Andre Visser said:
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?
Andre Visser said:
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
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...
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...
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?
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?
Alan Hope said:
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.
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.
Re: interesting read
I always thout that they had a pretty good satire magazine...
dave
schumpe said:
I always thout that they had a pretty good satire magazine...
dave
tnargs said:
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.
Alan Hope said:
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
AJinFLA said:
Ah ... I hear burn in. So I'm to be judged on that then! My friends - no, they have better things to do with their time.
Apparently because metallurgists can't explain burn-in it doesn't exist and is therefore entirely psychological. The logic of the last premise is clearly flawed, but of course may still be true.
I can see points on both sides of this debate - because believe it or not I am of a rather cynical makeup. Some random thoughts:
First - as somebody who "hears" burn-in - it seems to be bilateral, ie R+L sounds evolve in tandem. This would not be expected from a physical evolving process. This suggests psychology.
Second - the process continues while you are out (for me), when there is no ear-training going on.
Third - the nature of it can be unexpected, and can continue long after I would expect it to be over. These suggest a physical cause.
On balance, I suspect a bit of both. Doesn't matter to me - it's either mainly an irritating psychological phenomenon, or mainly an irritating physical phenomenon, and I wish it would go away.
But I'm serious with my question about quantifying extremely fine detail reproduction. If it can't be quantified, then surely the subjectivists win! We can all hear something that can't be measured.
Hi Soongsc,
CSD plots display smearing in the time domain, rather than fine detail per se. Long decays may mask fine detail, but do not quantify its reproduction in the first place.
CSD plots display smearing in the time domain, rather than fine detail per se. Long decays may mask fine detail, but do not quantify its reproduction in the first place.
No, because it makes no physical sense AND there's no supporting evidence for it, it is unworthy of attention. Some evidence from proponents of this claim (other than bald assertion) and maybe it will be taken seriously.
I thought that the proponents of "burn in" were claiming that it's the dielectric that burns in. That makes no physical sense either and is similarly lacking any actual evidence, but if the phenomenon were to be demonstrated, it's a more likely source.
I coulda sworn I answered that one a few posts back...
Hi,
With regards to burn-in, can a cable actually be burnt in? I really don't believe that. What is being burnt in the cable? Is it the electrons whizzing around the copper/silver nucleus that need to be burnt-in?
Surely if this was the case then when I install 600mm2 cable then they would not operate properly until they were burnt in, but this is not the case.
More probably it's your ears and brain that 'burn-in' to the sound of the cable.
Thanks
Gareth
With regards to burn-in, can a cable actually be burnt in? I really don't believe that. What is being burnt in the cable? Is it the electrons whizzing around the copper/silver nucleus that need to be burnt-in?
Surely if this was the case then when I install 600mm2 cable then they would not operate properly until they were burnt in, but this is not the case.
More probably it's your ears and brain that 'burn-in' to the sound of the cable.
Thanks
Gareth
analog_sa said:
OK. Missed the smiley 😉
gareth said:
OK Gareth, it's a well-worn path. IMO the sound actually changes (mechanism unknown), rather than just my perception changing. But I can't prove it - and you may be right. I just know I have a feeling of relief when then sound finally settles down, and the "burn-in" phase includes the sound being sometimes grainy, sometimes muffled, other times harsh, bass may almost completely disappear.
I've had enough of you guys casting aspersions at my brain/ears/ general gullibility!!! ...
... I must get some FR software (I have a pretty good condenser mic here) and track the FR at my listening position daily during burn-in of ... something. If for example the bass-loss I hear does not show up on the FR trace then - I concede, you are right. But if it does show up - then sorry guys, I am right.
Are there any free programs which will do the fourier stuff and any appropriate FLAT white noise available to feed my system with?
Alan Hope said:
Considering the threshold of hearing can vary by 15dB or more from day to day, it's your ears burning in, not the cable.
gareth said:
Yes and make sure you run big electrons through it. Works much faster. 😉
fizzard said:
Ah geez, quit making sense like that, you're spoiling all the fun.
I too am of the persuasion that suggests there is much more to acclimation than to a physical or electrical alteration from running an audio signal through the conductor. Not saying it doesn't happens just that I don't think the converted ones are being fair to themselves nor others in stating categorically they hear a difference after an apparent cable burn in. I believe there are other factors involved. Not trying to tinkle on anyones parade just adding my 3 cents worth.
Cheers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.