Hi,
Unfortunately replacing voicecoil wiring with a different wire type such as silver isn't as simple as it seems.
Most driver units' specs take the voicecoil wire's spec into account so if you'd simply replace it with an identical gauge and length of wire but having a different series resistance_ as would be the case with silver_ chances are the x-over would need a redesign as well.
There are units around using silver as a voice coil wire but these are often FR units, rare and pretty expensive too.
I think B&W carries a line of speakers that use silver extensivley as a conductor but I'm not sure this extends to the voicecoil of the units themselves...
Having a lower DCR should help, generally speaking, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Different metal conductor do seem to sound different from one another even when DCR is compensated so there must be other factors at play.
Purity of the metal, crystal size and orientation are all said to contribute to the final performance of a conductor.
There's a lot about wires that one can learn from high-end MC cartridge manufacturers.
As these have to deal with such miniscule signals it seems rather obvious that attention paid the smallest detail will have an impact on the final results.
Cheers,😉
Unfortunately replacing voicecoil wiring with a different wire type such as silver isn't as simple as it seems.
Most driver units' specs take the voicecoil wire's spec into account so if you'd simply replace it with an identical gauge and length of wire but having a different series resistance_ as would be the case with silver_ chances are the x-over would need a redesign as well.
There are units around using silver as a voice coil wire but these are often FR units, rare and pretty expensive too.
I think B&W carries a line of speakers that use silver extensivley as a conductor but I'm not sure this extends to the voicecoil of the units themselves...
Having a lower DCR should help, generally speaking, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Different metal conductor do seem to sound different from one another even when DCR is compensated so there must be other factors at play.
Purity of the metal, crystal size and orientation are all said to contribute to the final performance of a conductor.
There's a lot about wires that one can learn from high-end MC cartridge manufacturers.
As these have to deal with such miniscule signals it seems rather obvious that attention paid the smallest detail will have an impact on the final results.
Cheers,😉
Kilowattski,
you "can not" compare the sound of cables if the speakers did not stand in the same position with the different cables.
/Peter
you "can not" compare the sound of cables if the speakers did not stand in the same position with the different cables.
/Peter
Hows this for cable sound?
Finally a Hi-Fi glossy did a blind listening test on cables. The following cables sets (both interlink and speaker, as sets) were tested (set price in UKP, multiply roughly by 2 to get US $, in brackets):
Nordost (UKP 6500), Siltech (UKP 7700), Stereovox (UKP 10300), Audience (UKP 2000), Chord (UKP 1650) and QED (UKP 120).
Blind test, three listeners, using 3 separate pieces of music each trial, two trails (with different equipment set up).
They did a clever setup: the first cable set was by definition rated 10 points, so each following one had to be rated more or less than 10, better or worse, as to preference rather than specific attributes. A neat way to assess preferences without going into the numbers fight.
Sounds pretty well thought out and logical, right? Wait till you see the results and what they did with it...
Below are the results in raw data. Now, some of you will tell me this is copyrighted material. I know. I looked up this issue, and it appears that it is accepted practice to quote some limited parts from an article with the sole purpose to facilitate discussing the issue and with full acknowledgment of rights, and without any commercial purpose. So here goes:
The table below is from Hi-Fi+ magazine, UK, Issue 34, page 22. Copyright Hi-Fi+.
What do you think of this? Hint: look at the 1st group score of the Siltech (approx US $ 15.000) and the QED (aprox US $ 240). What would you do as the editor of the magazine?
Jan Didden
__________________
/ The brain is logical - the mind may not be
Finally a Hi-Fi glossy did a blind listening test on cables. The following cables sets (both interlink and speaker, as sets) were tested (set price in UKP, multiply roughly by 2 to get US $, in brackets):
Nordost (UKP 6500), Siltech (UKP 7700), Stereovox (UKP 10300), Audience (UKP 2000), Chord (UKP 1650) and QED (UKP 120).
Blind test, three listeners, using 3 separate pieces of music each trial, two trails (with different equipment set up).
They did a clever setup: the first cable set was by definition rated 10 points, so each following one had to be rated more or less than 10, better or worse, as to preference rather than specific attributes. A neat way to assess preferences without going into the numbers fight.
Sounds pretty well thought out and logical, right? Wait till you see the results and what they did with it...
Below are the results in raw data. Now, some of you will tell me this is copyrighted material. I know. I looked up this issue, and it appears that it is accepted practice to quote some limited parts from an article with the sole purpose to facilitate discussing the issue and with full acknowledgment of rights, and without any commercial purpose. So here goes:
The table below is from Hi-Fi+ magazine, UK, Issue 34, page 22. Copyright Hi-Fi+.
What do you think of this? Hint: look at the 1st group score of the Siltech (approx US $ 15.000) and the QED (aprox US $ 240). What would you do as the editor of the magazine?
Jan Didden
__________________
/ The brain is logical - the mind may not be
Attachments
I haven't read what anyone has said so far! I did read Jan's last post...
Here's the bottom line, as far as I am concerned:
- Comparing *anything* with multiple variables leads to uncertainty. (like cable A to cable B, etc..)
- Ergo, the best comparision would involve otherwise identical cable with only *one* factor changed. (admittedly hard for a non-manufacturer to do)
- All published AB, ABX and cable "tests" that I am aware of are essentially meaningless for a multiplicity of reasons - or at best they are not definitive (let's not argue this point, it's my "educated opinion" on that subject)
- The average user who experiments with cables is guessing and trying, understandably. AND, probably does hear "differences" or *not* for very good and explainable reasons.
- The average cable switching audiophile is trying to use a cable to accomplish some sort of fine tuning of the overall sound presentation. (...which for various reasons will never be entirely satisfactory, if at all satisfactory)
- People *do* process sound differently, and people do have different physical levels of hearing accuity. For the latter, getting worse with age! 🙁
- Most systems, mine now, yours, and almost everyone else's *especially* those who have thus far "tested" cables are demonstrably below an objective technical level where the effects of any "cable differences" that *might* be due to any factor OTHER THAN R,L, and/or C are likely to be clearly audible to the extent that the perceived effect is clear. (number one parameter here is that the distortion levels in most speakers are too high)
- Many differences *can* be measured, but there is no means currently to correlate what it measured to what is percieved. This includes gross distortion figures, they do not correlate to perception. (there has been some recent work that addresses this issue, with some degree of sucess)
- This all comes down, given the state of the art to one thing and one thing only: "If it sounds good, it is good" - Count Basie
_-_-bear
Here's the bottom line, as far as I am concerned:
- Comparing *anything* with multiple variables leads to uncertainty. (like cable A to cable B, etc..)
- Ergo, the best comparision would involve otherwise identical cable with only *one* factor changed. (admittedly hard for a non-manufacturer to do)
- All published AB, ABX and cable "tests" that I am aware of are essentially meaningless for a multiplicity of reasons - or at best they are not definitive (let's not argue this point, it's my "educated opinion" on that subject)
- The average user who experiments with cables is guessing and trying, understandably. AND, probably does hear "differences" or *not* for very good and explainable reasons.
- The average cable switching audiophile is trying to use a cable to accomplish some sort of fine tuning of the overall sound presentation. (...which for various reasons will never be entirely satisfactory, if at all satisfactory)
- People *do* process sound differently, and people do have different physical levels of hearing accuity. For the latter, getting worse with age! 🙁
- Most systems, mine now, yours, and almost everyone else's *especially* those who have thus far "tested" cables are demonstrably below an objective technical level where the effects of any "cable differences" that *might* be due to any factor OTHER THAN R,L, and/or C are likely to be clearly audible to the extent that the perceived effect is clear. (number one parameter here is that the distortion levels in most speakers are too high)
- Many differences *can* be measured, but there is no means currently to correlate what it measured to what is percieved. This includes gross distortion figures, they do not correlate to perception. (there has been some recent work that addresses this issue, with some degree of sucess)
- This all comes down, given the state of the art to one thing and one thing only: "If it sounds good, it is good" - Count Basie
_-_-bear
Hi Bear,
I agree with most of your post, but that wasn't really my point.
The way they set up the test seems quite professional. And since they did such a good job, I am allowed to accept their results, no? They published them, so they must stand behind them. And the results say that in the first trial ALL cables, including the lowly $250 QED, were preferred over the $15.000+ Siltechs, by all listeners with all music. Doesn't that tell me anything about cables?
But there is more:
"[the Stereovox did poor wrt their prices] "Yet having listened to them in isolation I'd consider them worthy of higher marks", and goes on a search for arguments.
There, in one fell swoop the guy completely ridicules his own carefull blind test and exposes his nakedness. This is an insult to any half-intelligent reader!
Either you do a blind test because you thing it is a right thing to do, and stand behind it, or you think it's all a load of Jacksons, and you don't do it. But doing it, and then afterwards going to great lengths to fudge the results unashamedly to make them match your preconceived beliefs, its unethical to say the least.
Jan Didden
I agree with most of your post, but that wasn't really my point.
The way they set up the test seems quite professional. And since they did such a good job, I am allowed to accept their results, no? They published them, so they must stand behind them. And the results say that in the first trial ALL cables, including the lowly $250 QED, were preferred over the $15.000+ Siltechs, by all listeners with all music. Doesn't that tell me anything about cables?
But there is more:
"[the Stereovox did poor wrt their prices] "Yet having listened to them in isolation I'd consider them worthy of higher marks", and goes on a search for arguments.
There, in one fell swoop the guy completely ridicules his own carefull blind test and exposes his nakedness. This is an insult to any half-intelligent reader!
Either you do a blind test because you thing it is a right thing to do, and stand behind it, or you think it's all a load of Jacksons, and you don't do it. But doing it, and then afterwards going to great lengths to fudge the results unashamedly to make them match your preconceived beliefs, its unethical to say the least.
Jan Didden
Bear,
since you do not claim cables all sound the same I´ll try to behave here 😉.
"- Ergo, the best comparision would involve otherwise identical cable with only *one* factor changed. (admittedly hard for a non-manufacturer to do)"
Why... if two cables are geometrically identical but with different conductor materials and insulation, what makes it wrong with such a comparison?
"- The average cable switching audiophile is trying to use a cable to accomplish some sort of fine tuning of the overall sound presentation. (...which for various reasons will never be entirely satisfactory, if at all satisfactory)"
IMO yes and no. What I mean is, since cables have different sounds why not try a couple and use the one that sounds most natural? For me it´s not about tuning the subjective FR but to use a cable that has as little grain as possible. The voicing taken care of where it should, in the XO.
"- People *do* process sound differently, and people do have different physical levels of hearing accuity. For the latter, getting worse with age! "
The mechanical/ear part may degrade, but listening is a skill that is trained and gets "better" with time.
"- Most systems, mine now, yours, and almost everyone else's *especially* those who have thus far "tested" cables are demonstrably below an objective technical level where the effects of any "cable differences" that *might* be due to any factor OTHER THAN R,L, and/or C are likely to be clearly audible to the extent that the perceived effect is clear. (number one parameter here is that the distortion levels in most speakers are too high)"
It does not matter if the speaker gives 0.2-0.5% distortion or so, components earlier in the chain that have magnitudes lower distortion (and flat FR) still affect the sonics.
"- This all comes down, given the state of the art to one thing and one thing only: "If it sounds good, it is good" - Count Basie"
I´ll sign that!
🙂
/Peter
since you do not claim cables all sound the same I´ll try to behave here 😉.
"- Ergo, the best comparision would involve otherwise identical cable with only *one* factor changed. (admittedly hard for a non-manufacturer to do)"
Why... if two cables are geometrically identical but with different conductor materials and insulation, what makes it wrong with such a comparison?
"- The average cable switching audiophile is trying to use a cable to accomplish some sort of fine tuning of the overall sound presentation. (...which for various reasons will never be entirely satisfactory, if at all satisfactory)"
IMO yes and no. What I mean is, since cables have different sounds why not try a couple and use the one that sounds most natural? For me it´s not about tuning the subjective FR but to use a cable that has as little grain as possible. The voicing taken care of where it should, in the XO.
"- People *do* process sound differently, and people do have different physical levels of hearing accuity. For the latter, getting worse with age! "
The mechanical/ear part may degrade, but listening is a skill that is trained and gets "better" with time.
"- Most systems, mine now, yours, and almost everyone else's *especially* those who have thus far "tested" cables are demonstrably below an objective technical level where the effects of any "cable differences" that *might* be due to any factor OTHER THAN R,L, and/or C are likely to be clearly audible to the extent that the perceived effect is clear. (number one parameter here is that the distortion levels in most speakers are too high)"
It does not matter if the speaker gives 0.2-0.5% distortion or so, components earlier in the chain that have magnitudes lower distortion (and flat FR) still affect the sonics.
"- This all comes down, given the state of the art to one thing and one thing only: "If it sounds good, it is good" - Count Basie"
I´ll sign that!
🙂
/Peter
voice coil wire
Hi,
Dan Wiggins wrote a nice piece on the practical aspects of why copper is the best material for voice coils, used to be available on the Adire Audio website, he considers and compares copper, aluminium, silver etc. Though his criterion for selection do not include percieved sound quality, he is more showing the measurable speaker criteria, such as thermal compression, cost, VC mass etc
Stuart
Hi,
Dan Wiggins wrote a nice piece on the practical aspects of why copper is the best material for voice coils, used to be available on the Adire Audio website, he considers and compares copper, aluminium, silver etc. Though his criterion for selection do not include percieved sound quality, he is more showing the measurable speaker criteria, such as thermal compression, cost, VC mass etc
Stuart
janneman said:
Yeah Jan, you can accept their results. But what meaning do these results have??
And no that test tells us nothing whatsoever about the merits of said cables!!
It does tell us what the preferences were in this test - which may or may not be meaningful with equipment other than the equipment and environment where the test was held.
Please don't make me responsible for anything that other people are writing!!
😀
_-_-bear
Interesting, Pan...
Sure you can do that, but which two cables are identical except for these two factors? That's the first problem.
The second problem is that for your own personal tests, fine. But for published tests, this makes it impossible to determine if one or both of the two variables are responsible for the percieved difference and to what degree...
Well, this is your theory of how it works...
My view is that you're not all that far from the way I've perceived things, but there is an important difference here.
The reality is that it is just about impossible to "unfilter" something once it has been filtered. Since everything in the signal chain from start to finish *is a filter* this presents us with a paradox of sorts. Which is that "perfect sound" is an exact analog of the original, but the entire process *removes* information from the original!
What we end up with is essentially an approximation of the original that fails to embody all of the characteristics of the original, in fact it loses certain factors completely.
So, we're in essence creating an illusion, a set of cues that our mind can accept as being "realistic." Herein lies the crux of the matter.
My philosophy (and that's what this really is about) is to do everything possible to attempt to do as little to alter the signal from start to finish as can be done.
(IF I was going to impart a "color" - like a "tube sound" for example - I'd want to do that with the *control* of being as accurate and neutral as possible *first* before "dialing in" anything at all)
So, the problem comes (imho) when you take a system that is in essence *random* elements (filtering here and there) that are unclear or unknown in terms of what their specific effects may be and string them together and expect that to "work" in terms of a system that will reproduce the required "cues" properly. What tends to happen quite often is that one will use a "warm" amp, and a "neutral" preamp, bright speakers, and "dark" speaker cables, and three different types of interconnects, power conditioners, AC cables, etc...
Now this is not to indicate at all that some of these things are not appropriate or good - but that what this system consists of is trying to filter a filter to filter that into being right... and so on... logically you've got precious little chance of getting that to work properly!
You've got a far better shot at it *if* you have some sort of knowledge and control over each step of the system and process, and you've altered the signal a minimal amount each step of the way...
What I am saying is simply that merely selecting a cable or component that happens to yield a "good" result in a given system does not insure that this system is "good" or that it is able to reach to the *limit* of what is possible to recover from the source material.
Clearly, the ideal system is one where the *source* is the limiting factor, not the reconstruction of that source.
Ok, hope that made sense to someone besides myself...
Unfortunately, not true.
It *may* or may not be true for you.
Some people simply are not able to listen as well as others.
A good example is the contrast between a person with perfect pitch and a person who is "tone deaf."
This is a simple one, but illustrates how wide a range there is between people in terms of what they are hearing and perceiving!
That is fine. But "effecting the sonics" and being *definitive* or dispositive are different things.
And most speakers are somewhat higher in distortion than the figures you quoted...
The good part of this, is that this is still a personal experience and that the hobby or avocation is still something that reflects each person's own personality and preferences.
I'd suggest the late Harvey Rosenberg's book on the experience, and how to enjoy it... if you are one who only focused on the minutia of technical detail, especially if you are fighting this "cables make a difference" battle!
😀 😀 _-_-bear
Pan said:
Sure you can do that, but which two cables are identical except for these two factors? That's the first problem.
The second problem is that for your own personal tests, fine. But for published tests, this makes it impossible to determine if one or both of the two variables are responsible for the percieved difference and to what degree...
Well, this is your theory of how it works...
My view is that you're not all that far from the way I've perceived things, but there is an important difference here.
The reality is that it is just about impossible to "unfilter" something once it has been filtered. Since everything in the signal chain from start to finish *is a filter* this presents us with a paradox of sorts. Which is that "perfect sound" is an exact analog of the original, but the entire process *removes* information from the original!
What we end up with is essentially an approximation of the original that fails to embody all of the characteristics of the original, in fact it loses certain factors completely.
So, we're in essence creating an illusion, a set of cues that our mind can accept as being "realistic." Herein lies the crux of the matter.
My philosophy (and that's what this really is about) is to do everything possible to attempt to do as little to alter the signal from start to finish as can be done.
(IF I was going to impart a "color" - like a "tube sound" for example - I'd want to do that with the *control* of being as accurate and neutral as possible *first* before "dialing in" anything at all)
So, the problem comes (imho) when you take a system that is in essence *random* elements (filtering here and there) that are unclear or unknown in terms of what their specific effects may be and string them together and expect that to "work" in terms of a system that will reproduce the required "cues" properly. What tends to happen quite often is that one will use a "warm" amp, and a "neutral" preamp, bright speakers, and "dark" speaker cables, and three different types of interconnects, power conditioners, AC cables, etc...
Now this is not to indicate at all that some of these things are not appropriate or good - but that what this system consists of is trying to filter a filter to filter that into being right... and so on... logically you've got precious little chance of getting that to work properly!
You've got a far better shot at it *if* you have some sort of knowledge and control over each step of the system and process, and you've altered the signal a minimal amount each step of the way...
What I am saying is simply that merely selecting a cable or component that happens to yield a "good" result in a given system does not insure that this system is "good" or that it is able to reach to the *limit* of what is possible to recover from the source material.
Clearly, the ideal system is one where the *source* is the limiting factor, not the reconstruction of that source.
Ok, hope that made sense to someone besides myself...
Unfortunately, not true.
It *may* or may not be true for you.
Some people simply are not able to listen as well as others.
A good example is the contrast between a person with perfect pitch and a person who is "tone deaf."
This is a simple one, but illustrates how wide a range there is between people in terms of what they are hearing and perceiving!
That is fine. But "effecting the sonics" and being *definitive* or dispositive are different things.
And most speakers are somewhat higher in distortion than the figures you quoted...
The good part of this, is that this is still a personal experience and that the hobby or avocation is still something that reflects each person's own personality and preferences.
I'd suggest the late Harvey Rosenberg's book on the experience, and how to enjoy it... if you are one who only focused on the minutia of technical detail, especially if you are fighting this "cables make a difference" battle!
😀 😀 _-_-bear
Bear,
I don´t know really what you´r comming at but I´ll try to adress some of your points/statements. I feel you jump to conclusions and assume things not correct, and actually I agree with many things you say and don´t understand why you suggest I´d think different in some cases.
"Well, this is your theory of how it works..."
No, not my theory but the way it is.
"The reality is that it is just about impossible to "unfilter" something once it has been filtered."
It´s perfectly possible to alter phase and frequency response back and forth without altering the signal. Distortion is another thing and that is what I tried to adress in my post.
"Since everything in the signal chain from start to finish *is a filter* this presents us with a paradox of sorts. Which is that "perfect sound" is an exact analog of the original, but the entire process *removes* information from the original!"
Well of course, and that´s why a cable with high noise floor is a bad idea..
"My philosophy (and that's what this really is about) is to do everything possible to attempt to do as little to alter the signal from start to finish as can be done. "
Mine to, IMO it goes without saying.. it´s really what hi fidelity is about. You seem to think that I would be of another opinion?
"What I am saying is simply that merely selecting a cable or component that happens to yield a "good" result in a given system does not insure that this system is "good" or that it is able to reach to the *limit* of what is possible to recover from the source material."
What? If I have collected the most revealing and natural sounding (low distortion and coloration) audiogear I can afford, do you suggest that the cleanest sounding cable with the lowest noise floor should be a "bad" cable in that set up? I don´t understand what you try to say really.
"That is fine. But "effecting the sonics" and being *definitive* or dispositive are different things. "
And with this you try to say?
"And most speakers are somewhat higher in distortion than the figures you quoted... "
Yes, I´m sure you can find speakers with 5% distortion, but living in the year of 2004 I can´t see a reason to use them. I prefer speakers with as low distortion as possible. Speakers with sub 0.5% THD 2nd and 3rd harmonics are very affordable these days.
"Clearly, the ideal system is one where the *source* is the limiting factor, not the reconstruction of that source."
Que?
Cheers! 🙂
/Peter
I don´t know really what you´r comming at but I´ll try to adress some of your points/statements. I feel you jump to conclusions and assume things not correct, and actually I agree with many things you say and don´t understand why you suggest I´d think different in some cases.
"Well, this is your theory of how it works..."
No, not my theory but the way it is.
"The reality is that it is just about impossible to "unfilter" something once it has been filtered."
It´s perfectly possible to alter phase and frequency response back and forth without altering the signal. Distortion is another thing and that is what I tried to adress in my post.
"Since everything in the signal chain from start to finish *is a filter* this presents us with a paradox of sorts. Which is that "perfect sound" is an exact analog of the original, but the entire process *removes* information from the original!"
Well of course, and that´s why a cable with high noise floor is a bad idea..
"My philosophy (and that's what this really is about) is to do everything possible to attempt to do as little to alter the signal from start to finish as can be done. "
Mine to, IMO it goes without saying.. it´s really what hi fidelity is about. You seem to think that I would be of another opinion?
"What I am saying is simply that merely selecting a cable or component that happens to yield a "good" result in a given system does not insure that this system is "good" or that it is able to reach to the *limit* of what is possible to recover from the source material."
What? If I have collected the most revealing and natural sounding (low distortion and coloration) audiogear I can afford, do you suggest that the cleanest sounding cable with the lowest noise floor should be a "bad" cable in that set up? I don´t understand what you try to say really.
"That is fine. But "effecting the sonics" and being *definitive* or dispositive are different things. "
And with this you try to say?
"And most speakers are somewhat higher in distortion than the figures you quoted... "
Yes, I´m sure you can find speakers with 5% distortion, but living in the year of 2004 I can´t see a reason to use them. I prefer speakers with as low distortion as possible. Speakers with sub 0.5% THD 2nd and 3rd harmonics are very affordable these days.
"Clearly, the ideal system is one where the *source* is the limiting factor, not the reconstruction of that source."
Que?
Cheers! 🙂
/Peter
Pan said:
At last someone who has the absolute truth! 😉
Oh really?
Do tell.
Let me run the signal through a bandpass filter. Now unfilter it.
Sorry, if you *boost* the ends back up, you drag up the noise floor with the boost, yes? That by definition is NOT the original signal. A simple case that illustrates why this doesn't work.
It *clearly* doesn't work with random elements chosen by ear to achieve the result.
I agree that in laboratory conditions, in some cases one can effectively "reverse" the effects of a phase shift or filter. Only in some cases.
...your point?
Dunno. But this forum is read by many people, and my comments are intended to be made with enough context. Others do have other opinions - I am stating mine as clearly as possible.
No. You're confused. I'm trying to show that a component that yields a *subjectively wonderful* result in any number of systems does not automatically yield the same result elsewhere automatically.
Proof and opinion are different things...
Well, this is good to hear. But, let's talk about how these figures you claim are arrived at? Is this full range? Or for specific drivers, like say a high priced Scandinavian tweeter? And, at what power level does it reach this 0.5% level? Is there a woofer that comes any where near this level?
Point being that speakers are presently a limiting factor to a great extent, and more importantly a *confusing* factor, as they serve to muddle the subjective perception of the signal chain's effect to a great extent...
Have you ever heard a tweeter that reaches 1% THD at ~126dB SPL? What do you think that tweeter's spec at ~90dB will be compared to the ones you are thinking of?? I have heard this myself, and can report that the difference between regular "tweeters" like the ones of which you point to and this one is startling and clear. Fyi.
The ideal system's sound would depend upon the RECORDING, not any effect that the system would impart upon the RECORDING (the source).
"...your point?"
Is chosinmg a cable with audible grain and noise is a bad idea. Thought that I had made that clear allready.
"No. You're confused. I'm trying to show that a component that yields a *subjectively wonderful* result in any number of systems does not automatically yield the same result elsewhere automatically."
Maybe, maybe not.. depending on. But I still don´t understand what you argue about. In a given system does it makes sence to you, to go with the cable that sounds worst? Or do you agree with me?
"Proof and opinion are different things..."
I am old and intelligent enough to grasp that concept, but what is your point? It would help if you make your language a little more clear. Word games, nitpicking and arguing just for arguing is tiresome for me, especially in foreign language.
"Well, this is good to hear. But, let's talk about how these figures you claim are arrived at? Is this full range? Or for specific drivers, like say a high priced Scandinavian tweeter? And, at what power level does it reach this 0.5% level? Is there a woofer that comes any where near this level?"
You really love to argue I see. You and I know all this so why waste bandwith? What is it that you want me to inform you with, different measurement methods? The lowest distortion drivers for certain bandwiths and levels? I´m sure you can easily look up all this by yourself if you don´t have the knowledge allready.
And what does it matter if the harmonics ofa 50Hz wave raises above 0.5%? It´s still worthwhile with as low distortion as possible in the mids and highs. 1% or 10% at 50Hz does not have anything to do with higher range sounds. Electronic, component and cable distortion is still clearly audible in the mids and highs.
"Point being that speakers are presently a limiting factor to a great extent,"
No, really? 😉
"and more importantly a *confusing* factor, as they serve to muddle the subjective perception of the signal chain's effect to a great extent... "
Yes but I hope your not one of them that belives a 1% content at 2nd and 3rd harmonics for instance, makes it irrelevant with amp and low level distortion just becasue it´s lower in magnitude?
"Have you ever heard a tweeter that reaches 1% THD at ~126dB SPL?"
I don´t think so and don´t care for such high soundpressures. Have you? What tweeter in such case, sounds interesting.
"What do you think that tweeter's spec at ~90dB will be compared to the ones you are thinking of??"
I don´t know, higher probably, but please tell me?
"I have heard this myself, and can report that the difference between regular "tweeters" like the ones of which you point to and this one is startling and clear. Fyi"
Wow, what has that got to do with anything we have been talking about? BTW I don´t point to "regular" drivers. I refered to sub 0.5% HD drivers being affordable. I would not settle at that level myself as there are much lower HD drivers.
"The ideal system's sound would depend upon the RECORDING, not any effect that the system would impart upon the RECORDING (the source)."
Did I ever suggest anything else?
Please make your next post a little shorter.. this is draining. 😉
/Peter
Is chosinmg a cable with audible grain and noise is a bad idea. Thought that I had made that clear allready.
"No. You're confused. I'm trying to show that a component that yields a *subjectively wonderful* result in any number of systems does not automatically yield the same result elsewhere automatically."
Maybe, maybe not.. depending on. But I still don´t understand what you argue about. In a given system does it makes sence to you, to go with the cable that sounds worst? Or do you agree with me?
"Proof and opinion are different things..."
I am old and intelligent enough to grasp that concept, but what is your point? It would help if you make your language a little more clear. Word games, nitpicking and arguing just for arguing is tiresome for me, especially in foreign language.
"Well, this is good to hear. But, let's talk about how these figures you claim are arrived at? Is this full range? Or for specific drivers, like say a high priced Scandinavian tweeter? And, at what power level does it reach this 0.5% level? Is there a woofer that comes any where near this level?"
You really love to argue I see. You and I know all this so why waste bandwith? What is it that you want me to inform you with, different measurement methods? The lowest distortion drivers for certain bandwiths and levels? I´m sure you can easily look up all this by yourself if you don´t have the knowledge allready.
And what does it matter if the harmonics ofa 50Hz wave raises above 0.5%? It´s still worthwhile with as low distortion as possible in the mids and highs. 1% or 10% at 50Hz does not have anything to do with higher range sounds. Electronic, component and cable distortion is still clearly audible in the mids and highs.
"Point being that speakers are presently a limiting factor to a great extent,"
No, really? 😉
"and more importantly a *confusing* factor, as they serve to muddle the subjective perception of the signal chain's effect to a great extent... "
Yes but I hope your not one of them that belives a 1% content at 2nd and 3rd harmonics for instance, makes it irrelevant with amp and low level distortion just becasue it´s lower in magnitude?
"Have you ever heard a tweeter that reaches 1% THD at ~126dB SPL?"
I don´t think so and don´t care for such high soundpressures. Have you? What tweeter in such case, sounds interesting.
"What do you think that tweeter's spec at ~90dB will be compared to the ones you are thinking of??"
I don´t know, higher probably, but please tell me?
"I have heard this myself, and can report that the difference between regular "tweeters" like the ones of which you point to and this one is startling and clear. Fyi"
Wow, what has that got to do with anything we have been talking about? BTW I don´t point to "regular" drivers. I refered to sub 0.5% HD drivers being affordable. I would not settle at that level myself as there are much lower HD drivers.
"The ideal system's sound would depend upon the RECORDING, not any effect that the system would impart upon the RECORDING (the source)."
Did I ever suggest anything else?
Please make your next post a little shorter.. this is draining. 😉
/Peter
It´s hard to answer with a short post to a long one.. especially when assumptions being made without basis, and new stuff is dragged into the discussion.
But I guess... I´m guilty as charged 🙂
/Peter
But I guess... I´m guilty as charged 🙂
/Peter
It seems like my style of writing in English is passing by Pan... so let's drop the discussion here.
The original question is if cables make a difference... I gave my opinions and their basis... everyone can make up their own minds and will, no matter what anyone says here.
enjoy!
_-_-bear
The original question is if cables make a difference... I gave my opinions and their basis... everyone can make up their own minds and will, no matter what anyone says here.
enjoy!
_-_-bear
My "experience" with threads with titles like this is that they tend to be very flamable.
😀
Yes, cables make difference.
😀
Yes, cables make difference.
carlosfm said:My "experience" with threads with titles like this is that they tend to be very flamable.
Really?
Yes, cables make difference.
No they don't 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.