While I`m on; crossovers should be kept 1.order and built to handle huge power. No single resistors or cheap foil-caps; useseveral resistors in paralell and nothing cheaper than Solen MKP, two or three in paralell doesn`t hurt.
You're right 🙂
I use only big caps 60uf + , I don't use any resistors : that's the best, my speakers match perfectly
I use only big caps 60uf + , I don't use any resistors : that's the best, my speakers match perfectly
Posted by mwaters10:"You(rdf) and Panicos seem to be number 1 and 2 in the lunatics asylum"
I am honoured sir,but I believe you are very unfair to rdf.I wish I knew 25% of what rdf knows.🙂
I am honoured sir,but I believe you are very unfair to rdf.I wish I knew 25% of what rdf knows.🙂
analog_sa said:
i've used it a little for transferring DAT tapes to computer, and for sending samples between samplers and computers. i'm pretty sure it never sounded different with different cables. mind you, i wasn't listening THAT closely, because as i said before, cables are not as important at the source of a recording as they are at the reproduction end.
i just read the theory about jitter being induced by reflections in the cable, causing 'good' bits to be offset in time by 'bad' partial echo bits, but i don't buy it. the sending and receiving clocks are in sync, and any bit arriving late or early would be ignored. the way to get rid of jitter is with a better clock.
mind you, that's just what i think. i'd be willing to listen for a difference with an open mind/ear, if someone else was paying for the equipment. as it is, i'm happy knowing the spdif simply works when i need it to work.
PaleRider said:
that was my theory, too. translated into the real world, nicely.
as far as ignoring the naysayers goes, where's the fun in that? rofl.
it only costs $3 a metre to try out some 12 gauge solid core from any hardware store, and smaller gauges are obviously even less. it's as cheap as cheap radio shack speaker wire, so why not just try it, peoples?
there. i did some marketing for any hardware store.
mwaters10 said:
Maybe cables "don't sound of anything" but all cables degrade sound quality, the better ones are those with less degradation. There are no perfect cable yet so all available cables are a compromise between parameters which will define its effect on the audio signal flowing through it.
I have not found two different cables that make my system sound the same yet.
mwaters10 said:
That statement are seriously depending on the system you use, the music you listen to as well as what you expect to hear from your system.
Surely it is not worthwhile to spend large amounts of money on cables if the rest of the system, including room acoustics, are not optimised. The better the system became, the larger differences you can expect to hear between cables.
André
thetubeguy1954 said:
Sorry. I should have posted a reference. I appreciate your scepticism. There is far too little in the audio industry.
http://newagnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/BICH/Sep2203a.htm
The original question is whether high-end audiophile cables make any difference to the sound. I have assumed that the comparison is with well constructed modestly priced cables.
The people who believe that there is a difference simply say that they can hear it. I am providing evidence ( as opposed to conclusive proof ) that human hearing is very subjective and that our minds can make us think we hear things that are not there. The way to determine if what we hear is real, is to do a blind test.
Blind tests cannot be performed perfectly so there is always some doubt about the results but they do provide some evidence. I have yet to see any evidence at all that expensive cables make a difference.
A few people simply dismiss the whole idea of blind testing. To say that you do not believe in blind testing is to say that you do not believe in rational thought.
There certainly is. It is possible to test a single person and obtain a statistically significant result. I have never seen one.
I am suggesting there is no difference. I assumed that people who sold and bought $1000 cables thought they were better.
I think most high priced audiophile cables are well constructed but grossly overpriced.
I do not believe that expensive cables make any difference to the sound because I have not seen any evidence that they do. I am also suspicious because it would be fairly easy for the manufacturers to provide evidence but they refuse to do so.
BigGayAl said:
At the risk of overdoing it, the intended lesson of this example draws further away with every read. From the article:
Bolding mine. From Nagyvary's site:
How do we get from here to " It means that no-one can tell the difference between a Strad and a good modern instrument"?
mwaters10 said:
That is completely my view on the matter.
Why bother with it.
We recently did what we called a 'matrix' test, after the matrix website that is. (this maybe should be a thread on it's own, very little discussion of it on our local forum which confuses me greatly)
Anyway, long story short. One pair of speakers, two very vastly different front end chains.
We did all we could to maximise the monetary difference between the two. (the underlying assumption was that there must therefore be an equivalent sound quality difference). It was easily $20 000 + for the expensive one, dunno how you put a value on over thirty year old equipment??
First generation cdp from the eighties (denon I think, can check if needed) with it's accompyaning integrated amp, vs 'current' $10 000 cdp, zindak class a amps, $6 000 pre (can't remember offhand), $7 000 interconnects and expensive speaker cables.
The other side was stacked against it. The absolute cheapest interconnects we could find, you know the ones, black and red things supplied with components, house wiring (internal power cable) for speaker leads.
We built a relay box that could be switched from the LP between the two, and played identical burnt cd's from each player and as closely synched as we could. We simply used pink noise and a spl meter at the lp to match volumes (would have preferred to use 1k sinewave and measure terminal voltage) but using the vagaries of pink noise we matched as best we could.
There were some interesting results, but suffice to say ALL expressed 'disbelief' at how damned close they sounded.
Me? I was stunned at how identical the sound was. I honestly expected there to be some difference, but also was quite sure that the comment would be 'wow, pretty close'. When I heard it, I couldn't beleive how close it was. So much so that I was simply not interested in spending time with it (longer than three or four tracks say) in order to 'tease out' the minute differences.
Why? Because it showed what a waste of time and money it is to go chasing audio minutiae. If I spend a thousand bucks on an upgrade, it has to be real, immediate and worthwhile. else why bother? Truly, why?
Spend it on the places that matter, speaker, room and speaker/room interface. All else is wasted.
I'm still annoyed that I wasn't able to attend.terry j said:
However, my theorising on this aspect is that most 'philes have believed in their own hearing acuity (and that of reviewers and others), spent too much time reading and listening and testing etc, as well as spending large amounts on 'upgrades' that this sort of experience is too threatening. Besides, lots like to play pseudo reviewer and guru and admitting that the differences are tiny, would spoil their fun.
Kudos to those who attended and posted such sentiments in the thread.terry j said:
For those interested who may not have seen it.
Sydney Matrix Test
Reports start from post #161
yeah I really really wish you could have attended Brett. Tho TBH I doubt it would have 'shocked' you.
I might start a thread here (?) because what has surprised me over there is how very little discussion has taken place.
That no doubt can be put down to the differing approaches to audio. Given my bent (outlined above) there was simply NO reason to waste time on getting a handle on the differences.
The rest approached it as you would expect 'audiophiles' to approach it, long looong periods of audition to find the most minute difference.
Me? The answer was obvious, if you're gonna spend that sort of readies then upgrade the speaker, room treatment, go active, anything but the minute differences on offer.
It is how I have the sound I have now, spend the money where it's needed, (and that is not in cables of any description, to bring it back on topic).
I might start a thread here (?) because what has surprised me over there is how very little discussion has taken place.
That no doubt can be put down to the differing approaches to audio. Given my bent (outlined above) there was simply NO reason to waste time on getting a handle on the differences.
The rest approached it as you would expect 'audiophiles' to approach it, long looong periods of audition to find the most minute difference.
Me? The answer was obvious, if you're gonna spend that sort of readies then upgrade the speaker, room treatment, go active, anything but the minute differences on offer.
It is how I have the sound I have now, spend the money where it's needed, (and that is not in cables of any description, to bring it back on topic).
Terry J I think you can be right.
But keep in mind some amps and speakers react more to different wires...
I doubt my ss amplifier would sound less good with cheap wires, but not with my tube amp.
Some amps can drive up to a certain amount of capacitance and resistance in the wires - and reject radio frequency --- these are the good amps... but some fine amps can also be very sensitive to it...
Last thing : The best experience I did was with cleaning contacts from completely rusted ones to shinny polish : it made the high frequency smoother and the detail better, sound was less irritating ( on my 1982 hifi system = I hate it compared to my new system)
But keep in mind some amps and speakers react more to different wires...
I doubt my ss amplifier would sound less good with cheap wires, but not with my tube amp.
Some amps can drive up to a certain amount of capacitance and resistance in the wires - and reject radio frequency --- these are the good amps... but some fine amps can also be very sensitive to it...
Last thing : The best experience I did was with cleaning contacts from completely rusted ones to shinny polish : it made the high frequency smoother and the detail better, sound was less irritating ( on my 1982 hifi system = I hate it compared to my new system)
terry j said:
Was your choice of the expensive system one that had to do with your opinion that it was a system with good component synergy,or it was chosen just because it was expensive?Reason I'm asking is because rescently,I was invited to a friend's house who has a very expensive pre/2xmono well known American tube amps and cd player,and a very expensive American pair of speakers,a system I was always telling him that he will never manage to make it sound good,as there was such a hard,forward and bright sound that anyone could understand that it was caused by bad mismatch of equipment.What we have done,was to replace the pre/power amps with a 32w/channel Japanese tube integrated,and all agreed that the resulting sound was much preferable.By this I want to point out that the low cost Denon combination you have used,had great chances to sound better,or,not worse for that matter,because of the more correct synergy of the Denons with the chosen speakers.A bad combination certainly cannot be "saved" by any cable and has many chances to loose by a lower cost but well matched combination and low cost cables.After one feels that the system is well set up and sounds close to his tastes,then maybe experimentation with diferent cables,might bring what will be the icing on the cake.We all agree I believe that cost is not a criterion for good sound.
So, Panikos, all of the system mismatches were cleverly chosen not just to make the expensive system sound no better than the cheap one, but to actually make them sound identical. Wow, these guys are good!
hi panikos
before I go on I must say that you are of the very calm and reasonable
type that I admire, notwithstanding our completely different approaches!
I'm afraid I have to confess my intense contempt for the 's' word, synergy. The most overused and useless word in the audiophile lexicon.
Still, I (think) I know what you mean (but who can tell with such a fluffy and insubstantial word?).
First off, the fact is that it WAS only one test, so it's usefulness is limited by that. All of the factors you mentioned could be totally relevant.
However, having said that we can all agree that 'marketing' would have us believe that digital reproduction has moved on amazingly since 1983 (or whatever)?
Secondly, (and this is my own personal philosophy coming in here), if the changes brought by cables are so delicate and system dependent (taking into account the cost of hi end cables) then surely there is work to be done elsewhere?
The choice was basically what we had laying around. There was NO thought (on my part at least) given to synergy. We originally intended to use my real el cheapo dvd player as the front end, plus my 'middle of the line' rotel integrated. It just so happened that he had set it up with his old gear (to test the switching etc) and so we decided to run with that first, as the comparison between old technology and new technology would also be interesting.
Luckily we did do that, as my integrated had 'pot' issues which led to noise (I only use it as a power amp, so was unaware of it)
there is the need for more tests like these on many different systems, this is just a start.
Gabdx 1, for sure there are different speaker reactions to different cables, but the point in this whole debate is that those factors are completely understood by traditional EE.
the claim of cables usually resides in the mystical unknown world, things that 'cannot be explained by conventional science, we are on the forefront of new discoveries that can save the world from hunger and no doubt solve the energy crisis' (obvious mucking about there)
No, sorry, to my way of thinking unless you can instantly switch at the LP between cables, it is doomed. the second you need to get up and futz and change cables, forget it.
THAT is the lesson learnt.
before I go on I must say that you are of the very calm and reasonable
type that I admire, notwithstanding our completely different approaches!
I'm afraid I have to confess my intense contempt for the 's' word, synergy. The most overused and useless word in the audiophile lexicon.
Still, I (think) I know what you mean (but who can tell with such a fluffy and insubstantial word?).
First off, the fact is that it WAS only one test, so it's usefulness is limited by that. All of the factors you mentioned could be totally relevant.
However, having said that we can all agree that 'marketing' would have us believe that digital reproduction has moved on amazingly since 1983 (or whatever)?
Secondly, (and this is my own personal philosophy coming in here), if the changes brought by cables are so delicate and system dependent (taking into account the cost of hi end cables) then surely there is work to be done elsewhere?
The choice was basically what we had laying around. There was NO thought (on my part at least) given to synergy. We originally intended to use my real el cheapo dvd player as the front end, plus my 'middle of the line' rotel integrated. It just so happened that he had set it up with his old gear (to test the switching etc) and so we decided to run with that first, as the comparison between old technology and new technology would also be interesting.
Luckily we did do that, as my integrated had 'pot' issues which led to noise (I only use it as a power amp, so was unaware of it)
there is the need for more tests like these on many different systems, this is just a start.
Gabdx 1, for sure there are different speaker reactions to different cables, but the point in this whole debate is that those factors are completely understood by traditional EE.
the claim of cables usually resides in the mystical unknown world, things that 'cannot be explained by conventional science, we are on the forefront of new discoveries that can save the world from hunger and no doubt solve the energy crisis' (obvious mucking about there)
No, sorry, to my way of thinking unless you can instantly switch at the LP between cables, it is doomed. the second you need to get up and futz and change cables, forget it.
THAT is the lesson learnt.
SY said:
I do not imply anything like it,I just ask if they consider the expensive system a well matched one.I wasn't surprised in our case here by the result,actually I was expecting something close to what we got in the end.I don't think that a system will sound good just because it is made up of very expensive equipment.Maybe I'm wrong.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.