I have just valued my system for insurance purposes. £20K second hand replacement value. My car, MPV and two motorbikes wouldn't cost that combined!
Lots of really smart people have tried it...
Don't you think your beating a dead horse?
🙄 Apparently not.
It doesn't matter what technology is used, or if it's a nice guy making it.
What matters is the price tag vs performance. And that is where it rubs in this case. Iow you can make a similar, or even better, performing device much much cheaper.
This is just a claim. Let's say I don't trust you, until you publish detailed data 😉
And if you do (thankfully) find and publish data, then we'll analyze it.
And finally, it will be doubtedly a justification to stop trying. It took awhile for men to build an airplane, then to fly into space, right?
An anti-claim to my claim. For me, it changes nothing. I do listen to my cables.
Last edited:
From a topology perspective. What path do audio return currents take between devices when the power cord is 12 gauge and the interconnect is 28?
Not wrong, just wrong for audio. Equipment power supplies are designed to meet consumer safety standards first. In my limited testing a hard connection between the AC cord's ground prong and audio signal ground was common. This cheap and cheerful solution shouldn't surprise anyone generally skeptical of audio manufacturers.
Hypex is a good example of the opposite, using balanced instrumentation inputs.
Hypex is a good example of the opposite, using balanced instrumentation inputs.
"Performance" is subjective, especially in the audio business unfortunately. What matters to the seller is how much money s/he put input a product in addition to R&D time and cost, dealership, advertising, etc... and price accordingly. And then let the market decides its performance. If this piece can fetch more than its retail price at its used price, then its performance speaks for itself. I would go so far to say a product's second hand market is better indicator of its popularity and performamce, if I'm searching to buy something.
I have a feeling this thread started out as a troll piece so I'm out.
Cars cited on post #48 have shown measurable and clearly distinguishable performance differences, i.e. 0-60mph time, cornering (g-force), braking distance...etc compared to average priced cars. Not when it comes to high price DACs, preamps, amps and cables.
That's mostly for the speakers. The rest of components prior to speakers, not so much especially when you compare level matched and bias controlled.
As with anything, each person has their own measurement criteria.....This will change with the person over time too.
As a kid, I had only one measurement for my HiFi and guitar amps.....LOUDness. After hearing my neighbors DIY Karlson horns, I was amazed by the image of a band being right there in the living room, and began a lifelong quest for that experience. Now that I have lost most of my hearing to Meniere's Disease, It just needs to not sound irritating, but overcome the tinnitus.
Ditto cars. For some time FAST was the measurement criteria. When I got older, comfort and cargo space was more important, hence the Volvo wagon. Now, it's " find something cheap, that won't break, and can haul my junk."
No it hasn't. Nobody has mentioned the "rectifier tube" debate yet.....Don't bring it up here, it HAS already been discussed to death here. I still refuse to believe some testing that I was part of...posts #25 and 28.
Tube Rectifiers do sound different
I didn't think it was, just that there are plenty more dark corners this thread can wander into...….maybe I'm just bored at being stuck inside. I can't even go outside and cut some wood, it's been snowing for the last 4 hours. I'll go back to playing with my soldering iron now...…..
Aesthetics is more subjective than 0-60mph, cornering and braking data but it still has measures established over thousands years of observations, i.e. golden ratio, symmetry, proportional balance...etc. Automobile being a very recent invention in human evolution chart, its aesthetics formula is not as well documented as other examples like human physique and architecture but there are general consensus when design of cars are presented to viewers.
As for the comfort and ergonomics, those are also quantified in numbers and documented, i.e. car suspension types, tire types and documented performance, graphic standards for human ergonomics.
Are you not aware of these things?
Aesthetics is quite a personal thing though.
For instance, I like the look of an ELAC Debut speaker, but some would call it "dated" or whatever.
I build all my amps to look basically like a 50's chassis amp. Not everyone will like this, but I like it and it keeps costs down.
For instance, I like the look of an ELAC Debut speaker, but some would call it "dated" or whatever.
I build all my amps to look basically like a 50's chassis amp. Not everyone will like this, but I like it and it keeps costs down.
I'm cognizant that what follows below is very much a minority view. One not formulated by me, but with which I essentially agree.
You well indicate the long conventional wisdom. However, let's look at that wisdom a bit deeper. First, this wisdom, quite logically, presumes that the recorded signal should be transferred without any change apart from amplitude, through the recording/playback chain and into the air of the listening room. The lower the level of transferred error, the more accurately conveyed is the original acoustic event as picked up by the microphones.
What then naturally follows is the pursuit ever minimized errors, such as for harmonic distortion and noise, seeking absolute perfection. Except that, haven't error metrics long been beneath the generally accepted threshold of human perception? A suppression threshold level roughly about 80dB down. Mass market A/V gear routinely features error suppressions of better than 100dB down. What, then, is the benefit of ever further reductions of these metrics, other than as a perceptually fruitless pursuit of objective signal perfection? Yet, with such effective perfection, does the reproduction sound close to the sound of an live acoustic event? Does it appear that further objective perfection the signal transfer will result in reproduction that's largely closer to providing the verisimilitude a live original acoustic event than is provided today?
I believe, that the elephant in the listening room is insufficient understanding/incorporation of the final element of the recording/replay chain. The human ear/brain psychoacoustic element. Without full inclusion of the behavior of that element, the rest of the elements in the chain may not be performing optimally. Optimally, that is, from the perspective of what is subjectively experienced, via the ear of the full chain. As opposed to what is objectively observed via instrumented measurement.
Vladimir Lamm is a well known proponent that ear/brain element perceives certain dynamic behaviors in signal transfer error as sounding more convincingly like a live acoustic event to the ear than does objective signal transfer perfection - which to many results in an acoustic perception that is disappointingly more ersatz sounding.
My own experiments lead me to agree with Mr. Lamm, which initially was a source of consternation for me. I understand the argument that if we aren't to measure the physical behavior of the signal, then what are we measure? My response to that is that I'm not suggesting not to measure the physical system parameters, but to more fully include the final human perceptual element in the interpretation of those measurements. Just some pondering, with any declarations of certitude by me.
Visit the Lamm audio website to find a very basic presentation of what some of those desireable signal error behaviors appear to be.