| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message ...
"B&D" wrote in message ... On 11/12/04 2:04 PM, in article , "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Any explanations will be appreciated. - Maybe I'm just confused about the whole issue. People (1) get to play with these toys free of charge, (2) pay their bills (wholly or in part) by their writings, and (3) attend conventions and meetings to party around at reader's expense. Not bad at all if you can swing it and manage a straight face. Hey - they have the subscribers to do it. I wouldn't blast them as they offer value to their subscribers otherwise there wouldn't be any subscribers. Hey - the question *is* whether or not speaker cable is better than lamp cord. IF it is not better, they are robbing their subscribers BLIND, not by a $14.97/year subscription, but by leading gullible readers to financially support dealers and cable manufacturers. I believe the original poster (sincerely ??) inquired about the basis for the entire hullabaloo if all cable of similar gauge sounded the same, and if so, what is the basis for the "whole issue"? Unfortunately the basis for the issue, like far too many others, is $$$. Their *value* to subscribers might be entertainment, but that entertainment subsides when you come to the realization that you are contributing to their life style and wasting valuable serious listening hours reading fantasies. And it's most unfortunate should anyone go spend their hard earned dollars buying wire or equipment based upon writers and editors life styles. This assumes that Stereophile readers believe cables make a difference because Stereophile tells them so. But it's just as likely that they read Stereophile *because they already believe* that cables make a difference. In which case, the magazine is giving its readers exactly what they want. bob |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Marcus wrote:
And it's most unfortunate should anyone go spend their hard earned dollars buying wire or equipment based upon writers and editors life styles. This assumes that Stereophile readers believe cables make a difference because Stereophile tells them so. But it's just as likely that they read Stereophile *because they already believe* that cables make a difference. In which case, the magazine is giving its readers exactly what they want. I think it is very unlikely that the average Joe Reader will invest into these expensive cables. It is more like a car mag testing some exotic Italian sports car, just for entertainment of the readers. Nobody will buy one, even if the tester is enthusiatic about it. And it is not only cables and other snake oil accessories, but all articles. Every issue has to have a "breakthru" never heard before object to satisfy the readers curiosity. Something new and better, unheard of before, so you also buy the next issue, even if everything is just a repetition. There is not much happening out there, but you have to deliver important news. This "sensational" makeup is called Journalism. The mag wants to entertain and the reader is happy. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
I read Stereophile just for entertainment and laughs. I find it hard to
believe that any sensible person would accept the advertisers claims without at least a home trial. This is especially true when you take into account the things that really make a difference - room acoustics, speaker placement, atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, pressure), and state of mind. ---MIKE--- |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
"B&D" wrote in message
... On 11/13/04 1:06 PM, in article , "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: People (1) get to play with these toys free of charge, (2) pay their bills (wholly or in part) by their writings, and (3) attend conventions and meetings to party around at reader's expense. Not bad at all if you can swing it and manage a straight face. Hey - they have the subscribers to do it. I wouldn't blast them as they offer value to their subscribers otherwise there wouldn't be any subscribers. Hey - the question *is* whether or not speaker cable is better than lamp cord. IF it is not better, they are robbing their subscribers BLIND, not by a $14.97/year subscription, but by leading gullible readers to financially support dealers and cable manufacturers. Without getting into a large philosophical argument, since 'phile and TAS are both successful magazines - with large-ish readership. There is no shame in #1, #2, #3 above, and if you do not agree with their reviews, and your experience shows that you feel they are wrong, it does not diminish their validity as a magazine that specializes in audio entertainment. Only failure as a magazine would do that. Success equals ? And if they get *all* of their cable reviews wrong, it is not a cable review magazine, either. Last time I checked they had music reviews, source component reviews, speaker reviews, preamp, integrated amps, power amp reviews, and so on. Since I purchase more in music that I do components, music reviews mean as much to me as the other stuff (since recorded music is such a minefield as far as recording quality) Like yourself I thought I could use their reviews, until a purchased many recordings to die 4, which were stinkers. Have you found their reviews 100% on the mark? I became unable to trust the reviews and reading fantasy is not my cup of tea (or coffee). And, I am assuming you are NOT a subscriber, nor do you purchase the magazine on the newsstand - so why the heck should they take heed? You aren't their constituency, and they aren't trying to satisfy non subscribers. Especially ones that are conflicted about the validity of "high end" itself. I like a variety of magazines, even ones that disagree with my experiences, why should there be such condemnation? ARMOR-ALL. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"It is also that some subscribers take the reviews (as all reviews) with
the grains of salt they deserve, and buy the magazine not for the occasional cable review, but the music reviews, the writing and the reviews of the other components. The (I believe incorrect) assumption is that somehow the readership endorse and believe everything they read - I seriously doubt that. I certainly don't believe everything I read, so why should the readers of Stereophile or TAS?" What the mag, and others, sell is a culture of illusion. We can add all but speakers to the same box as wire,,ie. they are now in the commodity category where differences are no longer advances in sound reproduction but merely marketing flourish. Prifits in wire are large and allow the purchase of much ad space; which is the genesis of the illusion as publishing/marketing merge for mutual benefit. What readers do believe is the "I can hear it, I really really can, don't you hear it too, don't you believe me" gospil which now sells these commidities. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
Like yourself I thought I could use their reviews, until a purchased many recordings to die 4, which were stinkers. Have you found their reviews 100% on the mark? ... There are some reviewers' opinions that I've come to trust, and others I've learned to ignore. -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Farrell22 wrote:
I haven't had utter faith in audio reviewers ever since Sam Tellig raved about one of the original Adcom power amps in the late '80s (fortunately one of the first issues I read). "Tubelike," I believe he called it. "Earbleedingly shrill" is how I experienced a more powerful version of the amp. Funny... I had an Adcom 535 (still have it, now in my office system) and it sounded pretty darned good for the price. When I tried the higher power models in the Adcom line at that time, they didn't sound quite as good. Maybe Sam was right, but just about the low-powered model? -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
The (I believe incorrect) assumption is that somehow the readership endorse and believe everything they read - I seriously doubt that. I certainly don't believe everything I read, so why should the readers of Stereophile or TAS? Similarly, the Editor of Stereophile doesn't endorse everything his writers write. It seems to me as if he's trying to leave enough room in the magazine for opposing (perhaps even fringe) perspectives to be aired. Makes it more entertaining, no? It almost certainly makes the magazine appeal to a wider readership. There's no other publication that has anything approaching John Atkinson's reviews and their tech tests. Those alone make the magazine a wonderful read and a subscription price bargain. -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 11/13/04 8:57 PM, in article , "Bob Marcus" wrote: This assumes that Stereophile readers believe cables make a difference because Stereophile tells them so. But it's just as likely that they read Stereophile *because they already believe* that cables make a difference. In which case, the magazine is giving its readers exactly what they want. It is also that some subscribers take the reviews (as all reviews) with the grains of salt they deserve, and buy the magazine not for the occasional cable review, but the music reviews, the writing and the reviews of the other components. The (I believe incorrect) assumption is that somehow the readership endorse and believe everything they read - I seriously doubt that. I certainly don't believe everything I read, so why should the readers of Stereophile or TAS? Sure, but when they endorse ideas that have never been verified such as cabling making improvements in sound quality how can we believe anything else they say? It's not a matter of just being mistaken. Wire sound can be verified with simple bias-controlled tests. Indeed I've tried hard to do that myself. So when a reviewer declares that "The Monsters were actually e bit better at the frequency extremes than the Au24s and had slightly greater extension.....more impact at the bottom...due to their improved precision and better pitch definition....more vivid and electric...stellar in their speed, clarity, air and extension at the top end...Edge, definition and detail were superb....sonic picture a little sharper and more obvious..." All this detail when no single person has ever demonstrated an ability to reliably identify electrically competent wires when bias controls are implemented. I'm wondering how you would distinguish this fanciful depiction from any other observation in the magazine? If you're experienced enough to be able to sort the wheat from this sort of sludge of what good is the magazine for anything other than poetry. I think it's sad the publication taints the useful information depicted in it by, what seems to be pruposeful, Urban Legend promotion as opposed to a genuine search for sound quality improvement. But I agree it's pretty good poetry and hyperbole. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11/14/04 10:51 PM, in article , "Bob Marcus"
wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ... While I do think it's true that these books reinforce mythology I also wonder why fair, honest reporting of the truth about sound quality is not of equal importance. Because magazines have to interest readers--but they have to serve advertisers. Also would be a pretty boring magazine. The best stuff really doesn't change much year to year. It is pretty clear, if you want to educate yourself about sound, you have to go to a lot of liver performances - unamplified where you can - and listen to a lot of recordings through a variety of setups over a period of time. No magazine, regardless of the editorial policy, honest or otherwise, is going to make up for that basic fact. Do you personally know the difference between a Mark Levinson CD player's sound vs. a NAD C541i? How about the resolving power of a CD played in a Toshiba DVD player vs. an Ayre CX-7. What about a badly mastered Led Zeppelin CD on a Sony player, and an Arcam? |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote in message ...
On 11/13/04 8:57 PM, in article , "Bob Marcus" wrote: This assumes that Stereophile readers believe cables make a difference because Stereophile tells them so. But it's just as likely that they read Stereophile *because they already believe* that cables make a difference. In which case, the magazine is giving its readers exactly what they want. It is also that some subscribers take the reviews (as all reviews) with the grains of salt they deserve, and buy the magazine not for the occasional cable review, but the music reviews, the writing and the reviews of the other components. The (I believe incorrect) assumption is that somehow the readership endorse and believe everything they read - I seriously doubt that. I certainly don't believe everything I read, so why should the readers of Stereophile or TAS? Well, you are a sensible, discriminating person. I can assure you that not all readers of these magazines fit that description. Read some of the other audio discussion sites, and you will run across numerous people who give every indication of treating every word they read about audio as god-given wisdom. And it's not just magazines--they will cite manufacturers' web sites as if they were peer-reviewed academic journals. Speaking of magazines, anybody heard from Aczel recently? bob |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
1. The name of the publication is Stereophile, not Stereophile Review. 2. Each review is the opinion of the writer of the review, not of the editor. John Atkinson sets editorial policy but he does not write all the reviews. wrote: You have defended Stereophile in previous discussions, and I don't question your intellectual honesty in doing so. But think for a moment. - Are you suggesting that John Atkinson has no responsibility for the overall content of equipment reviews published in Stereophile, no matter how misleading, since they represent only the opinions of the respective writers? How absurd! In view of trends in the audio industry in recent years as compared with other consumer goods and hobbies, one would think that Stereophile would consider whether in fact it might be part of the problem. In particular, as a practical matter, I think that they could assume a greater responsibility for educating their readers concerning the wild assertions promulgated by some manufacturers and some audio enthusiasts, and for guiding them in making the endless choices entailed in putting together a good system at a rational price. Instead, Stereophile seems only too willing to publish reviews containing even more jargon and "black magic gobbley gook." - Reviews of cables have included statements such as: "Break-in of this cable was simply hilarious...!" (It took several weeks before the reviewer thought he could notice it.) Or, "This cable has solid bass response, good high ends, and good pace." - - (Can anyone tell me how a speaker cable affects the "pace" at which electrical signals corresponding to recorded music are fed to the speakers, in view of the fact that current flows through a conductor at speeds approaching the speed of light?) Stereophile could be far more forthcoming and forthright in providing clear guidance to their readers with respect to choosing among the multitudes of components, to the end of achieving "audio value," or maximizing audible results per dollar spent. Clearly, much of their content concerns the equipment rather than the music, so it's obviously of interest to their readers. It's obvious that complexities are entailed, that tastes differ, and that, particularly with respect to speakers, one should listen to the component before making a major purchase. Realistically, however, it is quite difficult to compare several components of interest at the same dealer or showroom. And it would no doubt be even more difficult to find a dealer willing to let one compare the "response" of $1,000 cables to that of 12-gage Home Depot speaker cable or the like. (Anyone ever tried it at a dealer?) For these and other reasons, in my opinion, Stereophile should assume a greater responsibility to their readers for providing clear guidance in sorting out such claims. Their relationship to their readers is, IMO, a semi fiduciary one because of the peculiar nature of the hobby and the industry, in which so many often expensive options and choices are entailed. In fairness, I do subscribe to Stereophile and I do get helpful and interesting information from the publication.- It's an interesting read. Further, I respect their willingness to organize and publish the semi-annual recommended equipment ratings, despite the limitations entailed. (For example, how does one know whether a component reviewed six years ago and no longer included in the recommended component list would be considered by at least some of their reviewers as having better response at a given price range than those in the list? - If Stereophile was really interested in serving their reader's interests, shouldn't reviewers' opinions or suggestions along this line be included?) Also regarding the recommended equipment lists, it seems that at least 80% of the space devoted to descriptions of such recommended components relates to equipment that is so expensive that it simply would never be an option for most readers. While it may be interesting to learn about high-end technical breakthroughs (and while I have admittedly spent some fairly big bucks on my own system), again, if their goal is to serve the needs of their readers, why the disparity between the amount of copy devoted to equipment that in all likelihood will never be seriously considered or even listened to by most readers? Why not instead include greater emphasis on suggestions to the reader as to how to maximize results by spending less $$$ on components that don't provide significant audible difference and more $$$ for components that do make a significant audible difference, in the opinion of the reviewers, or from other test or survey results. Further, why not include combination of Stereophile reviews organized or summarized as in Consumers Reports. Or, why not include an occasional blind test of components of particular categories. - Why does the subject of blind testing have to be an "either-or" rather than a "both-and" issue? - Hey! As suggested above, the audio industry isn't doing so well, and maybe a little out-of-the-box thinking might help. The bottom line, as others have suggested, is that Stereophile's concerns seem, on balance, to be primarily directed toward keeping their advertisers happy rather than serving the needs of their readers. If they would include a disclaimer to that effect in each issue, I would have greater respect for Mr. Atkinson. Jim Cate |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote in message ...
On 11/14/04 10:51 PM, in article , "Bob Marcus" wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ... While I do think it's true that these books reinforce mythology I also wonder why fair, honest reporting of the truth about sound quality is not of equal importance. Because magazines have to interest readers--but they have to serve advertisers. Also would be a pretty boring magazine. The best stuff really doesn't change much year to year. This isn't peculiar to audio rags. Money management and women's books face the same problem. How many different ways are there to tell someone to buy an index fund or offer the same lame relationship advice? It is pretty clear, if you want to educate yourself about sound, you have to go to a lot of liver performances - unamplified where you can - and listen to a lot of recordings through a variety of setups over a period of time. No magazine, regardless of the editorial policy, honest or otherwise, is going to make up for that basic fact. If you really want to educate yourself about sound, start with a little technical background. Then you'll be able to see through a lot of the editorial nonsense, and you'll be in a much better position to learn from listening. Do you personally know the difference between a Mark Levinson CD player's sound vs. a NAD C541i? How about the resolving power of a CD played in a Toshiba DVD player vs. an Ayre CX-7. What about a badly mastered Led Zeppelin CD on a Sony player, and an Arcam? No, and I doubt anyone at Stereophile really does, either, because there's no evidence that they do valid comparisons. (And what does "the resolving power of a CD" mean??) bob |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
(Bob Marcus) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ... While I do think it's true that these books reinforce mythology I also wonder why fair, honest reporting of the truth about sound quality is not of equal importance. Because magazines have to interest readers--but they have to serve advertisers. bob Sure; but isn't sound quality maximization a stated goal too? Do any of these magazines say "we are just interested in maximizing the return to advertisers?" and even then honest companies also advertise. What about them? All magazines don't fear reporting the truth. Check out "Can You Trust Your Ears?" and "To Tweak or not to Tweak " both in Stereo Review who, at the time, had as much advertising as anybody in the industry. Sure, but whose advertising? I doubt cables and tweaks played as big a role in SR's advertising mix back then as they do in Stereophile's now. Magazines are a balancing act. You have to run the kind of copy that attracts the kind of readers that your advertisers want to reach. By the time SR ran those articles, nobody was picking up the magazine to read about the amazing differences between components. Hirsch had pretty much disabused them of that decades before. And advertisers weren't expecting it to play up cables and tweaks. Any cable companies that chose to advertise in SR did so knowing full well what the editorial slant was. Whereas they rely on Stereophile to keep the myth alive for their set of readers/customers, and would go absolutely ape-**** if it ever decided to run a DBT of cables. bob |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Farrell22 wrote:
Maybe Sam was right, but just about the low-powered model? Quite possibly. But the salesman said I *needed* the 545ii for my B&Ws, and that it would sound the same as the 535. So maybe Sam and Stereophile were right. Maybe the salesman was the one to not trust? -- Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912 |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
"It is pretty clear, if you want to educate yourself about sound, you have
to go to a lot of liver performances - unamplified where you can - and listen to a lot of recordings through a variety of setups over a period of time. No magazine, regardless of the editorial policy, honest or otherwise, is going to make up for that basic fact. Do you personally know the difference between a Mark Levinson CD player's sound vs. a NAD C541i? How about the resolving power of a CD played in a Toshiba DVD player vs. an Ayre CX-7. What about a badly mastered Led Zeppelin CD on a Sony player, and an Arcam?" Live can only be a benchmark for that exact performance, even then long term memory of the event will not serve. "Live" is rare in recordings, most music is created in the studio from bits and pieces which are highly modified on purpose. As to the sound of gear other then speakers, it has yet to be clearly demonstrated to exist except as an artifact of the perception process and is at best something to muddy recall of sound events. Even if such gear differences did exist, one could only use them as a benchmark if one also listened to the exact set of gear in the exact listening space as does the reviewer. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 11/14/04 10:51 PM, in article , "Bob Marcus" wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ... While I do think it's true that these books reinforce mythology I also wonder why fair, honest reporting of the truth about sound quality is not of equal importance. Because magazines have to interest readers--but they have to serve advertisers. Also would be a pretty boring magazine. The best stuff really doesn't change much year to year. It is pretty clear, if you want to educate yourself about sound, you have to go to a lot of liver performances - unamplified where you can - and listen to a lot of recordings through a variety of setups over a period of time. No magazine, regardless of the editorial policy, honest or otherwise, is going to make up for that basic fact. Do you personally know the difference between a Mark Levinson CD player's sound vs. a NAD C541i? How about the resolving power of a CD played in a Toshiba DVD player vs. an Ayre CX-7. What about a badly mastered Led Zeppelin CD on a Sony player, and an Arcam? I've owned and used dozens of cd playback devices; and I've been a subject in and also performed a few bias controlled listening tests of same; and so far I've not found any individual who has demonstrated an ability to reliably identify cd players with ONE excpetion. In that case one listener was able to distinguish a prototype Phillips 14-bit CD Player from a later Sony. So do I 'personally know the difference'? Nope and I don't believe anyone else does either. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Len Moskowitz) wrote in message
... Farrell22 wrote: I haven't had utter faith in audio reviewers ever since Sam Tellig raved about one of the original Adcom power amps in the late '80s As far as I am aware, the Stereophile reviewer who recommended the GFA-555 so highly was actually Antony H. Cordesman, in April 1985 see http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/678/, which has follow-up comments from J. Gordon Holt, Guy Lemcoe, and myself. Funny... I had an Adcom 535 (still have it, now in my office system) and it sounded pretty darned good for the price. When I tried the higher power models in the Adcom line at that time, they didn't sound quite as good. Maybe Sam was right, but just about the low-powered model? Again, as I remember it, the GFA-535 was a Sam Tellig favorite. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Bob Marcus) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message ... (Bob Marcus) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ... While I do think it's true that these books reinforce mythology I also wonder why fair, honest reporting of the truth about sound quality is not of equal importance. Because magazines have to interest readers--but they have to serve advertisers. bob Sure; but isn't sound quality maximization a stated goal too? Do any of these magazines say "we are just interested in maximizing the return to advertisers?" and even then honest companies also advertise. What about them? All magazines don't fear reporting the truth. Check out "Can You Trust Your Ears?" and "To Tweak or not to Tweak " both in Stereo Review who, at the time, had as much advertising as anybody in the industry. Sure, but whose advertising? I doubt cables and tweaks played as big a role in SR's advertising mix back then as they do in Stereophile's now. Magazines are a balancing act. You have to run the kind of copy that attracts the kind of readers that your advertisers want to reach. By the time SR ran those articles, nobody was picking up the magazine to read about the amazing differences between components. Hirsch had pretty much disabused them of that decades before. And advertisers weren't expecting it to play up cables and tweaks. Any cable companies that chose to advertise in SR did so knowing full well what the editorial slant was. Whereas they rely on Stereophile to keep the myth alive for their set of readers/customers, and would go absolutely ape-**** if it ever decided to run a DBT of cables. bob I agree with everything you've said but I'm still wondering about the role of honest reporting as a function of the business and the nursing and promotion of mythology for the purpose of .courting advertisers. I don't decry a magazine for running breast and penis enlargement ads; but I might be upset if one of them provided testimonials and positive reviews of the products when they haven't been actually shown to work as advertised. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
On 17 Nov 2004 00:42:35 GMT, (Wessel Dirksen) wrote: This issue seems to come back quite often and it's good to see that there is a general tendancy to dispel fuzzy logic. Yet "lamp cord" as I would define it is reletively high guage wire (20 tot 16 guage) with potentially non-negligable DC resistance characteristics. So I don't agree that is all the same in comparison to let's say 12 of 10 guage OFC wire. Neither does anyone else, if you took the trouble to notice that the above comments *specifically* stated 'same gauge'. My input was meant to be general and not a specific reply to the above. I noticed that virtualy all of the strings seemed to omit the DC resistance issue which is a factual matter and not a matter of hype; whether its significant or not. I'm curious how others feel about a similar fenomenon with lossy inductors in the signal path in woofers. It is my personal view that series DC resistance in the signal path should be strategically minimized as much as possible. The overall Q factor of the filter doesn't have to suffer from this if you are in control of the design process. Once again in the interest of affording the amplifier maximum EMF control of it's load along with minimized DC loss along the way. It is my personal view that speaker designers in the major companies know what they're doing. If a loddy inductor is used, then that is factored into the overall voicing of the speaker. Agreed, this is a question of good engineering. But the choice of inductors in a production loudspeaker is ussually not based on optimal performance, but on minimizing the negative affects of compromise. This is act of life due to aggressive cost budgets to which all loudspeaker engineers must adhere in a production setting. (exotica excepted) Low Rdc inductors are expensive, and as you state below, is not a bad strategic area to save some money. But that doesn't mean that lowering series DC resistance to woofers is theoreticaly not audible or desirable. None of these parasitic resistances bear any comparison to the resistance of the voice coil. If "lampcord" and inductors add 0.5 ohm of DC resistance, but very often even more than this, than this constitutes almost 10% increase of a standard driver Rdc of 5.2 to 5.7 ohm. This is audible in most SS amplifiers, although subtle. It is enough to possibly make more than 1 db SPL changes in a majority of tube amplifiers. This doesn't cover 4 ohm drivers which typically have Rdc values of 3.9 ohm or so making the phenominon more distinctive. Please note also that over the vast majority of its working range, a loudspeaker is mass/compliance controlled, and electrical 'damping' is not a factor. Agreed to a point. Bass is where this really becomes a common factor to contend with for all amps. Tweeters /midranges often have resistors in series. But I personally like my bass tight and find it reason enough to pay attention to this. Also, with tube amps, the entire frequency spectrum can be affected. If a SS amp with a damping factor of 400 gets 0.5ohm between output and voicecoil it will be subtle. A tube amp with a damping factor of 30 can easily have measurable SPL variances especially at the low end. Basically, keep the loop resistance of the wire below a twentieth of the speaker nominal impedance, and you won't have a problem. Just as an illustration, that's twenty five feet of 16 AWG for a four ohm load. We audiophile types do tend to overkill on this matter of speaker wire resistance! True, but those typical cheap inductors add 5 times as much "wire" to the signal path as your 25 feet of 16AWG. Together, I'm not so sure its harmless anymore. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote in message ...
On 11/16/04 7:39 PM, in article , "Bob Marcus" wrote: Do you personally know the difference between a Mark Levinson CD player's sound vs. a NAD C541i? How about the resolving power of a CD played in a Toshiba DVD player vs. an Ayre CX-7. What about a badly mastered Led Zeppelin CD on a Sony player, and an Arcam? No, and I doubt anyone at Stereophile really does, either, because there's no evidence that they do valid comparisons. (And what does "the resolving power of a CD" mean??) Sorry - meant to say "the resolving power of a CD Player with a CD played..." - my bad. OK, so tell us what you mean by "the resolving power of a CD Player." It sounds suspiciously like pseudo-technical jargon. Resolution is a technical term, and every CD player has the same resolution, doesn't it? Sure - that is exactly my point - I know of all of those things due to my pursuit of good sound, and I would not have been even introduced to it if I had been limited to reading it in a book or magazine. Not sure what you mean by "valid comparison" If you have to ask, it's safe to assume you didn't do any, either. So no, you don't know any of those things. You only think you do. By valid comparison, I mean the usual: side-by-side, blind or double blind, and level-matched. Anything else, and you're comparing pricetags, not sound. Or, to be precise, you don't know whether you're comparing sound or pricetags (or looks, or company reputation, or...) bob |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 19 Nov 2004 00:44:59 GMT, (Wessel Dirksen) wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 17 Nov 2004 00:42:35 GMT, (Wessel Dirksen) wrote: This issue seems to come back quite often and it's good to see that there is a general tendancy to dispel fuzzy logic. Yet "lamp cord" as I would define it is reletively high guage wire (20 tot 16 guage) with potentially non-negligable DC resistance characteristics. So I don't agree that is all the same in comparison to let's say 12 of 10 guage OFC wire. Neither does anyone else, if you took the trouble to notice that the above comments *specifically* stated 'same gauge'. My input was meant to be general and not a specific reply to the above. I noticed that virtualy all of the strings seemed to omit the DC resistance issue which is a factual matter and not a matter of hype; whether its significant or not. Untrue - almost all cable discussions mention loop resistance at some point, and any DBT discussion always mentions level-matching, and the fact that there's no merit in comparing cables with massively different RLC parameters. I'm curious how others feel about a similar fenomenon with lossy inductors in the signal path in woofers. It is my personal view that series DC resistance in the signal path should be strategically minimized as much as possible. The overall Q factor of the filter doesn't have to suffer from this if you are in control of the design process. Once again in the interest of affording the amplifier maximum EMF control of it's load along with minimized DC loss along the way. It is my personal view that speaker designers in the major companies know what they're doing. If a lossy inductor is used, then that is factored into the overall voicing of the speaker. Agreed, this is a question of good engineering. But the choice of inductors in a production loudspeaker is ussually not based on optimal performance, but on minimizing the negative affects of compromise. This is act of life due to aggressive cost budgets to which all loudspeaker engineers must adhere in a production setting. (exotica excepted) Low Rdc inductors are expensive, and as you state below, is not a bad strategic area to save some money. But that doesn't mean that lowering series DC resistance to woofers is theoreticaly not audible or desirable. Sez who? Have you ever done a listening comparison? None of these parasitic resistances bear any comparison to the resistance of the voice coil. If "lampcord" and inductors add 0.5 ohm of DC resistance, but very often even more than this, than this constitutes almost 10% increase of a standard driver Rdc of 5.2 to 5.7 ohm. This is audible in most SS amplifiers, although subtle. It is enough to possibly make more than 1 db SPL changes in a majority of tube amplifiers. This doesn't cover 4 ohm drivers which typically have Rdc values of 3.9 ohm or so making the phenominon more distinctive. Agreed that it may reduce the sensitivity of the speaker by a dB or so. Just add more power - not an issue for a real amp, i.e. SS. Please note also that over the vast majority of its working range, a loudspeaker is mass/compliance controlled, and electrical 'damping' is not a factor. Agreed to a point. Bass is where this really becomes a common factor to contend with for all amps. Tweeters /midranges often have resistors in series. But I personally like my bass tight and find it reason enough to pay attention to this. If you like your bass 'tight', then get a system with a Qts of less than 0.7. Agonising about inductor resistance won't make any difference. Also, with tube amps, the entire frequency spectrum can be affected. If a SS amp with a damping factor of 400 gets 0.5ohm between output and voicecoil it will be subtle. A tube amp with a damping factor of 30 can easily have measurable SPL variances especially at the low end. This is utter nonsense! The effect of parasitic resistance in a series inductor will if anything be *worse* for an amp with low output resistance, and the whole point of an inductor is that its impedance rises with frequency, so it's clearly rubbish to suggest that its series resistance will have any effect outside the bass range. Certainly, any FR differences caused by the high output resistance of say a SET amp will be the same as they would be had the speaker been otherwise designed, because the speaker will have been 'voiced' for whatever crossover components are used. Basically, keep the loop resistance of the wire below a twentieth of the speaker nominal impedance, and you won't have a problem. Just as an illustration, that's twenty five feet of 16 AWG for a four ohm load. We audiophile types do tend to overkill on this matter of speaker wire resistance! True, but those typical cheap inductors add 5 times as much "wire" to the signal path as your 25 feet of 16AWG. Together, I'm not so sure its harmless anymore. As noted above, I suspect that the speaker designer knows more about this than either of us. If that kind of thing bothers you, then use active speakers, where the amps are directly connected to the drivers, or choose one of the two-way designs which has no crossover components connected to the bass/mid driver. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Nov 2004 21:39:52 GMT, in article , Nousaine
stated: "goFab.com" wrote: On 29 Oct 2004 23:06:49 GMT, in article , Michael Dombrowski stated: Hello All, Is there any difference between (same gauge) speaker cable and lamp cord? I cannot see any reason why there would be, especially if bannana plugs are soldered on to both ends. If there are differences, why? I can't for the life of me think why speaker cable would be better than standard wire. Mike It's not, but lamp cord is really ugly, and some speaker cable looks really cool! If it makes u feel better and it appeals to your sense of aesthetics, by all means buy some expensive cable. There is not likely to be any audible difference. In my opinion most zip cord is much superior to most high-end wire in aesthetics because it has an easily identifiable polarity construction, it usually has enough strands to be quite flexible, it has a small jacket that is easier to make less visually apparent and you can buy some real "art", such as the kind you hang on the wall or some that is called recorded or live music, with the difference in price. For example I have used clear jacket 14 gauge zip cord with a copper and a silver interlaced copper conductors, a nice bendable feel along with Pamona dual banana plugs which sounded exactly like a set of Tara Labs RSC 8-foot cables that had a MSRP of $990. The difference in cost covers my current year price for 2 tickets (Row H seats 11, 13 ) of a 7 concert series of Saturday evening performances of the DSO at Orchestra Hall in Detroit with $279 left over for dinner and/or hotel. IMO the cost difference completely covers the increase in art available to me by using zip cord (in this case I bought a hundred feet for $18.) It is true that I'm mixing prices from the mid-90s when I bought the zip cord and tested the high-end cable (which was loaned to me) and the price of my current Concert series but I'm thinking the concept is clearly apparent. BTW I think the zip cord is aesthetically equal, and often superior, to any high-end cable I've ever used or seen. You have a point. And there's an in-between. If you feel the need to have something purpose-made for audio, there are excellent companies that have more moderately priced stuff that has the high end "look and feel" to it. Pure Note and Cobalt come to mind. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
On 19 Nov 2004 00:44:59 GMT, (Wessel Dirksen) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 17 Nov 2004 00:42:35 GMT, (Wessel Dirksen) wrote: This issue seems to come back quite often and it's good to see that there is a general tendancy to dispel fuzzy logic. Yet "lamp cord" as I would define it is reletively high guage wire (20 tot 16 guage) with potentially non-negligable DC resistance characteristics. So I don't agree that is all the same in comparison to let's say 12 of 10 guage OFC wire. Neither does anyone else, if you took the trouble to notice that the above comments *specifically* stated 'same gauge'. My input was meant to be general and not a specific reply to the above. I noticed that virtualy all of the strings seemed to omit the DC resistance issue which is a factual matter and not a matter of hype; whether its significant or not. Untrue - almost all cable discussions mention loop resistance at some point, and any DBT discussion always mentions level-matching, and the fact that there's no merit in comparing cables with massively different RLC parameters. Hi Stewart, The whole DC resistance thing is important to me and that's what's fueling my input here. So this reply is about DC resistance in general as it applies to loudspeaker performance, whether from cable or inductors. So please consider this a departure from the above. As such, I appreciate the discussion on this. I'm curious how others feel about a similar fenomenon with lossy inductors in the signal path in woofers. It is my personal view that series DC resistance in the signal path should be strategically minimized as much as possible. The overall Q factor of the filter doesn't have to suffer from this if you are in control of the design process. Once again in the interest of affording the amplifier maximum EMF control of it's load along with minimized DC loss along the way. It is my personal view that speaker designers in the major companies know what they're doing. If a lossy inductor is used, then that is factored into the overall voicing of the speaker. Agreed, this is a question of good engineering. But the choice of inductors in a production loudspeaker is ussually not based on optimal performance, but on minimizing the negative affects of compromise. This is act of life due to aggressive cost budgets to which all loudspeaker engineers must adhere in a production setting. (exotica excepted) Low Rdc inductors are expensive, and as you state below, is not a bad strategic area to save some money. But that doesn't mean that lowering series DC resistance to woofers is theoreticaly not audible or desirable. Sez who? Have you ever done a listening comparison? Well, sez me I guess. As I have brought in before here, I do loudspeaker modification and design professionally, and for quite some time now and have seen and modded filters of many loudspeakers. So FWIW, my input is based on personal experience which I will carefully dare to call expertise not just conjecture. All along the way I listen and compare all the time very often with a someone next to me so I'm not listening alone. Even though it only affects a small part of the overall performance of the entire design, I have discovered that reduction of this DC resistance thing is easily the most repeatable noticeable improvement you can make to a standard production loudspeaker with lossy inductors. So this is a petpeev issue with me especially since this seems to be downplayed or held silent by the bulk of this expert group now and the last time this came up. This is a last stab at throwing this out there for scrutiny. I am curious to know why there is a tendancy to underestimate/disbelieve this issue while experience has shown me that there is almost nothing else more predictable as a focus for improvement. Heck, maybe I'll learn more about loudspeakers and people while I'm at it. This is what I have been doing on a regular basis: I've been almost exclusively using German Intertechik HQ-80 inductors (large, very densely compressed ferrite powder inductors) for about 10 years since they have been on the market. They allow air core quality at normal power levels for living rooms often less than 10% of original series resistance. (ex. 1.5mH has 1.6mm diameter copper wire, Rdc=0.07ohm) If you doing nothing else besides this swapping the series woofer inductor(s), but make small value adjustments in the rest of the filter to restore original filter response, the difference in bass definition is astounding. The sole negative factor that seems to infrequently pop up with such projects is a less stable image. This is however greatly dependant on the amplifier and filter topology. Also, if this occurs, it is usually fixable and change is warranted since this indicates an overall vulnerable filter design. None of these parasitic resistances bear any comparison to the resistance of the voice coil. If "lampcord" and inductors add 0.5 ohm of DC resistance, but very often even more than this, than this constitutes almost 10% increase of a standard driver Rdc of 5.2 to 5.7 ohm. This is audible in most SS amplifiers, although subtle. It is enough to possibly make more than 1 db SPL changes in a majority of tube amplifiers. This doesn't cover 4 ohm drivers which typically have Rdc values of 3.9 ohm or so making the phenominon more distinctive. Agreed that it may reduce the sensitivity of the speaker by a dB or so. Just add more power - not an issue for a real amp, i.e. SS. Please note also that over the vast majority of its working range, a loudspeaker is mass/compliance controlled, and electrical 'damping' is not a factor. Agreed to a point. Bass is where this really becomes a common factor to contend with for all amps. Tweeters /midranges often have resistors in series. But I personally like my bass tight and find it reason enough to pay attention to this. If you like your bass 'tight', then get a system with a Qts of less than 0.7. Agonising about inductor resistance won't make any difference. Improving speakers is only sometimes agonizing, yet in the end always fun. But I'm glad you brought this up for 2 reasons. One change that can occur with lowering of overall Rdc is lowering of Qe and thus overall Q of the woofer. Depending on the amount of resistance recovered, this is usually measurable yet negligible. Yet lowering of overall Q will in theory improve transient response. Second, many assume based on the calculated impulse response for the well known transfer functions that there would have to be an obvious audible difference in the subjective "tightness" of bass between let's say a Qtc of 1.0 and 0.71 in sealed cabinet designs. Yet as it turns out, listeners find the wider –3db bandwidth in higher Qtc speakers subjectively discernable as "lower bass" but not necessarily "looser bass". I do realize however that the occaisional subjective impression of "more bass" can come from a looser impulse response. These kind of controlled alignment comparisons within a limited range are common in the R&D process for a production product when deciding on final design so it happens all the time. Yet it seems such alignment comparisons never seem to be as pronounced as the subjective "loosening" of the low bass when adding a 0.5 or higher resistor in series with the woofer with thereby only a slight increase in overall Qtc. Also, with tube amps, the entire frequency spectrum can be affected. If a SS amp with a damping factor of 400 gets 0.5ohm between output and voicecoil it will be subtle. A tube amp with a damping factor of 30 can easily have measurable SPL variances especially at the low end. This is utter nonsense! The effect of parasitic resistance in a series inductor will if anything be *worse* for an amp with low output resistance, and the whole point of an inductor is that its impedance rises with frequency, so it's clearly rubbish to suggest that its series resistance will have any effect outside the bass range. Certainly, any FR differences caused by the high output resistance of say a SET amp will be the same as they would be had the speaker been otherwise designed, because the speaker will have been 'voiced' for whatever crossover components are used. Whoa, I'd watch it with the superlatives but it's obvious you don't agree. Also, it is primarily the bass range that I'm referring to here. Just for the sake of definition, the FR of any amplifier is defined by both it's own design (something I know nothing about) and the load connected to it. The latter is out of the amplifiers direct control. If you wanted to get devious, you could probably screw up the FR of even the most stable and neutral SS amplifier if you know what you're doing just by giving it a strategically sadistic load. Tube amps are more sensitive and thus often slightly differ in FR from speaker to speaker which nearly always have wacky loads. Therefore there is no guarantee the "voice" of the filter design will be able to speak neutrally if the input impedance of the speaker is such that the amp cannot drive it neutrally. This is subtle if not negligable but nonetheless a fact of life for many tube amps. Basically, keep the loop resistance of the wire below a twentieth of the speaker nominal impedance, and you won't have a problem. Just as an illustration, that's twenty five feet of 16 AWG for a four ohm load. We audiophile types do tend to overkill on this matter of speaker wire resistance! True, but those typical cheap inductors add 5 times as much "wire" to the signal path as your 25 feet of 16AWG. Together, I'm not so sure its harmless anymore. As noted above, I suspect that the speaker designer knows more about this than either of us. If that kind of thing bothers you, then use active speakers, where the amps are directly connected to the drivers, or choose one of the two-way designs which has no crossover components connected to the bass/mid driver. Now this is interesting if I may. Intelligent consumers are usually critical and hopeful they make the best buying decisions and may feel proud of some possessions enough to feel fond of them. Heck all the cars I have owned have had a name. But few question that unpleasantries lie waiting such as planned obsolescence, and quality compromise vs. cost. Of course there is a difference between function and performance. A gadget may be price-performance designed and marketed for longevity, performance or usually a planned mix of both in a certain proportion. But most agree you usually can't get both for the price of one. So if we can accept that our toaster has economic design limitations, why is there a general tendancy to accept the idea that a loudspeaker design has been designed to a holy grail standard. B&W is a good case in point, they are very good at engineering a solid performing package together at a good price point, but only relatively recently have they been truly able to deliver +/- non-compromise ideology type designs. So outside of these models, you can usually easily improve the performance of virtually any B&W, not because the design is inferior, but because you can go after the areas they had to skimp on. Incidentally, lower DC resistance inductors are being more and more implemented through the years as technology and production methods get better and cheaper. Along with it, the average hi-fi speaker is much better out of the box than 10 years ago at the same price point. To illustrate from a trusted source, I'm wondering if Dick Pierce is listening and can share light if he has ever seen the inside of a production loudspeaker which he couldn't easily improve. I doubt are many if any at all. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| How to measure speaker cable inductance and capacitance? | Tech | |||
| Seeking advice on speaker cable | General | |||
| Seeking advice on speaker cable | Audio Opinions | |||
| Testing speaker cable. | High End Audio | |||
| Speaker cables | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
