Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Ivan Katz wrote:
I remember back in the 80s when CD players were brand new, I went to a clinic given at Harvey by Sony. I dragged my Magnavox, yes Magnavox because it had great converters, to the clinic and had the Sony people connect it to their test equipment and give me a print out. The unit did very well and they were a wee bit surprised so I got invited to A--B it with their top of the line ES player, which BTW cost about 10 times what I paid for the Magnavox.... Okay, this would be a Magnavox player with the original first generation chip set. Because Philips couldn't make a real 16-bit ladder converter, they used a 14-bit ladder and a digital filter with 4x oversampling to get 16-bit resolution. The end result was a converter with better linearity and lower group delay than the competition... and better linearity and lower group delay than the second generation chipset tht Philips replaced it with. We sat there sipping some nice wine and enjoying the music but none of us could hear any difference between the $300 player and the $2500 player. Maybe it was us? Maybe it was the wine? Who knows! I am surprised. I am surprised that the Philips didn't blow the doors off the Sony. What kind of speaker system was being used? That was until a CD with tubuler bells was played. Yep, the Sony sounded clearer and everyone could hear the difference. We all laughed though because WTF? How many people play solo tubular bell CDs and even still, the difference was so minor you had to really concentrate to hear it. I bet it sounded clearer... and that clarity was artificial too, I bet. I'm not surprised that the difference was first noticed on a fairly uncompressed recording with a lot of transients like Tubular Bells. I'm surprised, though, that it wasn't even more obvious on orchestral percussion. Still, there WAS a difference.... Just some words..... Like Scott said, maybe there is a difference but is it really *better*? What is *better* anyhow? Whenever anything sounds brighter and clearer, I am immediately suspicious that something bad is going on. This may be due to some sort of innate skepticism or maybe too many bad A/B tests in my youth... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Nov 2, 2:40 pm, Eeyore
wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Eeyore wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Well, I have heard differences between wires, That weren't speaker cables or high capacitance interconnects ? Well, in some cases they were very long microphone cables with ribbon mike sources, where the cable reactance WAS becoming a problem. How long were those mic cables ? But in other cases I have heard weirdness that I cannot explain. I can tell the difference between an 18ga solid core and an 18ga stranded speaker cable. Makes no sense at all, but it was there. Intruiging. I can believe someone might hear a difference between a non-copper cable like the silver cable, and I can believe it might be due to rectification effects. Well, it won't be the additional conductivity of the silver since that's just a thin plating. I know that I can hear a difference between copper-clad-steel RG-174 and similar copper cable. I am pretty sure that is due to junction issues. Copper clad steel will have significantly higher resistance than steel of course. Your contacts would have to be fairly dirty for rectification to kick in, I'll venture. Graham All sorts of variables in cable makeup can affect things like resistance, capacitance, high frequency roll-off, etc. Sometimes, they aren't changes you want to happen (dirty contacts), but in other cases it can be an intentional aim at getting a certain sound. Unfortunately, this all just makes the water more muddy as to what is 'neutral sound'. And sadly, some of the most neutral sounding cables are also the most expensive. I guess what I'm looking for is an inexpensive cable that makes as few changes to the signal as possible, but doesn't cost $1000 a foot! -Neb |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
nebulax wrote: Eeyore wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Eeyore wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Well, I have heard differences between wires, That weren't speaker cables or high capacitance interconnects ? Well, in some cases they were very long microphone cables with ribbon mike sources, where the cable reactance WAS becoming a problem. How long were those mic cables ? But in other cases I have heard weirdness that I cannot explain. I can tell the difference between an 18ga solid core and an 18ga stranded speaker cable. Makes no sense at all, but it was there. Intruiging. I can believe someone might hear a difference between a non-copper cable like the silver cable, and I can believe it might be due to rectification effects. Well, it won't be the additional conductivity of the silver since that's just a thin plating. I know that I can hear a difference between copper-clad-steel RG-174 and similar copper cable. I am pretty sure that is due to junction issues. Copper clad steel will have significantly higher resistance than steel of course. Your contacts would have to be fairly dirty for rectification to kick in, I'll venture. All sorts of variables in cable makeup can affect things like resistance, capacitance, Inductance. high frequency roll-off, etc. Sometimes, they aren't changes you want to happen (dirty contacts), but in other cases it can be an intentional aim at getting a certain sound. Yet in a normal interconnect situation with sensible cable lengths with a low impedance source (say 100 ohms) and a high/bridging input impedance on the receiving end (as per modern equipment practice for the last 30+ years) none of these paremeters should ever be significant enough to affect what's audible. Loudspeaker cables are quite a different ball game on account of the low impedance load. Unfortunately, this all just makes the water more muddy as to what is 'neutral sound'. And sadly, some of the most neutral sounding cables are also the most expensive. I guess what I'm looking for is an inexpensive cable that makes as few changes to the signal as possible, but doesn't cost $1000 a foot! No interconnect cable should make any audible changes to the sound in normal typical usage. Belief that they do is unquestionably due to the limitations and unreliability of human hearing plus certain psychological factors. Graham |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Ivan Katz wrote: I remember back in the 80s when CD players were brand new, I went to a clinic given at Harvey by Sony. I dragged my Magnavox, yes Magnavox because it had great converters, to the clinic and had the Sony people connect it to their test equipment and give me a print out. The unit did very well and they were a wee bit surprised so I got invited to A--B it with their top of the line ES player, which BTW cost about 10 times what I paid for the Magnavox.... They did have a comparator and the tests were double blind. Nothing was rigged as far as I could tell, unlike a Bose dog and pony show I went to...don't ask..... We sat there sipping some nice wine and enjoying the music but none of us could hear any difference between the $300 player and the $2500 player. Maybe it was us? Maybe it was the wine? Who knows! That was until a CD with tubuler bells was played. Yep, the Sony sounded clearer and everyone could hear the difference. We all laughed though because WTF? How many people play solo tubular bell CDs and even still, the difference was so minor you had to really concentrate to hear it. Still, there WAS a difference.... Early converters were pretty crappy. It goes to show how good they were compared to everything else that despite those limitations, it required a specific album to show up some of those limitations. I thought that the Sony CDP-101 was pretty rubbish myself. I was convinced I could hear echo tails being truncated. Then I heard a CD player using oversampling, a Denon DCD1700 and bought it. I still have it. Graham |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Ivan Katz wrote: I remember back in the 80s when CD players were brand new, I went to a clinic given at Harvey by Sony. I dragged my Magnavox, yes Magnavox because it had great converters, to the clinic and had the Sony people connect it to their test equipment and give me a print out. The unit did very well and they were a wee bit surprised so I got invited to A--B it with their top of the line ES player, which BTW cost about 10 times what I paid for the Magnavox.... They did have a comparator and the tests were double blind. Nothing was rigged as far as I could tell, unlike a Bose dog and pony show I went to...don't ask..... We sat there sipping some nice wine and enjoying the music but none of us could hear any difference between the $300 player and the $2500 player. Maybe it was us? Maybe it was the wine? Who knows! That was until a CD with tubuler bells was played. Yep, the Sony sounded clearer and everyone could hear the difference. We all laughed though because WTF? How many people play solo tubular bell CDs and even still, the difference was so minor you had to really concentrate to hear it. Still, there WAS a difference.... Early converters were pretty crappy. It goes to show how good they were compared to everything else that despite those limitations, it required a specific album to show up some of those limitations. I thought that the Sony CDP-101 was pretty rubbish myself. I was convinced I could hear echo tails being truncated. Then I heard a CD player using oversampling, a Denon DCD1700 and bought it. I still have it. Early convertors did have their problems...I had a wonderful (in most ways) Phillips 880 back in '89....wonderful except that between notes it "went black". The tail and ambience just disappeared. And it wasn't natural silence....it was unnatural silence. But then, we who didn't think CD was the end-all product that it was promoted as were, as everybody knows, just kooks and audiophools. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
nebulax wrote:
are also the most expensive. I guess what I'm looking for is an inexpensive cable that makes as few changes to the signal as possible, but doesn't cost $1000 a foot! The solution to most cable problems exists in the low-impedance balanced line. Running line-level signals with low-Z connections means you can get away with outrageous amounts of cable reactance and series resistance without any problem. THIS means you can then select your cable for the best noise rejection. Use whatever brand of star quad is on sale today, and run everything high level, low impedance, and balanced. If you have to run long mike lines, that's a different story, though. And if you have to run long unbalanced lines, transformer boxes will save your life. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:37:12 -0400, Geoff wrote
(in article ) : Ty Ford wrote: oops! Snneezed and hit the send. Guitar cords. Check Louis out at http://www,gothamaudiousa.com Regards, Ty Ford Weirder yet, I don't see the pre-sneeze post.... Anyway. We heard differences when comparing the house belden with Gotham GAC-3 and EMT 2220 a few years ago. Subtle, but it was there. Maybe you moved your head, furniture, or listening position a few inches, or yawned. That should totally swamp any cable differences. geoff Nope. There were three of us in Flite Three in Baltimore. We didn't begin by looking for cable differences. Our interest was to find a cable that would cut the RF problem with the Gefell M71 mic. In doing so we found the EQ difference and then went sideways with it to try a C414 and a U 87. The cables had the same effect on each of the three mics. A lot of the listening was done on headphones; good ones. The differences were not as audible on my system. We thought it might have had something to do with the mic panel wiring at Flite Three or the interaction with their API preamps. All three of us heard it and there was a consensus as to the slight differences each cable made. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Nov 2, 7:04 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mark wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote ... I know that I can hear a difference between copper-clad-steel RG-174 and similar copper cable. I am pretty sure that is due to junction issues. what do you think you hear? Treble harshness. That can be caused by anything from high order distortion products to a change in frequency response to maybe even a small change in level. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." which as you know are all easily verifed by measurment.... it would be an interesting scoop to verify that this was true. Mark |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:02:22 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Okay, this would be a Magnavox player with the original first generation chip set. Because Philips couldn't make a real 16-bit ladder converter, they used a 14-bit ladder and a digital filter with 4x oversampling to get 16-bit resolution. The end result was a converter with better linearity and lower group delay than the competition... and better linearity and lower group delay than the second generation chipset tht Philips replaced it with. I believe that is correct. My mind is a bit fuzzy but I do remember something about the 14 bit and 4x oversampling. Anyhow, the unit was a real sleeper, for the time. I am surprised. I am surprised that the Philips didn't blow the doors off the Sony. What kind of speaker system was being used? I believe they were using KEF, maybe 105's or B&W 80x at the time. I do not remember which one. If it was the B&W, it was the models prior to the ones with the 'eyeball' on top. I bet it sounded clearer... and that clarity was artificial too, I bet. I'm not surprised that the difference was first noticed on a fairly uncompressed recording with a lot of transients like Tubular Bells. I'm surprised, though, that it wasn't even more obvious on orchestral percussion. Yea I was as well. And yes, it did sound clearer or if you look at it the other way, the Magnavox sounded fuzzy with less 'ring' to the bell. Best I can describe it is like a pure sine wave vs a sine wave on the verge of clipping. Whenever anything sounds brighter and clearer, I am immediately suspicious that something bad is going on. This may be due to some sort of innate skepticism or maybe too many bad A/B tests in my youth... --scott I don't have as much experience as you do Scott, but when I hear MAJOR differences in what is perceived to be high end equipment, I am suspicious. The BOSE dog and pony show was one such experience. They ran a Tascam/TEAC 3440 15ips tape of Manhattan Transfer live through 901's and of course it sounded great. When I started poking around the desk at the rear of the room they chased me away. The tape was obviously "juiced" somehow because I had that same album (a cutout BTW) and I never heard it sound like that, nor had I ever heard Bose anything sound like that. At the time I was running a Mcintosh amp through some Allison One speakers. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Ty Ford wrote:
Nope. There were three of us in Flite Three in Baltimore. We didn't begin by looking for cable differences. Our interest was to find a cable that would cut the RF problem with the Gefell M71 mic. In doing so we found the EQ difference and then went sideways with it to try a C414 and a U 87. The cables had the same effect on each of the three mics. A lot of the listening was done on headphones; good ones. I'm going to say that things that I _thought_ were EQ differences turned out to be differences in the tone of the noise floor. I am thinking this effect is why different noise shaping algorithms cause tonal differences even though they only affect the tone of the noise floor. IF this is the case, then it's possible that cutting the RF problem is what caused the perceived EQ difference. The differences were not as audible on my system. We thought it might have had something to do with the mic panel wiring at Flite Three or the interaction with their API preamps. All three of us heard it and there was a consensus as to the slight differences each cable made. I've heard this sort of thing many times and I don't have a really good explanation for it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Nov 3, 10:38 am, Ivan Katz wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:02:22 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote: Okay, this would be a Magnavox player with the original first generation chip set. Because Philips couldn't make a real 16-bit ladder converter, they used a 14-bit ladder and a digital filter with 4x oversampling to get 16-bit resolution. The end result was a converter with better linearity and lower group delay than the competition... and better linearity and lower group delay than the second generation chipset tht Philips replaced it with. I believe that is correct. My mind is a bit fuzzy but I do remember something about the 14 bit and 4x oversampling. Anyhow, the unit was a real sleeper, for the time. I am surprised. I am surprised that the Philips didn't blow the doors off the Sony. What kind of speaker system was being used? I believe they were using KEF, maybe 105's or B&W 80x at the time. I do not remember which one. If it was the B&W, it was the models prior to the ones with the 'eyeball' on top. I bet it sounded clearer... and that clarity was artificial too, I bet. I'm not surprised that the difference was first noticed on a fairly uncompressed recording with a lot of transients like Tubular Bells. I'm surprised, though, that it wasn't even more obvious on orchestral percussion. Yea I was as well. And yes, it did sound clearer or if you look at it the other way, the Magnavox sounded fuzzy with less 'ring' to the bell. Best I can describe it is like a pure sine wave vs a sine wave on the verge of clipping. Whenever anything sounds brighter and clearer, I am immediately suspicious that something bad is going on. This may be due to some sort of innate skepticism or maybe too many bad A/B tests in my youth... --scott I don't have as much experience as you do Scott, but when I hear MAJOR differences in what is perceived to be high end equipment, I am suspicious. The BOSE dog and pony show was one such experience. They ran a Tascam/TEAC 3440 15ips tape of Manhattan Transfer live through 901's and of course it sounded great. When I started poking around the desk at the rear of the room they chased me away. The tape was obviously "juiced" somehow because I had that same album (a cutout BTW) and I never heard it sound like that, nor had I ever heard Bose anything sound like that. At the time I was running a Mcintosh amp through some Allison One speakers. Bose 901's use an external EQ box to help achieve whatever sound 'quality' they get, so if one were really wanting to go all out by using a parametric EQ or something, the results be different, at least. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:45:48 -0700, nebulax wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:38 am, Ivan Katz wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:02:22 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote: Okay, this would be a Magnavox player with the original first generation chip set. Because Philips couldn't make a real 16-bit ladder converter, they used a 14-bit ladder and a digital filter with 4x oversampling to get 16-bit resolution. The end result was a converter with better linearity and lower group delay than the competition... and better linearity and lower group delay than the second generation chipset tht Philips replaced it with. I believe that is correct. My mind is a bit fuzzy but I do remember something about the 14 bit and 4x oversampling. Anyhow, the unit was a real sleeper, for the time. I am surprised. I am surprised that the Philips didn't blow the doors off the Sony. What kind of speaker system was being used? I believe they were using KEF, maybe 105's or B&W 80x at the time. I do not remember which one. If it was the B&W, it was the models prior to the ones with the 'eyeball' on top. I bet it sounded clearer... and that clarity was artificial too, I bet. I'm not surprised that the difference was first noticed on a fairly uncompressed recording with a lot of transients like Tubular Bells. I'm surprised, though, that it wasn't even more obvious on orchestral percussion. Yea I was as well. And yes, it did sound clearer or if you look at it the other way, the Magnavox sounded fuzzy with less 'ring' to the bell. Best I can describe it is like a pure sine wave vs a sine wave on the verge of clipping. Whenever anything sounds brighter and clearer, I am immediately suspicious that something bad is going on. This may be due to some sort of innate skepticism or maybe too many bad A/B tests in my youth... --scott I don't have as much experience as you do Scott, but when I hear MAJOR differences in what is perceived to be high end equipment, I am suspicious. The BOSE dog and pony show was one such experience. They ran a Tascam/TEAC 3440 15ips tape of Manhattan Transfer live through 901's and of course it sounded great. When I started poking around the desk at the rear of the room they chased me away. The tape was obviously "juiced" somehow because I had that same album (a cutout BTW) and I never heard it sound like that, nor had I ever heard Bose anything sound like that. At the time I was running a Mcintosh amp through some Allison One speakers. Bose 901's use an external EQ box to help achieve whatever sound 'quality' they get, so if one were really wanting to go all out by using a parametric EQ or something, the results be different, at least. I know that. I used to sell them The tape itself was apparently "juiced" to sound good on the Bose speakers. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Ty Ford wrote:
.. All three of us heard it and there was a consensus as to the slight differences each cable made. Often the case. Peer afirmation is a power psychological phenomemon. Happens in churches every week. geoff |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Geoff wrote: Ty Ford wrote: All three of us heard it and there was a consensus as to the slight differences each cable made. Often the case. Peer afirmation is a power psychological phenomemon. Happens in churches every week. And as I have said elsewhere, a far cheaper alternative to $10,000 speaker cables is a few grams of cannabis resin. It will reliably make your system sound better. And I do mean better in every possible way. Graham |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 11:55:08 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ): Ty Ford wrote: Nope. There were three of us in Flite Three in Baltimore. We didn't begin by looking for cable differences. Our interest was to find a cable that would cut the RF problem with the Gefell M71 mic. In doing so we found the EQ difference and then went sideways with it to try a C414 and a U 87. The cables had the same effect on each of the three mics. A lot of the listening was done on headphones; good ones. I'm going to say that things that I _thought_ were EQ differences turned out to be differences in the tone of the noise floor. I am thinking this effect is why different noise shaping algorithms cause tonal differences even though they only affect the tone of the noise floor. IF this is the case, then it's possible that cutting the RF problem is what caused the perceived EQ difference. Yep, but we were not having audible RF problems with the C414 or U 87. Still the same exact EQ differences in cable persisted. The differences were not as audible on my system. We thought it might have had something to do with the mic panel wiring at Flite Three or the interaction with their API preamps. All three of us heard it and there was a consensus as to the slight differences each cable made. I've heard this sort of thing many times and I don't have a really good explanation for it. --scott capacitance? Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 23:51:40 -0500, Eeyore wrote
(in article ): Geoff wrote: Ty Ford wrote: All three of us heard it and there was a consensus as to the slight differences each cable made. Often the case. Peer afirmation is a power psychological phenomemon. Happens in churches every week. And as I have said elsewhere, a far cheaper alternative to $10,000 speaker cables is a few grams of cannabis resin. It will reliably make your system sound better. And I do mean better in every possible way. Graham Interesting, but this wasn't "better/worse", it was simply consistently different. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Ty Ford wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote Ty Ford wrote: Nope. There were three of us in Flite Three in Baltimore. We didn't begin by looking for cable differences. Our interest was to find a cable that would cut the RF problem with the Gefell M71 mic. What RF problem was that ? In doing so we found the EQ difference and then went sideways with it to try a C414 and a U 87. The cables had the same effect on each of the three mics. A lot of the listening was done on headphones; good ones. I'm going to say that things that I _thought_ were EQ differences turned out to be differences in the tone of the noise floor. I am thinking this effect is why different noise shaping algorithms cause tonal differences even though they only affect the tone of the noise floor. IF this is the case, then it's possible that cutting the RF problem is what caused the perceived EQ difference. Yep, but we were not having audible RF problems with the C414 or U 87. Still the same exact EQ differences in cable persisted. So did you measure these EQ differences ? Graham |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Eeyore wrote:
Ty Ford wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote Ty Ford wrote: Nope. There were three of us in Flite Three in Baltimore. We didn't begin by looking for cable differences. Our interest was to find a cable that would cut the RF problem with the Gefell M71 mic. What RF problem was that ? Pin 1 isn't tied to the shield at the mike. It's just like the Neumann products.... you need to use a cable with a jumper on the female side. This is an advantage in that it allows you to use three-wire cables so the ground return and the shield are separated. This is the real solution to the pin 1 problem and can seriously help with RF issues. However, it means you need to use different cables than you use with other mikes. Except for Neumann mikes, which also do this. And some of the Pearl mikes, but not all. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Nov 3, 9:59 pm, "Geoff" wrote:
Ty Ford wrote: All three of us heard it and there was a consensus as to the slight differences each cable made. Often the case. Peer afirmation is a power psychological phenomemon. Happens in churches every week. geoff So, if they had disagreed, would that have made it more believable? Just because 3 people agree on something doesn't mean they're falling under peer pressure. -Neb |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
nebulax wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:59 pm, "Geoff" wrote: Ty Ford wrote: All three of us heard it and there was a consensus as to the slight differences each cable made. Often the case. Peer afirmation is a power psychological phenomemon. Happens in churches every week. geoff So, if they had disagreed, would that have made it more believable? Yes, considering the claim is extraordinary. Just because 3 people agree on something doesn't mean they're falling under peer pressure. Doesn't mean they are not either. geoff |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
Eeyore wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Eeyore wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Well, I have heard differences between wires, That weren't speaker cables or high capacitance interconnects ? Well, in some cases they were very long microphone cables with ribbon mike sources, where the cable reactance WAS becoming a problem. How long were those mic cables ? Really only a few hundred feet. Not SUPER long. And if you can hear an effect with a couple hundred feet, it's going to get worse when you have a couple thousand foot run out to the truck. But in other cases I have heard weirdness that I cannot explain. I can tell the difference between an 18ga solid core and an 18ga stranded speaker cable. Makes no sense at all, but it was there. Intruiging. I'm looking for a good explanation. At the time I could repeat it consistently too. I'm looking for the words 'double blind' but not seeing them yet in any of these claims of 'weird' difference. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Steven Sullivan wrote: In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote: Eeyore wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Eeyore wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Well, I have heard differences between wires, That weren't speaker cables or high capacitance interconnects ? Well, in some cases they were very long microphone cables with ribbon mike sources, where the cable reactance WAS becoming a problem. How long were those mic cables ? Really only a few hundred feet. Not SUPER long. And if you can hear an effect with a couple hundred feet, it's going to get worse when you have a couple thousand foot run out to the truck. But in other cases I have heard weirdness that I cannot explain. I can tell the difference between an 18ga solid core and an 18ga stranded speaker cable. Makes no sense at all, but it was there. Intruiging. I'm looking for a good explanation. At the time I could repeat it consistently too. I'm looking for the words 'double blind' but not seeing them yet in any of these claims of 'weird' difference. Yes indeed. Human perception is hugely unreliable. Graham |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote: I'm looking for a good explanation. At the time I could repeat it consistently too. I'm looking for the words 'double blind' but not seeing them yet in any of these claims of 'weird' difference. I did a single-blind test on the cable stranding, but not a full double blind one. The RG-174 issue is definitely audible in a double-blind test... I haven't tried it, but a friend of mine was able to reproduce it even with very poor quality monitoring. Someone really should do some measurements on that one. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Scott Dorsey wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: I'm looking for a good explanation. At the time I could repeat it consistently too. I'm looking for the words 'double blind' but not seeing them yet in any of these claims of 'weird' difference. I did a single-blind test on the cable stranding, but not a full double blind one. The RG-174 issue is definitely audible in a double-blind test... I haven't tried it, but a friend of mine was able to reproduce it even with very poor quality monitoring. Someone really should do some measurements on that one. You mean copper plated steel vs copper conductor ? It's obviously cable resistance. Graham |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 08:16:04 -0500, Eeyore wrote
(in article ): Ty Ford wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote Ty Ford wrote: Nope. There were three of us in Flite Three in Baltimore. We didn't begin by looking for cable differences. Our interest was to find a cable that would cut the RF problem with the Gefell M71 mic. What RF problem was that ? The first m71 was part mic, part RD demodulator. Apparently in East Germany, the didn't have the massive amount of RFI we have here. The first line of defense was Gotham GAC-3 with the braid connected to the shells at each end. That worked for me, but I knew others it didn't work for. Gefell then instituted a fix by adding caps across the mic leads. In doing so we found the EQ difference and then went sideways with it to try a C414 and a U 87. The cables had the same effect on each of the three mics. A lot of the listening was done on headphones; good ones. I'm going to say that things that I _thought_ were EQ differences turned out to be differences in the tone of the noise floor. I am thinking this effect is why different noise shaping algorithms cause tonal differences even though they only affect the tone of the noise floor. IF this is the case, then it's possible that cutting the RF problem is what caused the perceived EQ difference. Yep, but we were not having audible RF problems with the C414 or U 87. Still the same exact EQ differences in cable persisted. So did you measure these EQ differences ? Graham Best I can remember, relative to the house belden cable, one cable cause a slight bump around 200 Hz the other was a bump around 6 k. I think the GAC-3 was on the bottom and the 2220 was the 5-6k. That was a while ago. Regards, Ty --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Ty Ford wrote:
Best I can remember, relative to the house belden cable, one cable cause a slight bump around 200 Hz the other was a bump around 6 k. I think the GAC-3 was on the bottom and the 2220 was the 5-6k. These bumps are peresumably less that a (small) fraction of a dB ? If other than that, unless extreme lengths involved, I suspect there was some other factor working there, othe than cable. geoff |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
geoff wrote: Ty Ford wrote: Best I can remember, relative to the house belden cable, one cable cause a slight bump around 200 Hz the other was a bump around 6 k. I think the GAC-3 was on the bottom and the 2220 was the 5-6k. These bumps are peresumably less that a (small) fraction of a dB ? If other than that, unless extreme lengths involved, I suspect there was some other factor working there, othe than cable. Yes. Very curious. I can't see any cable characteristics kicking in at frequencies that low. Would be interesting to know more, especially how long the cable run was, source and destination impedances too. Graham |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
geoff wrote: hank alrich wrote: Having run his mod'd AKG C460's against the stock item, I call bull**** on you. Hell, the front end of a C460 has an LM301 in it, only a FET away from the capsule ! I would be worried if a schoolkid couldn't improved that significantly ! Good Lord. By chance I came across a bag of ancient LM301s in metal can the other day. Amazing what's lurking in odd corners. Graham |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
hank alrich wrote:
Having run his mod'd AKG C460's against the stock item, I call bull**** on you. Hell, the front end of a C460 has an LM301 in it, only a FET away from the capsule ! I would be worried if a schoolkid couldn't improved that significantly ! ;-) geoff |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Eeyore wrote:
Good Lord. By chance I came across a bag of ancient LM301s in metal can the other day. Amazing what's lurking in odd corners. The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch of consoles and actually managed to make them sound good. I'd never have believed it if I hadn't heard it for myself. Part of the secret is to never put more than 20dB of gain on any one stage, it seems. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... Eeyore wrote: Good Lord. By chance I came across a bag of ancient LM301s in metal can the other day. Amazing what's lurking in odd corners. The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch of consoles and actually managed to make them sound good. I'd never have believed it if I hadn't heard it for myself. Part of the secret is to never put more than 20dB of gain on any one stage, it seems. And be very cautious about output levels and loads, and use feedforward configuration whenever you can. Peace, Paul |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Paul Stamler wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote Eeyore wrote: Good Lord. By chance I came across a bag of ancient LM301s in metal can the other day. Amazing what's lurking in odd corners. The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch of consoles and actually managed to make them sound good. I'd never have believed it if I hadn't heard it for myself. Part of the secret is to never put more than 20dB of gain on any one stage, it seems. And be very cautious about output levels and loads, and use feedforward configuration whenever you can. Feedforward ? I have a dim recollection of that. Was a cap involved that bypassed some of the internals ? Graham |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Paul Stamler wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote Eeyore wrote: Good Lord. By chance I came across a bag of ancient LM301s in metal can the other day. Amazing what's lurking in odd corners. The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch of consoles and actually managed to make them sound good. I'd never have believed it if I hadn't heard it for myself. Part of the secret is to never put more than 20dB of gain on any one stage, it seems. And be very cautious about output levels and loads, and use feedforward configuration whenever you can. Feedforward ? I have a dim recollection of that. Was a cap involved that bypassed some of the internals ? Search this PDF for the two instances of feedforward: http://www.calvin.edu/~pribeiro/cour.../ho18opamp.pdf |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Eeyore wrote: Good Lord. By chance I came across a bag of ancient LM301s in metal can the other day. Amazing what's lurking in odd corners. The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch of consoles and actually managed to make them sound good. I'd never have believed it if I hadn't heard it for myself. All things considered that drives another nail in the coffin of the theory that slew rate always matters. Part of the secret is to never put more than 20dB of gain on any one stage, it seems. This part has only 1 MHz GBW. That means that a stage with 40 dB gain may start rolling off with -3B @ 10 KHz. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... nebulax wrote: Yes, I see it (and the Belden equivalent) in installed sound installations all the time. It's cable. BTW Scott, I think it was you who mentioned Gotham US's sale on GAC-2. I used up a roll of it, but it was a tad salty at the then-current price, when I shopped for a replacement. Two 100 meter rolls are on their way to me for just a tad over $100 each including shipping. If one can work with the red and blue outer colors - it is quite a deal. Thanks for the tip! |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
On Nov 6, 2:15 pm, "geoff" wrote:
hank alrich wrote: Having run his mod'd AKG C460's against the stock item, I call bull**** on you. Hell, the front end of a C460 has an LM301 in it, only a FET away from the capsule ! I would be worried if a schoolkid couldn't improved that significantly ! ;-) geoff And just what opamp would you use to replace it with? And which bipolar transistor? And which coupling caps? And how do you remove the transformer and still drive a 1200 ohm load? The schoolkids want to know. BTW, the 301 is a single package opamp. The 460B uses a TI TL062 dual fet input device. Good luck getting a single package device to work in there. Jim Williams Audio Upgrades |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Arny Krueger wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in Eeyore wrote: Good Lord. By chance I came across a bag of ancient LM301s in metal can the other day. Amazing what's lurking in odd corners. The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch of consoles and actually managed to make them sound good. I'd never have believed it if I hadn't heard it for myself. All things considered that drives another nail in the coffin of the theory that slew rate always matters. Part of the secret is to never put more than 20dB of gain on any one stage, it seems. This part has only 1 MHz GBW. That means that a stage with 40 dB gain may start rolling off with -3B @ 10 KHz. Well ... the very popular and 'designed for audio' TL07X series only has 3 MHz GBP ! 10MHz seems to be more the norm for more modern audio parts. Graham |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Sax on wire
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Eeyore wrote: Good Lord. By chance I came across a bag of ancient LM301s in metal can the other day. Amazing what's lurking in odd corners. The scary thing is that Studer used the 301s in a bunch of consoles and actually managed to make them sound good. I'd never have believed it if I hadn't heard it for myself. All things considered that drives another nail in the coffin of the theory that slew rate always matters. Oh, the 301 has great slew rate when used as a unity-gain follower. It's when you get gain out of it that there's an issue. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Doug Sax on wire | Pro Audio | |||
Microtrack sound clips from Doug Oade | Pro Audio | |||
Ohio: Doug Gillard Recording Workshop: 4/16/2005 | Pro Audio | |||
Doug Walker contact info ? | Pro Audio | |||
Doug Sharrott please contact me | Pro Audio |