[William Sommerwerck]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:39:23 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Sure, so do I. But only when I need to, and I don't need to in a
domestic hi-fi system.

Try running a 20' unbalanced cable to a power amp, and see what
happens, particularly if the amp is on another circuit.

Which is why at the theatre where I work the snake from mixer to stage
amps is of course balanced. And a technical power feed runs alongside
it.

But I wouldn't do anything so unnecessarily complicated at home. There
are simpler solutions that sound just as good.

Many controllers and power amps have balanced ins and outs. The only
"complexity" is buying balanced cables which do, of course, cost a little
more than unbalanced cables.

[Scott Dorsey]

philicorda wrote:

Balanced circuitry should sound worse, shouldn't it?
Virtually all audio equipment is unbalanced internally, so having
balanced cables means extra electronics and/or transformers=distortion
+noise. For short cable runs, unbalanced should be higher fidelity.

Right. UNLESS there's actually a noise pickup issue being solved by
the balancing. And the thing is, sometimes stuff down under the noise
floor or really close to it can affect the perceived tonality of material
at normal listening levels.

Another case is when the distortion applied by the transformer actually
improves the perceived sound characteristic. That's a whole other issue,
though.

I think I saw a mic pre schematic that really was symmetric from end to
end once. My Altec 436C is balanced internally too, though that is
because there is no other way it could work.

Bogen made a single-ended variable mu compressor once, using the AVC grid
on a pentagrid converter. It sounded pretty awful, but it kept the tube
count down.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:32:59 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

In this case, it's not an issue of "faith". I simply don't like owning
cheaply made stuff. And when I can buy something not-horribly-expensive that
meets what I consider the minimum requirements for good performance, I will
do so.

EVERYTHING'S cheaply made these days :-) But sometimes they spend an
extra few pennies tarting it up so it fits in a perceived price point,
and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker!

In truth, if the gear isn't going to be moved in a domestic situation,
the give-away moulded crap works fine. In the pro world, it can be
economic to buy ready-made XLR cables, particularly if your time costs
money. But it amazes me how the home-audio enthusiasts prefer to buy
an overpriced RCA pair in a bubble pack rather than get the bits and
learn to solder.

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
EVERYTHING'S cheaply made these days :-) But sometimes they spend an
extra few pennies tarting it up so it fits in a perceived price point,
and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker!

In truth, if the gear isn't going to be moved in a domestic situation,
the give-away moulded crap works fine. In the pro world, it can be
economic to buy ready-made XLR cables, particularly if your time costs
money. But it amazes me how the home-audio enthusiasts prefer to buy
an overpriced RCA pair in a bubble pack rather than get the bits and
learn to solder.

Maybe for the same reason I buy "salad in a bag" with pre-washed
greens, dressing, and all the other little bits in the bag. :-)

OTOH, I do make all my own cables including RCA cables with
RG59 and crimp-on connectors (solder for the center pin). I would
put them up against anything you could buy in a bubble-pack at any
price.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:08:59 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

But it amazes me how the home-audio enthusiasts prefer to buy
an overpriced RCA pair in a bubble pack rather than get the bits and
learn to solder.

Maybe for the same reason I buy "salad in a bag" with pre-washed
greens, dressing, and all the other little bits in the bag. :-)

OTOH, I do make all my own cables including RCA cables with
RG59 and crimp-on connectors (solder for the center pin). I would
put them up against anything you could buy in a bubble-pack at any
price.

So you don't care about the quality of your salad, but you do care
about that of your cables. Fair enough :-)

[Mike Rivers]

philicorda wrote:

Balanced circuitry should sound worse, shouldn't it?
Virtually all audio equipment is unbalanced internally, so having
balanced cables means extra electronics and/or transformers=distortion
+noise. For short cable runs, unbalanced should be higher fidelity.

There's a matter of chains and weak links, and good and poor designs,
and likeable and ugly transformer sound. Remember that a "balanced"
describes the whole interconnection system, not just a hunk of cable
with two wires and a shield. The real benefit comes from the common mode
rejection of the differential input, but if the impedance of the circuit
containing each of the two wires isn't identical, if there's hum to be
picked up, it will be different on each input of the differential
amplifier, resulting in a non-zero difference at its output.

I think I saw a mic pre schematic that really was symmetric from end to
end once. My Altec 436C is balanced internally too, though that is
because there is no other way it could work.

They used to build mixing consoles with balanced interconnections
between sections. That's when they cost $200,000 and up and weighed half
a ton. You get a little less with a $200 console. g




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:51:10 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:

They used to build mixing consoles with balanced interconnections
between sections. That's when they cost $200,000 and up and weighed half
a ton. You get a little less with a $200 console. g

But the modern console is probably cleaner and quieter. So less is
more? :-)

[William Sommerwerck]

They used to build mixing consoles with balanced interconnections
between sections. That's when they cost $200,000 and up and
weighed half a ton. You get a little less with a $200 console. g

I find it amusing that professional recording engineers equate "balanced"
with "transformer-coupled".

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:38:53 GMT, philicorda
wrote:

Some people feel balanced XLR circuitry inherently "sounds better".
Maybe, maybe not. But I like being able to run long leads without having
to worry about hum or ground loops.

Balanced circuitry should sound worse, shouldn't it?
Virtually all audio equipment is unbalanced internally, so having
balanced cables means extra electronics and/or transformers=distortion
+noise. For short cable runs, unbalanced should be higher fidelity.

Of course everyone knows where you're coming from, and I wouldn't
want to cloud the issue, but there's a (pretty good, not bad, can't
complain) argument that *all* inputs are (inherently; can't be any
other way; there's only the voltage difference knocking at the
front door) "differential".

And that the really important distinction is in either the receiving
end's ability to discriminate between signal and noise or the
generating end's contamination (or not) of the sheild/ common ground.

All circuitry of all kinds have both *potential* issues, and internal
grounds are often the most challenging (and important) parts of
electronics.

Maybe few (nor maybe not!) of us design electronics, but the
perspective that keeps an eyeball out for grounds is important
everywhere in AudioLand.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[William Sommerwerck]

Balanced circuitry should sound worse, shouldn't it?
Virtually all audio equipment is unbalanced internally, so having
balanced cables means extra electronics and/or transformers=distortion
+noise. For short cable runs, unbalanced should be higher fidelity.

What do you mean by "virtually all"? The better consumer audiophile
equipment is balanced from input to output -- "full complimentary
push-pull".

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
They used to build mixing consoles with balanced interconnections
between sections. That's when they cost $200,000 and up and
weighed half a ton. You get a little less with a $200 console. g

I find it amusing that professional recording engineers equate "balanced"
with "transformer-coupled".

My console has balanced mixing busses, but they aren't transformer-coupled
at all. Each channel strip has a pair of single-ended 2N3055 stages,
differentially driving the buss through a 600 ohm summing resistor. The
only transformers are on the inputs, outputs, and inserts.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:36:50 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Balanced circuitry should sound worse, shouldn't it?
Virtually all audio equipment is unbalanced internally, so having
balanced cables means extra electronics and/or transformers=distortion
+noise. For short cable runs, unbalanced should be higher fidelity.

What do you mean by "virtually all"? The better consumer audiophile
equipment is balanced from input to output -- "full complimentary
push-pull".

Somehow I just *knew* that this topic would get interesting.
Maybe it's a gift. Dunno.

But to wade in... complimentary push-pull circuits are actually
parallel implementations from a signal POV. And another way of
looking at them is to describe them as two legs (the other two
are the power supply capacitors) of a bridge.

In the bridge description signal "unbalances" the active pair.
Yada, yada.

"Balanced" is certainly the most overworked word since "pornography".
And *everyone* knows it when they see it. Arf.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

If hi-fi's used XLRs (and they're hardly expensive now ex-China where most stuff is
made anyway) even that wouldn't be needed. Last time I looked you could get an XLR
chassis connector for 30-40c and that wasn't even in high volume.

The RCA / phono / Cinch connector has to be slimiest piece of crap ever thought of.

No - you're thinking of the 1/8 "stereo" jack

Do you mean 3.5mm or 2.5mm ? There is no such thing as a 1/8" jack despite popular
belief in the USA. But yes they are horrid too. Gold plating does seem to help them a
bit.


or maybe the 4-pin Firewire connector :-)

Not got round to using one yet although the interface is on my PC.


But even they generally work, if not abused. And domestic hi-fi, even
audiophile stuff, continues to use RCAs because there's no real
benefit from using something more rugged.

If they could only extend that insight a little further.... :-)

You could get me started on a thread about why hi-fi should these days use balanced
interconnects but's a whole 'nother story.

Graham

[Paul Stamler]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
Balanced circuitry should sound worse, shouldn't it?
Virtually all audio equipment is unbalanced internally, so having
balanced cables means extra electronics and/or transformers=distortion
+noise. For short cable runs, unbalanced should be higher fidelity.

What do you mean by "virtually all"? The better consumer audiophile
equipment is balanced from input to output -- "full complimentary
push-pull".

As is some pro gear -- I mentioned the Little Labs LMNOPre a while back
(it's on my mind because I just reviewed it). When the phase-tweaking
circuit is switched out, its electronics are balanced all the way through.
(Don't know if they still are when the phase doohickey is in.) That, *and* a
transformer at the input, and the choice of using one or not at the output.

Peace,
Paul

[William Sommerwerck]

What do you mean by "virtually all"? The better consumer
audiophile equipment is balanced from input to output --
"full complimentary push-pull".

I need to partially retract this statement.

"Full complimentary push-pull" is "balanced" in a sense. But it produces a
single-ended output.

Sorry about that. Sometimes we post before having thoroughly thought through
something.

[Mike Rivers]

John Connors wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:15:15 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I had a friend who had a home brew RF receiver that he would
take to problem clients and it would make all kinds of noises
i do remmeber it was basically
an AM Radio Kit from Radio Shack and the effect was like the crackling you
get when a lightning storm is in the area.

Back when you could buy a portable AM radio, that used to be a good
troubleshooting technique. Put it too close to an old computer and it
would almost play music.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:

But the modern console is probably cleaner and quieter [than one with balanced internal connections]. So less is
more? :-)

Well, yes, but we don't know how much better they COULD be if they were
balanced internally. It might not matter in the end, though. People
worry about tiny differences in S/N ratio of a converter that's greater
than 100 dB because the on-paper differences don't usually amount to
large differences in cost. In a console, however, they do have a greater
cost impact.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I find it amusing that professional recording engineers equate "balanced"
with "transformer-coupled".

It's even more amusing that non-professional engineers equate "balanced"
with XLR or TRS connectors, or +4 dBu nominal operating level. But like
so many technical terms in our industry, it's become a marketing term.
It's easy to make a balanced output and a differential input, so there's
no need to lie about whether the gear allows for balanced connections.
But customers tend to equate this to "professional" which makes them
feel better.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:43:12 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:

But the modern console is probably cleaner and quieter [than one with balanced internal connections]. So less is
more? :-)

Well, yes, but we don't know how much better they COULD be if they were
balanced internally. It might not matter in the end, though. People
worry about tiny differences in S/N ratio of a converter that's greater
than 100 dB because the on-paper differences don't usually amount to
large differences in cost. In a console, however, they do have a greater
cost impact.

Isn't the point, as with so much audio gear these days, that the
hardware's stopped being the limiting factor? Cheap gear performs
well. You can always spend more and get better numbers, but they make
no audible difference. Engineering skills are becoming less important,
allowing us to concentrate on the artistic side.

The only people who lose out are non-musician engineers, who must feel
a bit like chauffeurs in the era when cars became reliable and hence
owner-driven.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

What makes these "Master" cables interesting is that they
pay attention to the details -- the features you'd think
a high-quality cable ought to
have -- without going totally overboard (eg, weird
stranding, bias batteries, etc). And they're cheap -- a
3' pair is only $38 from buy.com, and buy.com pays the
shipping.

$38 for a pair of one meter unbalanced cables strikes me as a total rip-off.

gold-plated solid-metal machined plugs with a screw-down
locking sleeve Teflon-coated low-oxygen silver-plated
conductors
two-conductor transmission (ie, the shield doesn't carry
the signal) separate shield, grounded at "input" end,
with a ferrite RFI/EMI choke at same end

All of which can be eliminated or dramatically cheapened with zero effect in
almost every application.

They come in huge plastic screw-together boxes that look
like a dinosaur egg.

Sort of like Leggs stockings? Oh, how 60s!

These are cables I feel even Arny could put in his home
system without embarrassment.

Most of the cables in Arny's system are balanced with XLRs on both ends.
Unbalanced cables with RCAs would not only be an embarassment, they simply
wouldn't work!

Checking agin to make sure this is rec.audio.pro and not rec.audio.opinon

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
Checking agin to make sure this is rec.audio.pro and not
rec.audio.opinon

Can we just re-patch the whole thread over there? :-)

[philicorda[_6_]]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:43:12 +0000, Mike Rivers wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:

But the modern console is probably cleaner and quieter [than one with
balanced internal connections]. So less is more? :-)

Well, yes, but we don't know how much better they COULD be if they were
balanced internally. It might not matter in the end, though. People
worry about tiny differences in S/N ratio of a converter that's greater
than 100 dB because the on-paper differences don't usually amount to
large differences in cost. In a console, however, they do have a greater
cost impact.

I have a mixer that is balanced internally, but as it is a broadcast
console it's more for protection against harsh RF environments than for
maximum fidelity. Everything is balanced, the inserts, the talkback etc.
I think the only unbalanced IO is the headphone socket.

It's also full of VCAs and millions of balanced line driver/receiver ICs,
so it's not that quiet and makes a lot of heat.

[William Sommerwerck]

By the way, I goofed. The cables are actually "only" $32 a pair.

I would love to hear Arny's home system, though that seems highly unlikely
to ever come to pass. He's certainly welcome to stop by and audition mine
(seriously), though I know he won't like it, because it has "expensive" (by
his standard) components, and his distaste for such products will
necessarily override any objectivity.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:08:15 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I would love to hear Arny's home system, though that seems highly unlikely
to ever come to pass. He's certainly welcome to stop by and audition mine
(seriously), though I know he won't like it, because it has "expensive" (by
his standard) components, and his distaste for such products will
necessarily override any objectivity.

It works both ways. A good friend of mine had a nice system with some
competent amp and a pair of Spendor BC1 speakers. Then he got it into
his head that B & O was the bees knees and installed (at great
expense) one of those vertical record decks and a pair of small
wall-mounted speakers. Both systems are set up in the same room. He's
convinced himself the B & O fashion object sounds better.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:08:15 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I would love to hear Arny's home system, though that seems highly
unlikely
to ever come to pass. He's certainly welcome to stop by and audition mine
(seriously), though I know he won't like it, because it has "expensive"
(by
his standard) components, and his distaste for such products will
necessarily override any objectivity.

It works both ways. A good friend of mine had a nice system with some
competent amp and a pair of Spendor BC1 speakers. Then he got it into
his head that B & O was the bees knees and installed (at great
expense) one of those vertical record decks and a pair of small
wall-mounted speakers. Both systems are set up in the same room. He's
convinced himself the B & O fashion object sounds better.

That's unfortunate. You don't need to spend a huge amount of money to get
really good sound -- you just have to be a critical listener.

I've generally felt B&O products are overpriced. (Their new self-adjusting
speakers are supposed to be very good, but they're not the sort of product
I'd own.)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:37:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

That's unfortunate. You don't need to spend a huge amount of money to get
really good sound -- you just have to be a critical listener.

I've generally felt B&O products are overpriced. (Their new self-adjusting
speakers are supposed to be very good, but they're not the sort of product
I'd own.)

At least the B&O just has the necessary cables, he hasn't fallen for
the "interconnect" scam.

[AJ]

In article ,
says...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:08:15 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I would love to hear Arny's home system, though that seems highly
unlikely
to ever come to pass. He's certainly welcome to stop by and audition mine
(seriously), though I know he won't like it, because it has "expensive"
(by
his standard) components, and his distaste for such products will
necessarily override any objectivity.

It works both ways. A good friend of mine had a nice system with some
competent amp and a pair of Spendor BC1 speakers. Then he got it into
his head that B & O was the bees knees and installed (at great
expense) one of those vertical record decks and a pair of small
wall-mounted speakers. Both systems are set up in the same room. He's
convinced himself the B & O fashion object sounds better.

That's unfortunate. You don't need to spend a huge amount of money to get
really good sound -- you just have to be a critical listener.

I've generally felt B&O products are overpriced. (Their new self-adjusting
speakers are supposed to be very good, but they're not the sort of product
I'd own.)



There was a survey recently that found musicians of all genres including
some well know symphony conductors, have mediocre systems by audiophile
standards, but are completely satisfied with them. The reason boils down
to they listen to the music, not cables and specs. ;-)

[William Sommerwerck]

There was a survey recently that found musicians of all genres including
some well know symphony conductors, have mediocre systems by audiophile
standards, but are completely satisfied with them. The reason boils down
to they listen to the music, not cables and specs. ;-)

This observation has been made many times. There are other reasons, the
principal one being that they have no idea what an orchestra sounds like out
in the hall.

[AJ]

In article ,
says...
There was a survey recently that found musicians of all genres including
some well know symphony conductors, have mediocre systems by audiophile
standards, but are completely satisfied with them. The reason boils down
to they listen to the music, not cables and specs. ;-)

This observation has been made many times. There are other reasons, the
principal one being that they have no idea what an orchestra sounds like out
in the hall.


Or they know first hand how much noise a Fender stratocaster single coil
pickup makes even in the most benign environment, or how much hiss comes
out of the speakers on a Fender or Marshall tube amp running the power
tubes at 400+ volts.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I've generally felt B&O products are overpriced. (Their new self-adjusting
speakers are supposed to be very good, but they're not the sort of product
I'd own.)

Much as I have disliked B&O products, I have to give them credit for actually
putting money into actual research, not just into product development. They
are probably the only home stereo companies out there that is funding any
actual research in the audio community, and that's a good thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"philicorda"
wrote in message
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:09:34 -0700, William Sommerwerck

Balanced circuitry should sound worse, shouldn't it?

I think I see your point. If one (incorrectly) assumes that it is impossible
to add circuitry without adding audible colorations and noise, then balanced
circuitry should sound worse, especially in those cases where its special
benefits don't outweigh the supposed problems.

The supposition is incorrect for at least two reasons.

(1) Adding circuitry can dramatically decrease audible colorations and
noise. A practical example would be upgrading a single-ended amplifier into
one that is push-pull.

(2) Even though the added circuitry may add measurable amounts of
distortion, the distortion is still way too small to be audible.

Virtually all audio equipment is unbalanced internally,

Yes or no.

so having balanced cables means extra electronics and/or
transformers=distortion +noise.

Yes, but the increase need not be audible.

For short cable runs,
unbalanced should be higher fidelity.

That presumes that balanced interfaces never have any benefits for short
cable runs, which is untrue. If you have a ground problem in the interface
between two pieces of equipment, the cable length can be negligible.
Changing the interface can eliminate the audible effects of the grounding
problem.

I think I saw a mic pre schematic that really was
symmetric from end to end once. My Altec 436C is balanced
internally too, though that is because there is no other
way it could work.

Not audio, but a number of Tektronics scopes I've seen have been pretty much
balanced from input to deflection plates.

Most op amps are pretty much balanced from end-to-end, and these days they
are ubiquitous.

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Most op amps are pretty much balanced from end-to-end, and these days they
are ubiquitous.

Uh-uh. Most opamps have a differential input, and are single-ended from
there on. Go look at the schematics.

Diff input, possibly with a current mirror, cascoding or degeneration. Then
a gain stage, single-ended and loaded with a current source. Possibly a
driver. Then the output stage, either push-pull or single-ended with a
current source, but in either case the output is unbalanced.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
There was a survey recently that found musicians of all genres including
some well know symphony conductors, have mediocre systems by audiophile
standards, but are completely satisfied with them. The reason boils down
to they listen to the music, not cables and specs. ;-)

This observation has been made many times. There are other reasons, the
principal one being that they have no idea what an orchestra sounds like
out
in the hall.

Or, conversely, they know *very* well what an orchestra sounds like out in
the hall, and realize that there isn't a recording made which gets close to
that. So, since recordings are only a pale shadow anyway, no need to spend
outlandish quantities of money to reproduce that shadow.

Not always true, by the way; I believe Leonard Slatkin has listened on a
good pair of electrostatics for quite some time.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"AJ" wrote in message
.net...
This observation has been made many times. There are other reasons, the
principal one being that they have no idea what an orchestra sounds like
out
in the hall.


Or they know first hand how much noise a Fender stratocaster single coil
pickup makes even in the most benign environment, or how much hiss comes
out of the speakers on a Fender or Marshall tube amp running the power
tubes at 400+ volts.

Not to change the subject or anything, but the hiss coming out of the
speakers on a guitar amp has nothing to do with the voltage on the output
tubes (other than the fact that, if the voltage wasn't there, there wouldn't
be any sound at all). The hiss comes from the input tubes and their
associated resistors (usually cheap and noisy carbon comps), amplified by
the circuit's high gain.

Peace,
Paul

[Steven Sullivan]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
As some of you know, I quit Stereophile after a Totally Weird experience
with interconnects left me wondering whether I was same, and finally
realizing that my reviewing was not sufficiently reliable or consistent to
be published for money.

what was this experience? An inadvertant 'phantom switch' experiment (you thought you'd
changed something, but it turned out you hadn't, even though you 'heard' a substantial
difference?)




--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Steven Sullivan]

John Connors wrote:

Were there differences in the equipment?
Sure.
Could most people hear them?
Nope.
Could some people hear them?
Yep.

Was that actually proved properly? Nope.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Moshe Goldfarb.]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:35:35 GMT, Mike Rivers wrote:

John Connors wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:15:15 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I had a friend who had a home brew RF receiver that he would
take to problem clients and it would make all kinds of noises
i do remmeber it was basically
an AM Radio Kit from Radio Shack and the effect was like the crackling you
get when a lightning storm is in the area.

Back when you could buy a portable AM radio, that used to be a good
troubleshooting technique. Put it too close to an old computer and it
would almost play music.

Or go down to the local drug store and use the *tube tester* !
I remember my father cussing and swearing at that thing.

Even as a kid, I was convinced the thing was rigged to read "bad" even when
some tubes were fine.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org

[John Connors]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:35:43 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:08:15 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I would love to hear Arny's home system, though that seems highly unlikely
to ever come to pass. He's certainly welcome to stop by and audition mine
(seriously), though I know he won't like it, because it has "expensive" (by
his standard) components, and his distaste for such products will
necessarily override any objectivity.

It works both ways. A good friend of mine had a nice system with some
competent amp and a pair of Spendor BC1 speakers. Then he got it into
his head that B & O was the bees knees and installed (at great
expense) one of those vertical record decks and a pair of small
wall-mounted speakers. Both systems are set up in the same room. He's
convinced himself the B & O fashion object sounds better.

You haven't lived till you've worked in a high end audio shop like I did
back in the 70's early 80's while in school.

Lot's of fun watching the customers "out snob" each other.

[Scott Dorsey]

Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:35:35 GMT, Mike Rivers wrote:

Or go down to the local drug store and use the *tube tester* !
I remember my father cussing and swearing at that thing.

Even as a kid, I was convinced the thing was rigged to read "bad" even when
some tubes were fine.

They were, for the most part. The cheap testers in stores were just
emission testers, not real transconductance testers, and they
tended to be calibrated a bit in that range. On the other hand,
some tube failures (especially of conventional pentodes) can leave
you with good emission on the tester but tubes that don't actually work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Moshe Goldfarb.]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:16:21 GMT, Paul Stamler wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
There was a survey recently that found musicians of all genres including
some well know symphony conductors, have mediocre systems by audiophile
standards, but are completely satisfied with them. The reason boils down
to they listen to the music, not cables and specs. ;-)

This observation has been made many times. There are other reasons, the
principal one being that they have no idea what an orchestra sounds like
out
in the hall.

Or, conversely, they know *very* well what an orchestra sounds like out in
the hall, and realize that there isn't a recording made which gets close to
that. So, since recordings are only a pale shadow anyway, no need to spend
outlandish quantities of money to reproduce that shadow.

Not always true, by the way; I believe Leonard Slatkin has listened on a
good pair of electrostatics for quite some time.

Peace,
Paul

There is some truth in both theories.

I'm a jazz pianist who frequently plays with big bands and from my
perspective on the bench, the bright, crisp, wider than life *stereo* sound
of a freshly tuned Steinway is what I worship....
Realistic no way.
But it's MY sound and I like it!

However, from the audience perspective, it's totally different which is why
I loath those classical recordings of say Horowitz that are recorded way
back from the stage and swimming in reverb, albeit natural hall induced
reverb.

Is my perspective as a musician realistic sound?
Of course not.
The audience is always right smile!
But even then, what audience?
Tenth row center?
Orchestra or balcony, what they *hear* is what they see
a little ditty from A Chorus Line, sort of)...

In my 48 years on earth, the best *live sounding* system I ever heard was a
set of Infinity Reference "something or others" that were about 8 feet high
and had the EMIT tweeters etc.

This was circa 78 or so and it was hooked to some other very high end gear
which I do not recall. Audio Research maybe. The turntable I believe was a
Linn Sondek and I do remember an Ortofon MC cartridge of some sort.

What I do recall was that they were playing the "Harry James" Sheffield
labs direct to disk record, very loud, and I swear it sounded like a real
band.
Chillingly so and even at that time I was recording with big bands so I had
some perspective.
I never forgot it.

I believe they, the speakers alone, cost about $40,000 at the time (not
sure on that one) but for 1978 or so, it was in that ballpark and it was a
hell of a lot of money.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org