Let's not forget Madmike2 for innocently starting this discussion, which in the end was an interesting one.
Check it out:
😀
Check it out:
Madmike2 said:
😀
Member
Joined 2004
Hi, Johan.
😱 Boy, even with those mistakes I wish I could express myself as synthetically (is this the right word ?) as you did.
Bingo. Sadly not everyone would stand having to listen through earphones all the time (myself included, I only use my Sennheisers for mixing my own recordings). So when I wrote "possibly using dipole speakers" I was counting with the compromise. Still think it´s the next better solution.
You mean it can´t?
Could you ellaborate on this? Are you referring to multi-tracking techniques?
Cheers,
😱 Boy, even with those mistakes I wish I could express myself as synthetically (is this the right word ?) as you did.
Bingo. Sadly not everyone would stand having to listen through earphones all the time (myself included, I only use my Sennheisers for mixing my own recordings). So when I wrote "possibly using dipole speakers" I was counting with the compromise. Still think it´s the next better solution.
You mean it can´t?
Could you ellaborate on this? Are you referring to multi-tracking techniques?
Cheers,
Member
Joined 2004
Hi, Jan
You are not alone,
I too, have never listened to a better attention grabber than a mono system, mostly old valve radios and cassette recorders. When it´s the music that matters, such concepts as imaging and soundstaging are there only to distract me from vital things like melody, harmonies and foot-tapping rhythm 😀
I´m really curious to know how a Sakuma concert sounds like.
I think there are two schools of thought in audio that basically go like this: one tries to replicate music for reality´s sake. The other creates a new reality, for music´s sake.
Cheers,
Member
Joined 2004
Time to go on-topic:
Since this is a DIY forum and the "why" cable thing is done, what if we turn this thread into a new direction and make it the "how" speaker wire thread?
Since this is a DIY forum and the "why" cable thing is done, what if we turn this thread into a new direction and make it the "how" speaker wire thread?
derf said:
Of course I can only speak for myself here as my preferred method of reproducing a performance of any kind is to stuff a microphone or electronic/magnetic pickup on each instrument and if that winds up being a 300 channel track so be it and then i can do my own mixdown to match my listening environment.
The recording in itself if it is high quality is not the greatest detriment to reproducing a "live" sound...
The biggest problem is the environment it is listened in and in most cases the bottom line is the equipment people are using... and of course lets not forget the recording engineers, I think they do more to screw things up than anyone...
Now I am speaking mostly from a rock and roll background not orchestral which requires a slightly different approach unless they are all mic'd and run through a mixing board then it applies to those recordings as well...
The recording quality today is so good that you could make a recording of each instrument and singer and then run it back through the same speakers that they put on the concert with and there would be no discerable difference...
carlosfm said:
I certainly wont try to convince you to put speakers in back of you, (and I only use them for surround tv and shut them off for music), but I can site a reason for them.
In the case of a large room where its reverbation messes up the reverbation of the original track and any other environment where is difficult to reproduce a proper sound field.
If you feel wires are trival then I suggest this test:
Go to radio shack and get a pair of 5 ohm wire wound resistors and put them in series with your positive speaker wire on each speaker. I would be seriously surprized if you could stand to listen to them for even a few hours like that. Now you may personally not be able to hear the difference or your system may be of really poor quality I could only guess but wires are the cheapest improvement anyone can do to a sound system.... and i mean big copper not all that pretty razmataz gold plated junk...
Now back to wires 🙂
Madmike2 [/i][B] Dude i am an idiot and i see that what you are trying to say doesnt make sense. :whazzat: Negative driver impedance ? Are you trying to do a Jan here ? :eek: [/B][/QUOTE] He is absolutely correct in his statement of negative impedance. Though difficult in pratice it is possible to obtain a negative output impedance from an amplifier. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Johan Potgieter said:
I never really bothered to throw a scope on a driver to test for electrical damping, just when building boxes I tested box damping... Have you Johan?
I do know from my personal listening tests that the change from a damping under 200 to greater than 200 is very easily detectable by my ear... and I agree with you about the diminishing returns... but I think that does not occur until the damping is over the 200 mark...
I know from persoanl experience that going above a df of 200 say to 400 is noticable, especially at levels over 100db, but not anywhere near as much as it is going from 150 to 200. So the returns do diminish considerably above a df of 200...
for the speaker resistance, all too tru that also must be included in the sum of R's when calculating internal driver damping as well as the other aspects of the design, but that is not needed for th epurpose of sizing wires.... and thus not included when calculating the damping that is availiable at the speaker teminals that is delivered via the amp and associated wiring...
There is no real getting around the coil R and impedance of a speaker... and yes that should be considered also however few people will walk into a store and do Z tests on a speaker before buying them and few manufacturers even list it so that is somewhat beyond the average persons grasp. However wire on the other hand is not.
So for the speaker that I posted earlier I have chosen 4 ohm low Z speakers with exactly that in mind for my system, keeping the damping up and lowering the system resistance, they have a Re of 3.3ohms and Z below 10ohms in the desired band.
The series resistor, (wire), reduces the amount of EMf that can feedback to the amp, and thus reduces amplifiers ability to short/"brake"/dampen the speaker and keep it under control... and the voltage difference across that series resistor ends up being the amount the of uncontrolled voltage to/from the driver. So you can calculate how much over/undershoot you would get in using this voltage value. Thus the lower the resistance the lower the over/undershoot
Just for kicks I ran the numbers on using a 1 ohm series resistance, and that handy calculator i posted earlier, and then entering a 1000 watt amp, 1ohm series resistor, (equivalent to about a 10 foot pair of awg27 wire *YIKES* ), and an amp damping of 3000 and I got a damping factor at the speaker teminals of *4*.
Many people have their speakers about 10 feet away from their amp, and then using an AWG27 wire which approximates the 1 ohm mentioned frankly would sound horrible regardless of the squarewave data you mentioned Johan.
I would agree with you on your statement of diminishing returns for damping if the total wire resistance value, (that is distance x 2 as there are 2 strands of wire), is roughly .04 ohms or less for a nominal 16 ohm driver, .02 ohms or less for the nominal 8 ohm driver and roughly .01 ohms or less for the nominal 4 ohm driver... in each case these yield roughly a 200df.... and above a 200 df I would agree that there are diminishing returns.
Just to clarify this a bit; The wire resistance must be added to the amplifier output impedance to calculate the actual damping availiabe to the driver "at the driver terminals".
df = loadZ/sourceZ
and by my way of thinking it would be criminal to add a 1.0 ohm resistor to a beautiful amp Z of a mere .0026 ohm... Frankly I could not imagine ruining that beautiful amplifier damping factor by trying to save the 60 bucks it costed me to put Awg00 wire on my speakers.
The effects of the series resistor, (which is what wire is), as compared to the effects of series coil resistance and the difference of the effects it has on the the system as a whole is possibly the most misunderstood aspects of high quality sound. This holds tru for distortion as well.
High damping amps have high distortion .15% typically but yet sound much better than the wonderfully designed class A super amps with .001% distortion... Why? Damping folks!!! Your speaker could care less about how clean your amp is but when damping talks your speaker will surely listen 🙂
Well that and a good equalizer and real time analyser.
I think Johan, that you are correct in the fact that the driver resistance and Z does come into play as a whole I also think that you are incorrect in blowing wire sizing off as insignificant for the reasons illustrated above as I cannot begin to tell you how many horrible sounding systems I have heard as a result of people using 15 feet of awg20 on their systems and then they look at me like i should really enjoy their system much less compliment it, when all i want to really do is get the H otta there.
Again here is the link to that handy calculator:
http://www.autohifi-world.de/fack/dampfact.htm
and also a handy wire resistance table:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/wirega.html
Rock on!....
A few people have mentioned multi-track as being the way to go, mono-mic'ing each source, but then you have no sense of the room and any pan-potting you do deals with level alone, not with phase/Haas effect.
It's fair enough if you prefer mono-mic mulitracking, everyone has their preferences, but it is has very little to do with accuracy to the source/performance.
As demonstrated in this text:
Read Me
I emplore people to read the text, before they give me an answer on this one. As it's likely the speaker cable thing will rage on and on, in the mean time we can at least get some of the facts straight on sound capture/reproduction.
It's fair enough if you prefer mono-mic mulitracking, everyone has their preferences, but it is has very little to do with accuracy to the source/performance.
As demonstrated in this text:
Read Me
I emplore people to read the text, before they give me an answer on this one. As it's likely the speaker cable thing will rage on and on, in the mean time we can at least get some of the facts straight on sound capture/reproduction.
Ya Ya Ya Blah Blah .....its over. Bigger wire is better that much is established but its a diminishing returns thing. Silver is better then copper Z wise but again its a diminishing returns thing.
I understood what he meant by zero impedance when i was told it was source not destination. I thought he was talking about the speaker being a dead short.
And i read that text. Sure it should work in theory. But theory has never worked a day in its life. As long as Theories older brother Practicality keeps feeding him money, theories genius will never be realized.
Threads dead. Just tell me how pretty i am and be on to the next great thing 😎
I understood what he meant by zero impedance when i was told it was source not destination. I thought he was talking about the speaker being a dead short.
And i read that text. Sure it should work in theory. But theory has never worked a day in its life. As long as Theories older brother Practicality keeps feeding him money, theories genius will never be realized.
Threads dead. Just tell me how pretty i am and be on to the next great thing 😎
Madmike2 said:
???Madmike2, if people want to keep discussing, why not?
Cables are not such an easy matter as you put it, there's more than resistance.
Let the game go on... if there's interest.
Its been off cables for two pages now they are talking about recording technology, which is a different section all together. I will never again be convinced to buy anything more then multi strand large gauge wire.
The interconnects, well thats a different story.
The interconnects, well thats a different story.
I remember when I was a kid and my dad got his brand new jensen 3 way speakers and a hybrid bell stereo.
He invited his dad, my grandpa over to hear it, and of course grandpa sat there listened to it, looked at my dad and said ya, ya sounds good...
Later I went over to grandpas house and he was sitting in his favorite chair relaxing... He reached over and switched on his old 1940 something monkey wards am radio and a very satisfied look came across his face...
He turned to me and with a huge smile and said, "Listen to that", "now thats good sound"...
It taught me a lesson about hearing...
He invited his dad, my grandpa over to hear it, and of course grandpa sat there listened to it, looked at my dad and said ya, ya sounds good...
Later I went over to grandpas house and he was sitting in his favorite chair relaxing... He reached over and switched on his old 1940 something monkey wards am radio and a very satisfied look came across his face...
He turned to me and with a huge smile and said, "Listen to that", "now thats good sound"...
It taught me a lesson about hearing...
Madmike2 said:
Geez Mike the thread is titled speaker wire
pinkmouse said:
Ditto on the balanced!
Member
Joined 2004
And let´s not forget producers too. I remember back in ´94 while mixing a demo for a Trance act I was asked to pan left <-> right that famous 909 snare drum roll sound for a good eight bars or so, while it was fading in and out on time. Later I showed the demo to a colleague and he said something like this as a joke: " Wow that drummer sure runs like mad! " 😉
Later I suggested the producer running the drum roll through a Leslie simulator would sound even better and it went to the final DAT. 😀
Madmike2 said:
Well then, lots have been said, some things are still to be said.
A good quality 4mm OFC cable can have the same series resistance as a 10mm "normal" copper.
That's the reason I think that those tables with cable gauge / resistance are too generic.
When it's important to keep gauge because of standards (or connectors) and improve cable transmission (lower the losses) manufacturers use ofc copper.
It's this way with TV 75 ohm antenna cable for decades, computer networks, etc.
Cat 5 cable is high purity OFC copper, made to transmit high frequencies over up to (standard) 110m.
It's not good to use for audio as is because each pair has a different crossing.
It's easy to make a good interconnect out of it, dismanting the cable and using 3 or 4 wires.
For speakers it's too much work to make something with low capacitance out of this cable.
75 Ohm TV/radio antenna cable has specs of losses (in db) over 100m of cable.
Cheap cable is thin, good cable is thicker. But what sets the (75 ohm) impedance of the cable is the distance between the center conductor and the shield.
As manufacturers can't make the cable thicker (because there are standard connectors to use), they make the top (lower loss) cables with ofc copper.
It's easy to check this on the catalogs of some good manufacturers, like Téléves.
Conclusion: just by looking at the gauge of the cable says nothing these days.
Says as much as judging a woofer by the size of it's magnet.😎
Thanks to all for the attention and implied compliments. No, I certainly to not desire to perpetuate a subject if honourable members feel we have done here, but it would be discourteous not to reply to certain questions asked. I am going to summarise that in one go without windowing relevant paragraphs.
1. My quoting of demos was more for those with the equipment and a desire to check basics for themselves than implying that folks should cart a test setup to the sound store and purchase on the basis of such tests. And yes, illustrations with square waves/scope has been done; it is part of the curriculum in audio courses in techs. etc.
2. I get the feeling that the implication of the damping of a driver being a factor only of TOTAL circuit resistance may still not be grasped, so let me illustrate with some simplified arithmetic. If one takes the voice coil resistance of an 8 ohm (nominal) driver as say 5 ohm, a total speaker cable resistance of 100 milli-ohm and the amplifier output impedance as negligible, the driver "braking" current generated by its back e.m.f. will be limited by 5.1 ohm (not just 0.1 ohm). This means a REAL damping factor of 8/5.1 or 1.569. If one now takes a cable of only 10 milli-ohm, then said "braking" current is limited by 5.01 ohm, giving a real damping factor of 1.597. The difference is in reality only 1.78% (this is simple basic electricity)! Compare to this the damping factor calculated in the popular erroneous way of 80 for the first case and all of 800 for the second case. My implication was simply that those definitions of damping factor are misleading (as are so many other things bandied about by manufacturers). Reputable speaker manufacturers all agree with the above; I recall articles by Scanspeak and the Dunlavy Labs - am unfortunately unable to give references here, but see internet for the latter.
Now to make peace with those who claim that high classic damping factor situations are audible (I do not fancy fights, you are all probably stronger than me and hopefully younger!). I can only suggest that arithmetic is a little difficult to argue with, so one must look elsewhere for an explanation. Not knowing the setup, I cannot come up with suggestions. I was not present and will certainly not infer that folks' hearing is unreliable. I do know that certain blind tests have confirmed the above. As said before, I am certainly not suggesting that bell wire be used.
But I may have mentioned previously that current feed to loudspeakers (i.e. from a high resistance source) was in fact preferred by some in another university test. (This was limited to medium/high frequencies only as the undamped bass response would obviously have sounded unacceptable). As soon as I have unpacked the relevant boxes (I have moved stuff recently) I will quote the reference here.
Then, regarding the recording thing. I understood from an article that accurate stereo is physically possible (with 2 channels), only if the room is totally symmetrical and then at one listening position only - again I am unable to quote the source but I seem to remember it appeared in an analysis done by Dunlavy Labs. My rather theoretical example of recording each instrument in an ensemble on its own was again to illustrate a point - as soon as a source of sound is picked up by more than one microphone there will be a cancellation/addition/phase scenario that will differ from what reaches the ear of someone in a live performance. This kind of recording will patently be impossible in a real situation. Also I listen to headphones when the level needs to be kept down, but agree that it is generally unrealistic (I also have Sennheisers). Again it was simply an effort to explain a point in the multipath scenario.
The difference between theory and practice . . . many of my grey hairs resulted from exactly such experiences. As an engineer I have designed and built my fair share of stuff. But then in the end there was not really a difference; it was mostly that some things have either been overlooked or theory simplified to get a ball-park practical result, which could then be further refined if necessary. I would humbly and respectfully say that I have never encountered anything that could not be explained in the end.
Yes, we are on a "wire-thread" here - but as is often the case in engineering matters are so interrelated that it is diffucult to have partitions.
1. My quoting of demos was more for those with the equipment and a desire to check basics for themselves than implying that folks should cart a test setup to the sound store and purchase on the basis of such tests. And yes, illustrations with square waves/scope has been done; it is part of the curriculum in audio courses in techs. etc.
2. I get the feeling that the implication of the damping of a driver being a factor only of TOTAL circuit resistance may still not be grasped, so let me illustrate with some simplified arithmetic. If one takes the voice coil resistance of an 8 ohm (nominal) driver as say 5 ohm, a total speaker cable resistance of 100 milli-ohm and the amplifier output impedance as negligible, the driver "braking" current generated by its back e.m.f. will be limited by 5.1 ohm (not just 0.1 ohm). This means a REAL damping factor of 8/5.1 or 1.569. If one now takes a cable of only 10 milli-ohm, then said "braking" current is limited by 5.01 ohm, giving a real damping factor of 1.597. The difference is in reality only 1.78% (this is simple basic electricity)! Compare to this the damping factor calculated in the popular erroneous way of 80 for the first case and all of 800 for the second case. My implication was simply that those definitions of damping factor are misleading (as are so many other things bandied about by manufacturers). Reputable speaker manufacturers all agree with the above; I recall articles by Scanspeak and the Dunlavy Labs - am unfortunately unable to give references here, but see internet for the latter.
Now to make peace with those who claim that high classic damping factor situations are audible (I do not fancy fights, you are all probably stronger than me and hopefully younger!). I can only suggest that arithmetic is a little difficult to argue with, so one must look elsewhere for an explanation. Not knowing the setup, I cannot come up with suggestions. I was not present and will certainly not infer that folks' hearing is unreliable. I do know that certain blind tests have confirmed the above. As said before, I am certainly not suggesting that bell wire be used.
But I may have mentioned previously that current feed to loudspeakers (i.e. from a high resistance source) was in fact preferred by some in another university test. (This was limited to medium/high frequencies only as the undamped bass response would obviously have sounded unacceptable). As soon as I have unpacked the relevant boxes (I have moved stuff recently) I will quote the reference here.
Then, regarding the recording thing. I understood from an article that accurate stereo is physically possible (with 2 channels), only if the room is totally symmetrical and then at one listening position only - again I am unable to quote the source but I seem to remember it appeared in an analysis done by Dunlavy Labs. My rather theoretical example of recording each instrument in an ensemble on its own was again to illustrate a point - as soon as a source of sound is picked up by more than one microphone there will be a cancellation/addition/phase scenario that will differ from what reaches the ear of someone in a live performance. This kind of recording will patently be impossible in a real situation. Also I listen to headphones when the level needs to be kept down, but agree that it is generally unrealistic (I also have Sennheisers). Again it was simply an effort to explain a point in the multipath scenario.
The difference between theory and practice . . . many of my grey hairs resulted from exactly such experiences. As an engineer I have designed and built my fair share of stuff. But then in the end there was not really a difference; it was mostly that some things have either been overlooked or theory simplified to get a ball-park practical result, which could then be further refined if necessary. I would humbly and respectfully say that I have never encountered anything that could not be explained in the end.
Yes, we are on a "wire-thread" here - but as is often the case in engineering matters are so interrelated that it is diffucult to have partitions.
I was walking with my Master once and i laughed as i saw a man walking down the street babbling to himself and carrying on as if he were having a conversation with another person. Pausing for replies and the nodding knowingly. Master looked to me and asked.
"Can you explain how you know that somewhere someone is not talking back to him right now? With someone like you who doesnt hear what he hears nor see what he see's laughing at him because they arent tuned at his level. Can you explain how it is impossible? "
In truth, nothing is explainable. Whatever we explain comes apart at the seams of the stitches of facts. Reality is perception and perception is perpetual motion. Oddly enough 50 of us may like a particular way of doing something or 50 of us may like the way something is done. Number 51 however does not seem to percieve things the way we do and thusly dismisses us as quacks. When surely he is without a doubt the quack. We are 50, he is 1. You understand where i am going here ?
This is going in circles that dont really meet. Yes it started as a question of wire and got interesting for a time and then moved to recording and engineering. To microphones and recording. Now back to wires and then to...... well i am not sure what this is Philosophy mabey?
I tried different wire. I sat people with me to try different wire. Sure my system is not the best to do this on BUT its my system and the only thing i have to work with. Hear me again. There was no discernable difference in sound once the gauge increased on my system. From the thin wire to the multiple variations of the thicker wire the only consensus was the the bass/midrange changed. But it was a consistent change once it did, it did not change again from thick wire to thick wire.
So far in my short and hurried journey through here i have come in with one plan and been steered towards another, which is fine. I think its progressing well and i probably would not have been able to fit a line array into my apartment anyway.
This is what i have learned so far.
1. Speaker wire is not an audible difference on a pioneer SX-737 once you have 14 gauge.
2. RCA's make a vast difference in sound on the pioneer SX-737.
3. Capacitor quality is very important. Paper and oil being spectacularily different from poly at the same value.
4. A different amp on my system sounds different regardless of power.
5. All of the above statements are true for ME.
6. I have no idea what holds true for the rest of you, because i cannot hear or percieve the way you do.
Dont get me wrong, i am glad these discussion happen. I have learned more in 3 months then i did 2 years working venues and 3 years building car audio just by reading these forums.
There is no magic wire. Just Magic Tricks and NLP for the marketing guys. Buy wire that wont oxidise and is heavy enough to do what needs to be done.
I am 1 , you are 50 but i dont think any of us are quacks. I just think we have different needs. With wire, mine have been met for now. Reality only has one absolute.
"Can you explain how you know that somewhere someone is not talking back to him right now? With someone like you who doesnt hear what he hears nor see what he see's laughing at him because they arent tuned at his level. Can you explain how it is impossible? "
In truth, nothing is explainable. Whatever we explain comes apart at the seams of the stitches of facts. Reality is perception and perception is perpetual motion. Oddly enough 50 of us may like a particular way of doing something or 50 of us may like the way something is done. Number 51 however does not seem to percieve things the way we do and thusly dismisses us as quacks. When surely he is without a doubt the quack. We are 50, he is 1. You understand where i am going here ?
This is going in circles that dont really meet. Yes it started as a question of wire and got interesting for a time and then moved to recording and engineering. To microphones and recording. Now back to wires and then to...... well i am not sure what this is Philosophy mabey?
I tried different wire. I sat people with me to try different wire. Sure my system is not the best to do this on BUT its my system and the only thing i have to work with. Hear me again. There was no discernable difference in sound once the gauge increased on my system. From the thin wire to the multiple variations of the thicker wire the only consensus was the the bass/midrange changed. But it was a consistent change once it did, it did not change again from thick wire to thick wire.
So far in my short and hurried journey through here i have come in with one plan and been steered towards another, which is fine. I think its progressing well and i probably would not have been able to fit a line array into my apartment anyway.
This is what i have learned so far.
1. Speaker wire is not an audible difference on a pioneer SX-737 once you have 14 gauge.
2. RCA's make a vast difference in sound on the pioneer SX-737.
3. Capacitor quality is very important. Paper and oil being spectacularily different from poly at the same value.
4. A different amp on my system sounds different regardless of power.
5. All of the above statements are true for ME.
6. I have no idea what holds true for the rest of you, because i cannot hear or percieve the way you do.
Dont get me wrong, i am glad these discussion happen. I have learned more in 3 months then i did 2 years working venues and 3 years building car audio just by reading these forums.
There is no magic wire. Just Magic Tricks and NLP for the marketing guys. Buy wire that wont oxidise and is heavy enough to do what needs to be done.
I am 1 , you are 50 but i dont think any of us are quacks. I just think we have different needs. With wire, mine have been met for now. Reality only has one absolute.
Hi Mike (and all),
I have decided to give it a rest for a while before I begin to look like the proverbial photographic film: Underdeveloped and over-exposed. But your piece sets a man athinking.
You are right.
To reach the stage that you found what satisfies you, and in the process pursued what was useful but without discovering too late that you forked out the hard-earned stuff for things that were no more than so much hype . . . This appeared to me for a long time to be the goal. Only I hated every time I had to disillusion a guy telling him that the pot of reality at the end of the rainbow was not there; the exciting sound-sounding (sorry) advice about the glittering improvement was not the soft carpet promised but just window-dressed straw passed off by a salesman with a greater supply of adjectives than meritous equipment. It can be a disadvantage to know something about electronics. It can certainly save the owner money, and perhaps also some other soul from being mislead, but it can also cause unhappiness, however pious and laudible the intentions were.
As you imply, happiness (satisfaction; consult your thesaurus for the rest) is a state, and we should all reach it in the end, especially where the whole object of it all is some sort of musical enjoyment - classic, heavy metal, whatever. Somewhere the pursuit of technicalities should stop before reaching the intoxication of "mine-must-be-better-than. . ."
You seem to have advanced quite well along that route. My congratulations . . . and perhaps just a hint of envy.
(The thread has now become a route, so I guess it is still OK.)
I have decided to give it a rest for a while before I begin to look like the proverbial photographic film: Underdeveloped and over-exposed. But your piece sets a man athinking.
You are right.
To reach the stage that you found what satisfies you, and in the process pursued what was useful but without discovering too late that you forked out the hard-earned stuff for things that were no more than so much hype . . . This appeared to me for a long time to be the goal. Only I hated every time I had to disillusion a guy telling him that the pot of reality at the end of the rainbow was not there; the exciting sound-sounding (sorry) advice about the glittering improvement was not the soft carpet promised but just window-dressed straw passed off by a salesman with a greater supply of adjectives than meritous equipment. It can be a disadvantage to know something about electronics. It can certainly save the owner money, and perhaps also some other soul from being mislead, but it can also cause unhappiness, however pious and laudible the intentions were.
As you imply, happiness (satisfaction; consult your thesaurus for the rest) is a state, and we should all reach it in the end, especially where the whole object of it all is some sort of musical enjoyment - classic, heavy metal, whatever. Somewhere the pursuit of technicalities should stop before reaching the intoxication of "mine-must-be-better-than. . ."
You seem to have advanced quite well along that route. My congratulations . . . and perhaps just a hint of envy.
(The thread has now become a route, so I guess it is still OK.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.