Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has
arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ? Thanx JYC |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 12/27/03 2:07 AM, in article jdaHb.145650$8y1.433106@attbi_s52, "JYC"
wrote: The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ? It certainly can't hurt. I have seen this on a lot of cables, and I don't buy in, though a lot of people do. One thing I think everyone can agree on is that is won't hurt one bit. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
It all depends, do you have a dog? The arrows tell you which way to
connect to avoid the highs coming back from the sub, it's to complex to explain here. If you have a dog, the high subs from the sub would bother it to no end and domestic peace would be interrupted. Before arrows, an untold number of dogs were driven insane from these signals we don't here. Bty, the arrows need to be broken in for no less then 72 hours for best high trapping effect. The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ? Thanx JYC |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 07:07:59 GMT, "JYC" wrote:
The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ? Hi JYC: If you're referring to interconnect cable, there might be a reason for the arrow. Some cables (including the ones I make for myself), have two conductors plus a shield, with the shield connected at the input of the device only. This will sometimes minimize hum as this arrangement is (semi) balanced. Therefore, if this is the case with your cable, the arrow would point to the end with the shield connected to the terminal. -=Bill Eckle=- Vanity Web pages at: http://www.wmeckle.com |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
If it's really a coax it's a gimmick. However, there is a variety of cable
called "pseudo-balanced" that has the shield unconnected on the receiving end. In that case the arrows denote that. "JYC" wrote in message news:jdaHb.145650$8y1.433106@attbi_s52... The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ? Thanx JYC |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 07:07:59 +0000, JYC wrote:
The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ? Thanx JYC extensive tests were carried out and reported in electronics and Wireless world a few years ago. They clearly showed that in the audio spectrum, good mains cable was as far as you needed to go to ensure quality. Anyone selling gold or silver cable is really selling 'quality' impossible to measure. And consider sensitive electronic equipment measures distortion human ears cannot detect. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The most distorting element of a hifi is not the amp, not the recording
or the tansfer to digital. Its the speakers. What can be done about this. every thing else ( ultra linear amps, low resistance speaker cables etc) is like painting go faster stipes on a car... |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/2/04 1:37 PM, in article 8UiJb.195924$8y1.640799@attbi_s52, "Robin"
wrote: The most distorting element of a hifi is not the amp, not the recording or the tansfer to digital. Its the speakers. I have to disagree. I think in order of impact, you will have: 1. The source material (the music recordings) 2. The room acoustics 3. The speakers 4. The amp 5. The preamp 6. The source player And provided that there is nothing wrong or mismatched with the previous things, that should be the "in general" rough order. This also means that if you spend a lot of money on speakers, but have highly clipped/compressed recordings - it is wasted money. And if your room has a lot of bad resonances that aren't tamed, speaker money is watsed money. And so on. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bromo wrote in message news:jsKJb.214635$8y1.771783@attbi_s52...
On 1/2/04 1:37 PM, in article 8UiJb.195924$8y1.640799@attbi_s52, "Robin" wrote: The most distorting element of a hifi is not the amp, not the recording or the tansfer to digital. Its the speakers. I have to disagree. I think in order of impact, you will have: 1. The source material (the music recordings) 2. The room acoustics 3. The speakers 4. The amp 5. The preamp 6. The source player And provided that there is nothing wrong or mismatched with the previous things, that should be the "in general" rough order. This also means that if you spend a lot of money on speakers, but have highly clipped/compressed recordings - it is wasted money. And if your room has a lot of bad resonances that aren't tamed, speaker money is watsed money. And so on. Surely the order of impact would be strictly on the basis of which components produce the most distortion to the signal, and that would mean that Speakers would be top of the list. The room may or may not interact with the speakers in the bad way - that's dependent on too many factors to list, and it can have both positive and negative consequences. If the source player is a CD, then it probably goes right to the bottom of the list with it's practically zero distortion, along with the amp / preamp electronics etc. Whichever has least distortion should go bottom. Ok, lets put cables at the bottom because they make no difference at all. If you're looking at vinyl playback, I'd put the record player system right up there with the speakers in top position - I reckon it's hard to generalise which does more damage to the sound - perhaps someone has figures for this. Again, the amps would most probably go down around the bottom again in a vinyl system, with the pre-amp doing a bit more damage this time. If you expand to look at the recording you've got to decide wether the goal of your hi-fi is to accurately reproduce the recording, or to reprodoce the "musical event". If you're reproducing the recording, then it's quality hardly matters in the precedence order of the rest of the hi-fi chain. If you're after the musical event, then the most damage will come with the microphone, followed by the recording / mixing equipment etc, but I don't think you can include this on a level scale with the reproducing part of the chain - the amps and speakers at home. From recent experience at a music recording session, there is just so much difference between the live event and even the immediate studio playback, that it would seem that almost anything you do after that is just going to minimise the damage to that initial recording, but almost nothing you do will "put back" that which was lost between the singer's voice and the microphone. Graeme |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ok...I'll bite.
IMO, the #1 component is defiantly the room. I've got great speakers...and they sound like crap because of my room. I will quote from something else I read recently; "a great room can make a marginal system sound magical, and a bad room can make a great system sound horrendous". Not verbatim, but you get the idea..and it is true as I've lived both ends of this spectrum in the past year. in my last house, I ran a system I put together for $1200. It was the cats ass. Completely pleasing and then some. In my current house, I built a system costing 5x this...and it is nothing but frustration. Again, the room is putting all of my upgraded components and speakers to waste. My other rule of thumb is "crap in, crap out"...so source and material are high on that list. I'd go: 1. room 2. speakers 3. source/material 4. amp and I'd leave it there as a premap is just not even necessary in a purely digital domain...which is where I live. If you are listening to LPs and tapes, then i'm sure it has a place on the list. |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you read the original message carefully, you will see that the
questioner mentioned "a hifi", which is commonly understood as a system for reproducing recorded music. As such, a hifi does not include the sound carrier, although the latter may be heavily distorted. The questioner also asked for elements that introduce distortion. Until now, I was convinced that the listening room introduces timbral colorations, not distortion, but I may be wrong :-) For the rest, I would suggest that, unless we are talking of (some) tube amps or ss amps driven to overload, that the amplification elements produce distortion well below the threshold of audibility. For the source components I would agree in that they produce audible amounts of distortion as long as we are talking about vinyl record playback gear. So we appear to be left with the speakers as main producer of distortion and hence the weakest link. Close, but no banana. The weakest link in the chain is the listener : "The listener is the heart of the high-fidelity system, and is noted for having high distortion, poor frequency response, marginal stability, and arbitrarily variable performance characteristics. Listener instability is the most common form of defect in a high-fidelity system, which is why manufacturers recommend that the ears be checked periodically by a qualified service agency to ensure that they meet their specifications. Defective ears may be cleaned with anti static spray or a mild washday detergent containing a wetting agent, or may be replaced by a microphone and an oscilloscope or, in cases where there is little interest in music, by a camera and a well-equipped dark-room." J.Gordon Holt in Audio Magazine 1959 Klaus Bromo wrote in message news:jsKJb.214635$8y1.771783@attbi_s52... On 1/2/04 1:37 PM, in article 8UiJb.195924$8y1.640799@attbi_s52, "Robin" wrote: The most distorting element of a hifi is not the amp, not the recording or the tansfer to digital. Its the speakers. I have to disagree. I think in order of impact, you will have: 1. The source material (the music recordings) 2. The room acoustics 3. The speakers 4. The amp 5. The preamp 6. The source player And provided that there is nothing wrong or mismatched with the previous things, that should be the "in general" rough order. This also means that if you spend a lot of money on speakers, but have highly clipped/compressed recordings - it is wasted money. And if your room has a lot of bad resonances that aren't tamed, speaker money is watsed money. And so on. |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I agree that the listener could be the "weakest link", even I don't think
listener belong to a "HiFi system"... ![]() I don't know, when you put up a system for yourself, should you have all components balanced? (I don't mean the balance and single end) Say you have a $5,000.00 system, you would not want to spend $2,000 on CD- Player, $1,500 on Preamp, $2,000 on Amp, somewhat one or two hundred dollars on cables, and spend $300 on speakers? Then, sure the speakers are the weakest link! My point is, keep all components at the same level, say 30% of your budget on speakers, you may not get the best speakers, but hey, what can you expect? It is just a matter of whether you like the sound of American speakers (Soliloquy), European speakers (Cabasse), or Asian speakers (Yamaha)? Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference. Yesterday, I listened between two pairs of nice pure copper and silver/copper hybrid interconnect cables. Man! The difference is so significant, my six years old daugther can pass the blind test. ![]() Lawrence Leung |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:13:54 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote: My point is, keep all components at the same level, say 30% of your budget on speakers, you may not get the best speakers, but hey, what can you expect? It is just a matter of whether you like the sound of American speakers (Soliloquy), European speakers (Cabasse), or Asian speakers (Yamaha)? Keeping all the components at the same quality level nowadays means spending *at least* 50 % of the budget on speakers - and nothing at all on cables! Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference. Yesterday, I listened between two pairs of nice pure copper and silver/copper hybrid interconnect cables. Man! The difference is so significant, my six years old daugther can pass the blind test. ![]() Care to try? We hear lots of such comments, but not one single person has actually been able to do it under blind conditions. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Lawrence Leung" wrote in message
news:m%uKb.140820$VB2.540126@attbi_s51... I agree that the listener could be the "weakest link", even I don't think listener belong to a "HiFi system"... ![]() I don't know, when you put up a system for yourself, should you have all components balanced? (I don't mean the balance and single end) Say you have a $5,000.00 system, you would not want to spend $2,000 on CD- Player, $1,500 on Preamp, $2,000 on Amp, somewhat one or two hundred dollars on cables, and spend $300 on speakers? Then, sure the speakers are the weakest link! My point is, keep all components at the same level, say 30% of your budget on speakers, you may not get the best speakers, but hey, what can you expect? It is just a matter of whether you like the sound of American speakers (Soliloquy), European speakers (Cabasse), or Asian speakers (Yamaha)? In general, I'd suggest that more than 30% of the total be spent on speakers if the goal is to build a system that will be static for years to come. OTOH, if the goal is to get the best source, pre-amp and amplifier you'll ever need, so that any and all future expenditures are on speakers, then I'd agree with you. I constructed my own system in exactly this way. My Plinius 8200 (175 wpc, plenty of current and probably the most amp I'll ever need) lists for $2,000, the Modulus 3A at $2,495 and the Sony NS900V at $550. The speakers are Paradigm Studio 100s and represent, IMHO, the best value speaker available, performing on a par with many 4 and 5 thousand dollar speakers. The point is that I believe that I've built my system in such a way as to future proof the electronics so the only link I'm likely to change will be my speakers. Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference. I don't allow more than a couple of bucks for cables. |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in : Keeping all the components at the same quality level nowadays means spending *at least* 50 % of the budget on speakers - and nothing at all on cables! Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference. Yesterday, I listened between two pairs of nice pure copper and silver/copper hybrid interconnect cables. Man! The difference is so significant, my six years old daugther can pass the blind test. ![]() Care to try? We hear lots of such comments, but not one single person has actually been able to do it under blind conditions. Care to tell me the procedure of your blind test? As far as I know, that included a lot of dizzy, head spinning steps so that by the time you can actually listen to the music, you would not be able to tell the difference, and this is the purpose of the test, a very very bias test. Perhpas you shoudl describe the test *you* are thinking of here, because it certainly doesn't resemble an ABX. Tell me, when you listen to music, any music, what is your procedure? Mine is, turn on everything, put the CD inside the CD-Player and sit back. Music from speakers, and enjoy. Yes, that works well for listening to music. As described, it's not at all adequate for verifying audible difference between cables, though. So, if we want to test the cable, shouldn't we use the same steps? Only if you include provisions for perceptual bias. I blind-folded you, same song/music, same equipments, same volume level, play for a few minutes. Change cable, play same segment of song/music, see if you can tell the difference. The blind test that I heard was not a listening test, it was a memory test! So is *any* comparison of the 'sound' of two cables, done sighted or otherwise. Hey, as I said, my six years old daugther can tell the difference the first time, if you can't, nothing anyone can do. ![]() Actually, young children have better high-requency hearing than adults, so you shoudl have written , 'even *I* could hear it*. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:06:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in : Keeping all the components at the same quality level nowadays means spending *at least* 50 % of the budget on speakers - and nothing at all on cables! Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference. Yesterday, I listened between two pairs of nice pure copper and silver/copper hybrid interconnect cables. Man! The difference is so significant, my six years old daugther can pass the blind test. ![]() Care to try? We hear lots of such comments, but not one single person has actually been able to do it under blind conditions. Care to tell me the procedure of your blind test? As far as I know, that included a lot of dizzy, head spinning steps so that by the time you can actually listen to the music, you would not be able to tell the difference, and this is the purpose of the test, a very very bias test. The procedure is standard, and has been for several years: For 95% confidence level, you need to score at least 16 correct out of 20 attempts. Hardly 'dizzy, head spinning steps'. Tell me, when you listen to music, any music, what is your procedure? Mine is, turn on everything, put the CD inside the CD-Player and sit back. Music from speakers, and enjoy. Fine, that's what we all do. So, if we want to test the cable, shouldn't we use the same steps? I blind-folded you, same song/music, same equipments, same volume level, play for a few minutes. Change cable, play same segment of song/music, see if you can tell the difference. The blind test that I heard was not a listening test, it was a memory test! No, it can be switched as fast as you like, no memory required, and you always have A or B available as a known reference. What's the problem, Lawrence? Hey, as I said, my six years old daugther can tell the difference the first time, if you can't, nothing anyone can do. ![]() My bet is that she can't, unless she *knows* which cable is connected. And neither can you. The difference is that I am putting cold hard cash behind my opinion. The interesting thing is that in 4 years or so, no one has even *tried* to collect. Ever wonder why? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence, If a six year old can hear a difference between two cables,
then one of the cables must be defective. -MIKE |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven Sullivan wrote in
: Lawrence Leung wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in : Hey, as I said, my six years old daugther can tell the difference the first time, if you can't, nothing anyone can do. ![]() Actually, young children have better high-requency hearing than adults, so you shoudl have written , 'even *I* could hear it*. OK, even *I* could hear it! ![]() As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper, we not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure, the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range. Theortically, it is supposed to be that way, and now, my daugther and I confirmed it with a blind test. Nothing fancy, just pop into the CD, use one interconnect, after about 3 minutes, then stop the music, change another interconnect, and as simple as this, totally difference sound! You don't believe it, try it yourself! Still can't tell the difference? Consult your doctor to have a hearing test... just kidding... ![]() Lawrence Leung |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in : Lawrence Leung wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in : Hey, as I said, my six years old daugther can tell the difference the first time, if you can't, nothing anyone can do. ![]() Actually, young children have better high-requency hearing than adults, so you shoudl have written , 'even *I* could hear it*. OK, even *I* could hear it! ![]() As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper, we not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure, the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range. Theortically, it is supposed to be that way, Why is it supposed to be that way? Any theory you want to share with us? |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Lawrence Leung wrote: As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper, we not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure, the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range. Sure enough, yopu'll hear differences when you expect to. Theortically, it is supposed to be that way, and now, my daugther and I confirmed it with a blind test. Nothing fancy, just pop into the CD, use one interconnect, after about 3 minutes, then stop the music, change another interconnect, and as simple as this, totally difference sound! Marketing copy is not theory. Theoretically, they should sound the same. You don't believe it, try it yourself! Still can't tell the difference? Consult your doctor to have a hearing test... just kidding... ![]() Try it again under bias-controlled conditions. Don't hear the difference any more? Consult a perceptual psychologist. You'll learn why. No kidding. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:15:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote: As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper, we not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure, the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range. And yet, if you don't *know* which one is connected, you'll find that they both sound the same................ Theortically, it is supposed to be that way, Absolute nonsense! No such theory exists. and now, my daugther and I confirmed it with a blind test. Nothing fancy, just pop into the CD, use one interconnect, after about 3 minutes, then stop the music, change another interconnect, and as simple as this, totally difference sound! Please explain how this is a blind test. You don't believe it, try it yourself! I have done, lots of times. Still can't tell the difference? Consult your doctor to have a hearing test... just kidding... ![]() OK, so Tom Nousaine, Arny Kreiger, I and about a dozen experienced audiophile friends of mine need hearing tests, and not one single person has evan *attempted* to collect the $4,000 pool which awaits anyone who can tell cables apart under blind conditions. Doesn't this strike you as strange? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:15:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung wrote: As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper, we not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure, the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range. And yet, if you don't *know* which one is connected, you'll find that they both sound the same................ Theortically, it is supposed to be that way, Absolute nonsense! No such theory exists. But that doesn't keep you from using silver-coated copper cables in your own system, does it Stewart? From Stewart's system web site: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/stewart_p/stewart_p.htm "Interconnects are home-brewed unshielded twisted pair made from 0.6mm solid-core Teflon-coated silver-clad OFHC copper (just standard MIL-spec hookup wire), while connectors are either Neutrik XLR or Deltron Teflon/alloy RCA jacks. The treble ribbons on the speakers are wired with the same twisted-pair, the resistance of this skinny wire is used to bypass an internal switch and resistor which are normally used to set the treble level. The bass panels are wired with Naim NACA5, no reason other than the dealer offered it free with my previous Magnepan MG1C speakers." So here's the primary disparager of anything other than Home Depot wire on RAHE building his own interconnects of silver-clad copper, and using expensive NAIM cables for the bass panels of his speakers. Tell me Stewart, why don't you sell those expensive cables and interconnects, and simply replace them with Home Depot 12 gauge, and Rat Shack interconnects. You'd have money in your pocket, perhaps enough to buy a "universal" hi-rez player. In that case, you would then be "living" your oft-professed standards, and you'd have a better base on which to disparage high-rez. Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your protestations seriously. |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:06:38 GMT, "=?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn"
wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) writes: OK, so Tom Nousaine, Arny Kreiger, I and about a dozen experienced audiophile friends of mine need hearing tests, and not one single person has evan *attempted* to collect the $4,000 pool which awaits anyone who can tell cables apart under blind conditions. Just out of interest, how low quality does cable have to be before you can detect it? I'd expect that if you connect the speakers with something crazy like thin coax it would be noticable, but it would be an interesting datapoint to try DBTs with a few things to see what can be heard. Aside from silliness like 'bell wire' with several ohms resistance, I have *never* heard any difference under blind conditions, even with unobtainium conductors of Golden Section dimensions insulated with rarest Chinese silk hand-rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins..... I wouldn't expect the results to be different from DBTs with various series resistors, inductors and parallel capacitors, (what values of those are detectable?) but it still might be worth doing from a didactic point of view. With levels matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, experience suggests that 'wire is wire'. If you can prove different, there's a $4k pot waiting to be collected. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:30:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:15:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung wrote: As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper, we not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure, the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range. And yet, if you don't *know* which one is connected, you'll find that they both sound the same................ Theortically, it is supposed to be that way, Absolute nonsense! No such theory exists. But that doesn't keep you from using silver-coated copper cables in your own system, does it Stewart? Sure, it's just standard MIL-spec hookup wire, of which I have a couple of 100 foot reels, Why would I pay money for anything else? Clearly, you fail to understand the *joke* of describing that cable in 'audiophile' terms, when it's just standard hookup wire. From Stewart's system web site: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/stewart_p/stewart_p.htm "Interconnects are home-brewed unshielded twisted pair made from 0.6mm solid-core Teflon-coated silver-clad OFHC copper (just standard MIL-spec hookup wire), while connectors are either Neutrik XLR or Deltron Teflon/alloy RCA jacks. The treble ribbons on the speakers are wired with the same twisted-pair, the resistance of this skinny wire is used to bypass an internal switch and resistor which are normally used to set the treble level. The bass panels are wired with Naim NACA5, no reason other than the dealer offered it free with my previous Magnepan MG1C speakers." So here's the primary disparager of anything other than Home Depot wire on RAHE building his own interconnects of silver-clad copper, and using expensive NAIM cables for the bass panels of his speakers. How desperate are you, Harry? The Naim was free of charge, and so was the other wire, since it's just standard hookup wire that I used professionally. As noted ad nauseam in previous posts, it's used for basic EE reasons, nothing to do with the bull**** that gets spewed about MIT, Siltech, Transparent, Tara Labs, Cardas etc etc. Tell me Stewart, why don't you sell those expensive cables and interconnects, and simply replace them with Home Depot 12 gauge, and Rat Shack interconnects. You'd have money in your pocket, perhaps enough to buy a "universal" hi-rez player. That's pretty frickin' stoopid, considering that I already *have* the cables I use, now isn't it? I can't sell homebrew cables. BTW, I *do* use 'freeby' interconnects and speaker cable in the kitchen and PC systems, which don't have the peculiar hardwired cabling associated with the TV and main music systems. In that case, you would then be "living" your oft-professed standards, and you'd have a better base on which to disparage high-rez. What the heck has any of this to do with 'high-rez'? Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your protestations seriously. What you *really* mean is that you're desperately reaching, because you have no rational rebuttal to my 'high-rez' arguments............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#31
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Aside from silliness like 'bell wire' with several ohms resistance, I
have *never* heard any difference under blind conditions, even with unobtainium conductors of Golden Section dimensions insulated with rarest Chinese silk hand-rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins..... I tried to get some cables made from unobtainium but every dealer says they can't get them. |
#32
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:06:38 GMT, "=?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn" wrote: Just out of interest, how low quality does cable have to be before you can detect it? I'd expect that if you connect the speakers with something crazy like thin coax it would be noticable, but it would be an interesting datapoint to try DBTs with a few things to see what can be heard. Aside from silliness like 'bell wire' with several ohms resistance, I have *never* heard any difference under blind conditions, even with unobtainium conductors of Golden Section dimensions insulated with rarest Chinese silk hand-rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins..... Um, Stewart, I think you need to read my post without engaging your seek-and-destroy anti-DBT-ites mechanisms! I don't for a minute believe that there is an audible difference between any of the commericially available cables (with the possible exception of snake oil with added detrimental bogosity). I wouldn't expect the results to be different from DBTs with various series resistors, ... I should probably have included thermistors and other nonlinear devices here ... inductors and parallel capacitors, (what values of those are detectable?) but it still might be worth doing from a didactic point of view. With levels matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, experience suggests that 'wire is wire'. Yes, but the question was about what isn't wire. Your first paragraph implies that bell wire can be heard, which goes some short way towards answering my question, but where is the limit of detectability for that sort of sillyiness? How little resistance -- in particular current dependent resistance -- can be detected? How much inductance/capacitance? If you can prove different, there's a $4k pot waiting to be collected. Attractive though $4k may be, I'm not given to circle-squaring exercises. -- Jón Fairbairn |
#33
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 8 Jan 2004 01:46:44 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote: Aside from silliness like 'bell wire' with several ohms resistance, I have *never* heard any difference under blind conditions, even with unobtainium conductors of Golden Section dimensions insulated with rarest Chinese silk hand-rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins..... Quoting Floyd Toole: "Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" , in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do." -=Bill Eckle=- Vanity Web pages at: http://www.wmeckle.com |
#34
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#35
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:30:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:15:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung wrote: As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper, we not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure, the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range. And yet, if you don't *know* which one is connected, you'll find that they both sound the same................ Theortically, it is supposed to be that way, Absolute nonsense! No such theory exists. But that doesn't keep you from using silver-coated copper cables in your own system, does it Stewart? Sure, it's just standard MIL-spec hookup wire, of which I have a couple of 100 foot reels, Why would I pay money for anything else? Clearly, you fail to understand the *joke* of describing that cable in 'audiophile' terms, when it's just standard hookup wire. Looks like a straight-forward exposition of what you have in your description on the web site, which I've quoted in full below. I'm no dummy when it comes to humor; I still do not see any humor in your description. From Stewart's system web site: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/stewart_p/stewart_p.htm "Interconnects are home-brewed unshielded twisted pair made from 0.6mm solid-core Teflon-coated silver-clad OFHC copper (just standard MIL-spec hookup wire), while connectors are either Neutrik XLR or Deltron Teflon/alloy RCA jacks. The treble ribbons on the speakers are wired with the same twisted-pair, the resistance of this skinny wire is used to bypass an internal switch and resistor which are normally used to set the treble level. The bass panels are wired with Naim NACA5, no reason other than the dealer offered it free with my previous Magnepan MG1C speakers." So here's the primary disparager of anything other than Home Depot wire on RAHE building his own interconnects of silver-clad copper, and using expensive NAIM cables for the bass panels of his speakers. How desperate are you, Harry? The Naim was free of charge, and so was the other wire, since it's just standard hookup wire that I used professionally. As noted ad nauseam in previous posts, it's used for basic EE reasons, nothing to do with the bull**** that gets spewed about MIT, Siltech, Transparent, Tara Labs, Cardas etc etc. Tell me Stewart, why don't you sell those expensive cables and interconnects, and simply replace them with Home Depot 12 gauge, and Rat Shack interconnects. You'd have money in your pocket, perhaps enough to buy a "universal" hi-rez player. That's pretty frickin' stoopid, considering that I already *have* the cables I use, now isn't it? I can't sell homebrew cables. BTW, I *do* use 'freeby' interconnects and speaker cable in the kitchen and PC systems, which don't have the peculiar hardwired cabling associated with the TV and main music systems. Not stupid at all. The Naims have high value on the resale market...you could sell them and finance all the Home Depot and Rat Shack wire you would need, with plenty left over. And since you seem to feel that audiophiles are sheep who will pay anything for the right description of wire, I'm sure you could figure out how to sell your home brew cables to some true believer. Right? So you sell them, you have money left over for your hi-rez player, and your home depot/rat shack cable adds credibility to your verbal excursions here on RAHE. Moreover, you wouldn't then have to keep defending your audiophile cables "ad nauseam" now, would you? In that case, you would then be "living" your oft-professed standards, and you'd have a better base on which to disparage high-rez. What the heck has any of this to do with 'high-rez'? The fact that you don't yet have such a machine to gain much experience, thereby undercutting badly your attempts to diss the formats here on RAHE. Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your protestations seriously. What you *really* mean is that you're desperately reaching, because you have no rational rebuttal to my 'high-rez' arguments............. No, Stewart, I'm a marketing man. I'm just trying to add to your creditability! ;-) |
#36
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
Have you published any science paper? Have you published any book? In regarding to audiophile topic(s)? There are millions of real audiophiles in the world are agreeing on cable theory, only you and your dozen experienced audiophile refuse to accept. What exactly is "cable theory" as applied to audio? How do you come up with "millions"? Have a nice day! Lawrence Leung |
#37
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
chung wrote in :
Lawrence Leung wrote: Have you published any science paper? Have you published any book? In regarding to audiophile topic(s)? There are millions of real audiophiles in the world are agreeing on cable theory, only you and your dozen experienced audiophile refuse to accept. What exactly is "cable theory" as applied to audio? How do you come up with "millions"? Cable theory? Go to your local book store and start looking for it, they have plenty; Or search the Net, plenty of independent individual gave out objective point of view on cables. Millions? Minus you, we have millions. ![]() Lawrence Leung |
#38
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
chung wrote in : Lawrence Leung wrote: Have you published any science paper? Have you published any book? In regarding to audiophile topic(s)? There are millions of real audiophiles in the world are agreeing on cable theory, only you and your dozen experienced audiophile refuse to accept. What exactly is "cable theory" as applied to audio? How do you come up with "millions"? Cable theory? Go to your local book store and start looking for it, they have plenty; I didn't find any last time I checked the EE sections at the Stanford, Cal and Harvard bookstores. Can you give me some titles? Or search the Net, plenty of independent individual gave out objective point of view on cables. I have also seen plenty of independent individuals gave out objective views on incarnation, creationism, big-foot, UFO's, etc. Some even claim that Elvis still walks among us. BTW, do you think those individuals have the *same* theory on cables? What about Stewart's theory, which is shared by a lot of people, that there is absolutely no need to pay more than Radio Shack cables? Millions? Minus you, we have millions. ![]() Still waiting to hear from you how you arrived at "millions". I guess we won't hold our collective breath... Lawrence Leung |
#39
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9 Jan 2004 01:28:19 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Stewart wrote: What the heck has any of this to do with 'high-rez'? The fact that you don't yet have such a machine to gain much experience, thereby undercutting badly your attempts to diss the formats here on RAHE. Not at all, since I have listened to several players and several formats, and I'm very familiar with the technology behind the various formats. OTOH, I am very much behind DVD-A simply because of its multi-channel capability. Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your protestations seriously. What you *really* mean is that you're desperately reaching, because you have no rational rebuttal to my 'high-rez' arguments............. No, Stewart, I'm a marketing man. Aaaaaah, all is explained! I'm just trying to add to your creditability! ;-) Credibility enhanced by association with a marketing man - fascinating concept........................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#40
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Gallons of Snake Oil | Audio Opinions | |||
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results. | High End Audio | |||
cabling explained | Car Audio | |||
Digital Audio Cable Question(s) | High End Audio | |||
science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio |