. However, its not only about FR.
Also, I had a choice of several/many types of mix and match speakers, amplifiers, crossovers, etc. Different bass bins, different horns for different coverage needs, etc. I had to know them all. Its not like you only have to know your favorites.
As far as recording engineers, often the only standard speaker from studio to studio were NS-10s. Hardly a preferred favorite for many people, but many people had to learn how to mix using NS-10 anyway. At least it was a commonly encountered and thus well-known piece of equipment (and not one you can fully fix with DSP or other EQing).
Also, I had a choice of several/many types of mix and match speakers, amplifiers, crossovers, etc. Different bass bins, different horns for different coverage needs, etc. I had to know them all. Its not like you only have to know your favorites.
As far as recording engineers, often the only standard speaker from studio to studio were NS-10s. Hardly a preferred favorite for many people, but many people had to learn how to mix using NS-10 anyway. At least it was a commonly encountered and thus well-known piece of equipment (and not one you can fully fix with DSP or other EQing).
Last edited:
None with the cable clamp threaded? They are all crimped? BTW the cutaway pics seem to be of mated connectors, so the threads may be for cable clamping.
I don't think so. Reason I say that is because NS-10 never sound right exactly. The low bass is very weak, there is big peak at around 1.5kHz, and the HF above that can be shrill to the point people would tape tissue paper over the tweeter. Some people would also feel the LF cone with their fingers to know if the bass was mixed at the right level, because you couldn't hear it properly. It wasn't like it ever gets to sound like a better speaker. You always know its wrong and sounds wrong, but you know how to compensate for it in the mix. That doesn't seem to me like the kind of adaptation you were talking about where it doesn't sound different from a different speaker after a few hours.