Just waitin' for some action -- the thread on Fancy Interconnects is in one sense focusing on the subtle aspects of what determines quality - trying ridiculous materials as 'connecting' cable demonstrates that the mechanical aspect of getting signals around and then cleaning up any mess still gets 95% of the job done. It's all about the last 5% where the action is, where the questions are, where the debates rage ...
The 'scope, standard methods of viewing things is as close to zero useful for giving one answers as to what is a quality signal vs. not, but a sensitive set of ears can do it every time. Even the supposed best thing around for this, DiffMaker, is pretty hopeless - tried some fiddling with this bit of software last night ... and its ability to work things out is relatively pathetic, or it crashes after thrashing for ages ... not very encouraging ...
The 'scope, standard methods of viewing things is as close to zero useful for giving one answers as to what is a quality signal vs. not, but a sensitive set of ears can do it every time. Even the supposed best thing around for this, DiffMaker, is pretty hopeless - tried some fiddling with this bit of software last night ... and its ability to work things out is relatively pathetic, or it crashes after thrashing for ages ... not very encouraging ...
For many years, I was a complete sceptic regarding cables and RCA plugs. However, today I am not so sure. I have heard a few cables which to my ears did make a positive difference in my system, the RCA plugs quickly wearing out as an improvement factor after moving up from the junk class a couple of steps.
The ones I find to do best in my system are van den Hul's interconnects (I forget the designation, but it's not too expensive at all) with some decent RCA plugs, as well as Neotech's (Taiwan, mammoth OEM manufacturer, their models are rebadged like you wouldn't believe) silver wire (actually silver plated OFC copper).
For speakers, I use van den Hul's 352 Hybrid, a mixture of copper, slver and carbon. Their length is 6 m (app. 20 ft) because the architecture of the room forces me to use them, and oddly enough, they are 2 x 256 strand, 5.5 mm cross section - exactly what Ben Duncan recommends in his book for such a length. Their theoretical current capability is well over 200 Amps, which should be enough even for our "Current Man" Wayne.
On the other hand, there is no other field of audio, not even power line "conditioners" (God, what a communist propaganda type euphemism!), which has so much snake oil and pidgeon milk marketing to its name, it's disgusting and sickening. And no other field of audio attracts so many loonies from the La La land.
As you say, it all comes down to personal trial and taste. You simply have to try it out yourself, no two ways about it.
The ones I find to do best in my system are van den Hul's interconnects (I forget the designation, but it's not too expensive at all) with some decent RCA plugs, as well as Neotech's (Taiwan, mammoth OEM manufacturer, their models are rebadged like you wouldn't believe) silver wire (actually silver plated OFC copper).
For speakers, I use van den Hul's 352 Hybrid, a mixture of copper, slver and carbon. Their length is 6 m (app. 20 ft) because the architecture of the room forces me to use them, and oddly enough, they are 2 x 256 strand, 5.5 mm cross section - exactly what Ben Duncan recommends in his book for such a length. Their theoretical current capability is well over 200 Amps, which should be enough even for our "Current Man" Wayne.
On the other hand, there is no other field of audio, not even power line "conditioners" (God, what a communist propaganda type euphemism!), which has so much snake oil and pidgeon milk marketing to its name, it's disgusting and sickening. And no other field of audio attracts so many loonies from the La La land.
As you say, it all comes down to personal trial and taste. You simply have to try it out yourself, no two ways about it.
Hopefully, one can go beyond taste ... the point is, once a system rises above midfi, and you can start to hear the potential inherent in the recording, then everything one does to a system will subtlely, or relatively dramatically if one's hearing is sensitive to such things, change the subjective impression of the sound. The 'everything matters' mantra is really an 'everything makes a difference' reality.
So, if you're a grease monkey, want to get under the bonnet and rip into the mechanicals, like many on this forum, then you can play with the bits to get tonal and suchlike variations to your heart's content -- will keep one occupied for decades without any trouble, I reckon!
Those that want to keep their hands clean, and have the money to play that game, choose cables and such accessories as their 'weapons' of choice, to fight the demons of audio ...
I personally find it more interesting to recover the most that a recording can offer up, and fortunately with judicious application of effort and close attention to overall system integrity an extremely high standard of replay can occur, which renders all the usual audiophile shenanigans and concerns null and void ...
So, if you're a grease monkey, want to get under the bonnet and rip into the mechanicals, like many on this forum, then you can play with the bits to get tonal and suchlike variations to your heart's content -- will keep one occupied for decades without any trouble, I reckon!
Those that want to keep their hands clean, and have the money to play that game, choose cables and such accessories as their 'weapons' of choice, to fight the demons of audio ...
I personally find it more interesting to recover the most that a recording can offer up, and fortunately with judicious application of effort and close attention to overall system integrity an extremely high standard of replay can occur, which renders all the usual audiophile shenanigans and concerns null and void ...
I don't know about those with lots of money, but I have found cables which I can afford and which do make a difference to me in my system, so that was that. I must admit there was (uncommonly for me) little passion involved, cables do nothing for me emotionally, simply realizing that there is something to be gained and doping what I could about it.
But electronics? Now, that's an entirely different matter, that is passion and heavy duty fun and enjoyment. No idea why, but there it is, I just love it. I am SO looking forward to fiddling with my amp ...
But electronics? Now, that's an entirely different matter, that is passion and heavy duty fun and enjoyment. No idea why, but there it is, I just love it. I am SO looking forward to fiddling with my amp ...
Good points made .
Rod Elliot I think mentioned that second harmonic is held to be a nice distortion , he feels it is not . Wouldn't it be interesting if he was the first to question that ! People always say to me the only reason my amp sounds nice is it has a lot of second harmonic distortion . Funny thing is it doesn't .
My girlfriend seems like a nice lady from the working classes ( she would be proud to think so on all counts ) . She is an intellectual and has the pieces of paper to prove it . Most people never measure her correctly to know that . We often judge on too narrow a picture .
Yes, it's a time-honored technique. As with most bootstrapping the bandwidths achieved are usually a bit disappointing.
One of the possible features I'm exploring for some new phono preamps is determining the net capacitance of the interconnects and providing the ability to reduce it if desired, in addition to the conventional choice of loading capacitances and termination resistances.
DF96
"In general, textbooks omit things for various reasons:
1. they are not true
2. they are true but so obvious (to the writer) from what has been said that they need not be stated explicitly - note that they might not be obvious to all readers
3. the writer did not think of them
4. the writer thought of them but was running out of space or time
5. the writer thought of them but knew he could not give a good explanation in that level of textbook"
I wonder if there shouldn't be a sixth reason:
"6. the writer thought of them, didn't know if they were true, but anyway knew that he couldn't give an explanation of them at all"
"In general, textbooks omit things for various reasons:
1. they are not true
2. they are true but so obvious (to the writer) from what has been said that they need not be stated explicitly - note that they might not be obvious to all readers
3. the writer did not think of them
4. the writer thought of them but was running out of space or time
5. the writer thought of them but knew he could not give a good explanation in that level of textbook"
I wonder if there shouldn't be a sixth reason:
"6. the writer thought of them, didn't know if they were true, but anyway knew that he couldn't give an explanation of them at all"
I find the measurement vs sound debate to be incredibly frustrating. When building or modifying gear I try as much as possible to make one change at a time. I do hear differences but I am aware that these by necessity are sighted and therefore questionable for others but not for my use. Some of you may be familiar with this:
http://www.vertexaq.com/component/docman/doc_download/21-ka-paper-feb-11?Itemid=
The paper is commercially sponsored and obviously dumbed down for non technical readers, but I wonder would a company such as Acuity (the testing company used) would allow its name to go on factually inaccurate assertions? If there is merit in these tests they appear to shed some light.
http://www.vertexaq.com/component/docman/doc_download/21-ka-paper-feb-11?Itemid=
The paper is commercially sponsored and obviously dumbed down for non technical readers, but I wonder would a company such as Acuity (the testing company used) would allow its name to go on factually inaccurate assertions? If there is merit in these tests they appear to shed some light.
Hello DVV,
I am having difficulty in condensing the article into a reasonable space without compromising the content.
The article by Ed.Simon was published in AudioXpress 6/09 issue under the title" Removing the Six" Straight Wire KInks: A Prologue to a Better Preamp" and this takes up 6 pages. I am happy to scan and email.
An intro to the case for the driven shield is that "Instead of surrounding the signal carrying wire with a grounded shield use one that carries the same signal!
Now the capacitance is not to ground but to the same voltage. The insulation can be non-linear because there is no voltage across it. The inductance of the wire is very slightly reduced by the solenoid effect and some reverse capacitive coupling although this is not of really practical value.
For RFI the interference must now travel through an extra isolated shield, so tis one change multiplies the loss of a single shield. Same deal for any capacitor coupled noise.
To get even trickier you can now cover this shield with a second insulated shield...." for several more paragraphs on further steps and implementation.
Standard op.amps are used to drive the shields.
Michael J
I am having difficulty in condensing the article into a reasonable space without compromising the content.
The article by Ed.Simon was published in AudioXpress 6/09 issue under the title" Removing the Six" Straight Wire KInks: A Prologue to a Better Preamp" and this takes up 6 pages. I am happy to scan and email.
An intro to the case for the driven shield is that "Instead of surrounding the signal carrying wire with a grounded shield use one that carries the same signal!
Now the capacitance is not to ground but to the same voltage. The insulation can be non-linear because there is no voltage across it. The inductance of the wire is very slightly reduced by the solenoid effect and some reverse capacitive coupling although this is not of really practical value.
For RFI the interference must now travel through an extra isolated shield, so tis one change multiplies the loss of a single shield. Same deal for any capacitor coupled noise.
To get even trickier you can now cover this shield with a second insulated shield...." for several more paragraphs on further steps and implementation.
Standard op.amps are used to drive the shields.
Michael J
I can't find anything either, I might email Vertex and see if I can get a response.
Hear, hear ...
I've just had a glance at the paper, and it's right on the money. At least it's tackling the issues that I and many others have been hearing from systems for years, which conventional measuring regimes largely ignore. Hopefully, the NIH barrier can be broken through, and some decent movement occur ...
For what its worth you can use the same techniques yourself with Audio DiffMaker . At the presentations there were a lot of questions they could not answer. In any case the Audio diffmaker does a good job of the same process they were showing and has more comprehensive checks for validity. One core question is the relevance of checking the original digital track with the da-ad processed track. In principle the reconstruction filters will change the track enough that you can't get back to where you started.
Audio diffmaker has the ability to match the timing etc. and remove those errors. There are examples of its use on the site.
I found the "Defence Technology " stuff a little pretentious, suggesting we can't duplicate the experiments.
Audio diffmaker has the ability to match the timing etc. and remove those errors. There are examples of its use on the site.
I found the "Defence Technology " stuff a little pretentious, suggesting we can't duplicate the experiments.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.