Re: AND....
Yeah..... that's the point I was trying to make! I was in a hi-fi shop for a few months and now I am an expert!
fdegrove said:
Yeah..... that's the point I was trying to make! I was in a hi-fi shop for a few months and now I am an expert!
mrfeedback said:
Hi Eric,
I often find myself tending to the opposite side from you on these sorts of discussions, but I have to say that was an extremely well spoken and reasoned response. I also have to admit that what you say makes a lot of sense to me.
My background in designing industrial electronics has taught me to design in sufficient performance margin to reduce the need for tight tolerance parts and increase production yields. This extra performance margin also has the effect of reducing the products sensitivity to external influences, including the characteristics of the equipment connected to it. The cost of doing this is that I am not getting the ultimate performance possible from the components in the design.
It is slowly becoming clear to me that these are not important criteria for some high end audio designers. I would expect that a piece of gear with limited performance margins (oscillation stability, drive capability, whatever) would likely be more sensitive to load characterists than another product that isn't living so close to the edge.
High end audio gear focus is often on providing very specific performance characteristics that are normally not available from run of the mill gear. Since these products are made in limited volumes and command high prices, I expect that reducing manufacturing costs and increasing production yields are not an overriding concern for the people designing them. This means that it is very possible that their performance could end up being marginal in some aspects. This could be the reason why the "quality" level of the gear involved is so often claimed to be important to perceiving cable differences.
If this is true, then you could say this is just part of the cost of getting the particular results you are after. Automobiles might be an apt analogy. A family sedan is not normally very particular about the grade of gasoline or oil you put in it. However a race car is very particular about both and if you don't give it what it needs then it isn't going to perform well (or for very long).
I am so used to good designs being boring (as in they just work the way they are supposed to, without any fuss or muss) that it is has been hard for me to notice that this is not true for all. My definition of good design ignores the cutting edge products that trade predictability and reliability for higher performance.
Eric, You have given me food for thought. Thanks
Phil
Hi Phil,
I totally agree with the philosophy of designing such that component tolerances are of little issue, and for high stability at the expense of so called 'ultimate' performance, and I agree that stable and load independant designs can sound 'boring'.
I also contend that many close to the edge designs are in fact flawed, and the 'excitement factor' is actually a product of transient instability and strong load dependence, and these produce 'false' musical products.
These reactive amplifiers end up requiring selection of cables (cable parameters) to achieve sonically acceptable output.
I feel that too many 'audiophiles' do not clearly understand this point, and in fact seek distorted amplifiers for that 'excitement' factor.
I much prefer an amplifier that does not misbehave, and on closer listening the 'boring' factor is actually a result of boring recordings, and not the amplifier.
A well behaved amplifier can be more revealling of nuances than a reactive one, and gives a truer representation of what it is fed.
Solid engineering is good engineering, and load independence is a primary criterion in my view.
Amplifiers that are strongly influenced by power supply or loading are poor amplifiers in my view.
Eric.
I totally agree with the philosophy of designing such that component tolerances are of little issue, and for high stability at the expense of so called 'ultimate' performance, and I agree that stable and load independant designs can sound 'boring'.
I also contend that many close to the edge designs are in fact flawed, and the 'excitement factor' is actually a product of transient instability and strong load dependence, and these produce 'false' musical products.
These reactive amplifiers end up requiring selection of cables (cable parameters) to achieve sonically acceptable output.
I feel that too many 'audiophiles' do not clearly understand this point, and in fact seek distorted amplifiers for that 'excitement' factor.
I much prefer an amplifier that does not misbehave, and on closer listening the 'boring' factor is actually a result of boring recordings, and not the amplifier.
A well behaved amplifier can be more revealling of nuances than a reactive one, and gives a truer representation of what it is fed.
Solid engineering is good engineering, and load independence is a primary criterion in my view.
Amplifiers that are strongly influenced by power supply or loading are poor amplifiers in my view.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
Absolutely agree. I've often wondered whether people who 'tune' their strange amplifier & speaker configurations with even stranger cabling are actually just missing their tone controls...
Cheers
IH
Koinichiwa,
As at least some people have very sophistacted and transparent tone controls at the disposal, I think we can call that a no.
I will simply say that I have found it not neccesarily easy to make "just a straight wire without gain", in the sense that no audibly observable degradation occours. Never mind making straight wires with gain.
Sayonara
PS, the effects are measurable, I previously referred to a "subtraction" test published in HFW which showed in the most extreme case the difference between input to a 5m loop of speaker cable and the output from it to be at -66db compared to the signal. To re-phrase this, -66db is 0.05% of distortion and obviously of a type that I tend to call "non harmonic" or "noisefloor modulation". Is this audible? I contend it is.
IanHarvey said:
As at least some people have very sophistacted and transparent tone controls at the disposal, I think we can call that a no.
I will simply say that I have found it not neccesarily easy to make "just a straight wire without gain", in the sense that no audibly observable degradation occours. Never mind making straight wires with gain.
Sayonara
PS, the effects are measurable, I previously referred to a "subtraction" test published in HFW which showed in the most extreme case the difference between input to a 5m loop of speaker cable and the output from it to be at -66db compared to the signal. To re-phrase this, -66db is 0.05% of distortion and obviously of a type that I tend to call "non harmonic" or "noisefloor modulation". Is this audible? I contend it is.
Passive Tone Controls
I agree with Ian that cables can be used as tone controls, and indeed in some systems this is required to achieve a pleasing resultant.
Choosing the wrong cable for a given amp/speaker combination can drive the listener out of the room, and conversely the right cable can make the same amp/cable combination very acceptable.
However in my experience this is still not as good as using an amp that does not care or protest about what you hang off it.
On the subject of DA, in imo/ime this is not a simple function.
My experience with cables of differing dielectrics leads me to believe that DA absorbtion and return of energy is not linear according to frequency, and has a spectral nature that can lead to a comb filtering/emphasising characteristic and this spectral nature is different according to the insulating material used, and can give a sonic signature.
I find PP and silicone are perfectly fine to my ear, pvc is ok, and that teflon gives another character that I find 'hard' and irritating.
Kuei, can you give more detail of the HFW article that you refer to ?.
Eric.
I agree with Ian that cables can be used as tone controls, and indeed in some systems this is required to achieve a pleasing resultant.
Choosing the wrong cable for a given amp/speaker combination can drive the listener out of the room, and conversely the right cable can make the same amp/cable combination very acceptable.
However in my experience this is still not as good as using an amp that does not care or protest about what you hang off it.
On the subject of DA, in imo/ime this is not a simple function.
My experience with cables of differing dielectrics leads me to believe that DA absorbtion and return of energy is not linear according to frequency, and has a spectral nature that can lead to a comb filtering/emphasising characteristic and this spectral nature is different according to the insulating material used, and can give a sonic signature.
I find PP and silicone are perfectly fine to my ear, pvc is ok, and that teflon gives another character that I find 'hard' and irritating.
Kuei, can you give more detail of the HFW article that you refer to ?.
Eric.
Re: Passive Tone Controls
Koinichiwa,
No more than I mentioned here. I used to have it on file but recently had to get rid of most of my Audio comics, so I no longer have it. It was some time in the 1990's.... Sorry, no more info.
Sayonara
Koinichiwa,
mrfeedback said:
No more than I mentioned here. I used to have it on file but recently had to get rid of most of my Audio comics, so I no longer have it. It was some time in the 1990's.... Sorry, no more info.
Sayonara
Hi,
Funny you'd mention that...
After rewiring my entire sytem with high purity silver wire (both inside and out) I did have the impression to have gained, well, err...gain amongst other things few naysayers would readily believe.
Not that I didn't know beforehand I'd shorten the electrical path by some 8% by doing so, I was still absolutely taken by the result.
And, while were at it, yes you can even out tonal balance in a given system by carefully picking your cables, this will require an indepth knowledge of what kind of cable to use where... and I always feel that for DIY it's better to do the internal cuisine...well...internally.
System matching is really high-end territory and not too many endusers I know off have this kind of expertise, let alone salesmen although some are quite good.
Mayonara,😉
Funny you'd mention that...
After rewiring my entire sytem with high purity silver wire (both inside and out) I did have the impression to have gained, well, err...gain amongst other things few naysayers would readily believe.
Not that I didn't know beforehand I'd shorten the electrical path by some 8% by doing so, I was still absolutely taken by the result.
And, while were at it, yes you can even out tonal balance in a given system by carefully picking your cables, this will require an indepth knowledge of what kind of cable to use where... and I always feel that for DIY it's better to do the internal cuisine...well...internally.
System matching is really high-end territory and not too many endusers I know off have this kind of expertise, let alone salesmen although some are quite good.
Mayonara,😉
Do you recall if that "worst case" cable was one of the ultra-thin ones that were the fashion in England around that time? Or that, um, odd cable with deliberately high permeability?
Hi,
DNM vs. MONSTER?
I vaguely recall such test but doubt that it was HFW publishing it, think it was Hi-Fi News and Rubbish Review.
Cheers,😉
DNM vs. MONSTER?
I vaguely recall such test but doubt that it was HFW publishing it, think it was Hi-Fi News and Rubbish Review.
Cheers,😉
Koinichiwa,
IIRC (and don't hold me) worst was a pretty generic stranded cable, may have been Linn or Naim or maybe QED.... The DNM stuff did quite well on distortion, the test was fully RLC compensated.... I also remember Audio Note's ultra expensive silver stuff doing well, but it get's hazy.... Sadly non of my local libraries keeps a long backissue file of HFN, otherwise I'd look it up tomorrow....
Sayonara
SY said:
IIRC (and don't hold me) worst was a pretty generic stranded cable, may have been Linn or Naim or maybe QED.... The DNM stuff did quite well on distortion, the test was fully RLC compensated.... I also remember Audio Note's ultra expensive silver stuff doing well, but it get's hazy.... Sadly non of my local libraries keeps a long backissue file of HFN, otherwise I'd look it up tomorrow....
Sayonara
i still like the pic of a high end cable that actually turned out to be a picture of candy... twisted pair, very sweet design...
fdegrove said:
Are you still on that stupid salesman thing? Didn't you read my post? Where did you get that idea in the first place? I don't remember making the following statement at any point:
"Hi. I once sold stereo equipment for 3 months to earn extra Christmas money and to get stuff for cheap. Therefore, I am an audio expert. That is the only reason for my expertise. There is no other reason. That's it. Nothing else."
DBLT #2?
Hi Guys,
I guess everyone has continued the discussion from the DBLT thread over here now? A few points were made on the other thread that I'm kind of surprised no one here has brought up. The first one that pops to mind are null tests. It seems to me that any audible differences could be easily seen on a 'scope. All you have to do is define what numbers you consider to be "audible" and away you go.
My favorite of course is the old 'order of magnitude' argument. My OTL's have a compensation network on the output consisting of a resistor and cap in series across the output. I'd hazard a guess that the component tolerences in this network are far greater than the LCR network created by the cable. And surely no one has forgotten that the other end of a speaker cable terminates at a crossover network!
The other point is what about measuring the effect on the sound?Why do none of the Megabuck cable companies measure differences in anechoic chambers? No one ever answered that on the other list. You can specify all the parameters you like in regards to monitors etc. but nothing beats an anechoic chamber to actually 'hear' a difference. I know if I was making a pile of money selling cables, and I knew that there was ' real and audible difference', I'd do my damdest to prove it. I can't think of a better way than that, can anybody else?
The fact that this debate exists at all is nearly evidence enough as to inaudibility of different cables. No one here is saying you can't hear a difference between speakers.
Let's face it guys, in the realm of speaker cable at audio freq, Z is everything, and Z is a function of LCR and f. If any of you guys would like to put forth a theory that better describes how a speaker cable functions than TEM theory and thus shows possible audibility difference of speaker cables then by all means, bring it on. Thorsten, I read your article on TNT awhile back and just went back and refreshed my memory. It's very convincing, as long as you don't do the math. Your LCR calculation for the UBYTE cable looks good, but you make no comparison to any other cable, so the point is moot. Bad science, tsk tsk. Then, you have the unmitigated audacity to dump on the mags for not publishing distortion measurements for speakers. Worse, you nit pick statistical points on any test that shows a null result. Why not use your vast engineering skills to prove a mathematical probability? Surely if you are so well informed, educated, and convinced as to these audible cable differences you must already have done the math to prove it yes? BTW if G is not just 1/LC, then what is it?
Puck,there are many explanations of why you could pick 10 of 10 in the situation you have described. It's very easy for a tester to give you clues, especially if he wants you to pick the expensive one. Were I in your shoes I would have done a bunch of measurements on both cables. If I couldn't find any obvious differences , then I would re run the listening test with tighter controls. While I have no first hand knowledge, I have heard that some high end cables actually do have a sonic signature, but it has been engineered in with gobs of modification to Z to create a low pass filter.
Chris
Hi Guys,
I guess everyone has continued the discussion from the DBLT thread over here now? A few points were made on the other thread that I'm kind of surprised no one here has brought up. The first one that pops to mind are null tests. It seems to me that any audible differences could be easily seen on a 'scope. All you have to do is define what numbers you consider to be "audible" and away you go.
My favorite of course is the old 'order of magnitude' argument. My OTL's have a compensation network on the output consisting of a resistor and cap in series across the output. I'd hazard a guess that the component tolerences in this network are far greater than the LCR network created by the cable. And surely no one has forgotten that the other end of a speaker cable terminates at a crossover network!
The other point is what about measuring the effect on the sound?Why do none of the Megabuck cable companies measure differences in anechoic chambers? No one ever answered that on the other list. You can specify all the parameters you like in regards to monitors etc. but nothing beats an anechoic chamber to actually 'hear' a difference. I know if I was making a pile of money selling cables, and I knew that there was ' real and audible difference', I'd do my damdest to prove it. I can't think of a better way than that, can anybody else?
The fact that this debate exists at all is nearly evidence enough as to inaudibility of different cables. No one here is saying you can't hear a difference between speakers.
Let's face it guys, in the realm of speaker cable at audio freq, Z is everything, and Z is a function of LCR and f. If any of you guys would like to put forth a theory that better describes how a speaker cable functions than TEM theory and thus shows possible audibility difference of speaker cables then by all means, bring it on. Thorsten, I read your article on TNT awhile back and just went back and refreshed my memory. It's very convincing, as long as you don't do the math. Your LCR calculation for the UBYTE cable looks good, but you make no comparison to any other cable, so the point is moot. Bad science, tsk tsk. Then, you have the unmitigated audacity to dump on the mags for not publishing distortion measurements for speakers. Worse, you nit pick statistical points on any test that shows a null result. Why not use your vast engineering skills to prove a mathematical probability? Surely if you are so well informed, educated, and convinced as to these audible cable differences you must already have done the math to prove it yes? BTW if G is not just 1/LC, then what is it?
Puck,there are many explanations of why you could pick 10 of 10 in the situation you have described. It's very easy for a tester to give you clues, especially if he wants you to pick the expensive one. Were I in your shoes I would have done a bunch of measurements on both cables. If I couldn't find any obvious differences , then I would re run the listening test with tighter controls. While I have no first hand knowledge, I have heard that some high end cables actually do have a sonic signature, but it has been engineered in with gobs of modification to Z to create a low pass filter.
Chris
Gotcha...
Hi Chris,
Ah, and do you really understand why that RC network is there?
Or why it should or shouldn't be there for that matter?
Please, Chris, don't take everything BR says for granted.
Just one suggestion, remove the RC network and listen to the system you have.
All I need o know from you is an honest response, do you hear a difference or not?
After that I'll explain why I ask, promise.
Cheers,😉
Hi Chris,
Ah, and do you really understand why that RC network is there?
Or why it should or shouldn't be there for that matter?
Please, Chris, don't take everything BR says for granted.
Just one suggestion, remove the RC network and listen to the system you have.
All I need o know from you is an honest response, do you hear a difference or not?
After that I'll explain why I ask, promise.
Cheers,😉
Wowie, what a discussion again 😉
What I am missing in this discussion are the wave functions that apply in cables. I didn't recall that things like characteristic impedance and reflections were discussed. Are these parameters relevant at audio frequencies !? Maybe it can explain why thin cables are said to sound 'faster' !?
Fedde
What I am missing in this discussion are the wave functions that apply in cables. I didn't recall that things like characteristic impedance and reflections were discussed. Are these parameters relevant at audio frequencies !? Maybe it can explain why thin cables are said to sound 'faster' !?
Fedde
- Status
- Not open for further replies.