Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Pinkie,
How's your "Andre Jute Inspired" solid state design coming along?? -J |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:23:33 -0500, Jon Yaeger
wrote: Hey Pinkie, How's your "Andre Jute Inspired" solid state design coming along?? As previously noted, it's on hold until February, when I might get some parts together. The paper design itself is done, but no way would I be foolish enough to post it until I've tested and optimised it in the metal. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton said:
Hey Pinkie, How's your "Andre Jute Inspired" solid state design coming along?? As previously noted, it's on hold until February, when I might get some parts together. The paper design itself is done, but no way would I be foolish enough to post it until I've tested and optimised it in the metal. Twould be nice to see some Spice simulating of the design.... :-) -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 3 Jan 2005 16:39:24 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: It's EASY to make cables that make the music sound worse. Actually, that's *extremely* difficult - and nigh on impossible with digital. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I just tried it - I used a coathanger (2 actually) on a 3ft spdif connection. Trimmed the output files to the same sample at each each end, and the results were bit-perfect when compared to the conventional cable one. I don't have enough spare time to try it with wet string.... geoff |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 06:34:06 +1300, Geoff Wood wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On 3 Jan 2005 16:39:24 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: It's EASY to make cables that make the music sound worse. Actually, that's *extremely* difficult - and nigh on impossible with digital. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I just tried it - I used a coathanger (2 actually) on a 3ft spdif connection. Trimmed the output files to the same sample at each each end, and the results were bit-perfect when compared to the conventional cable one. I don't have enough spare time to try it with wet string.... But *everyone* knows that if you use an extremely expensive cable, the bits will be golden and the music will of course sound better. You can save a trip to the store and get the same effect by burning a few hundred dollar bills and letting the fumes waft over the cables. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
in article , Stewart Pinkerton at
wrote on 1/4/05 12:09 PM: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:23:33 -0500, Jon Yaeger wrote: Hey Pinkie, How's your "Andre Jute Inspired" solid state design coming along?? As previously noted, it's on hold until February, when I might get some parts together. The paper design itself is done, but no way would I be foolish enough to post it until I've tested and optimised it in the metal. Pinkie, I am among a number of folks who would be interested in seeing what you've come up with thus far. It really doesn't matter if you've worked all of the bugs out . . . the basic concept is what's of import. You . . . of all people . . . shouldn't be concerned with possible criticism or bias from others. In general, this is a generous and helpful group, and you might be pleasantly surprised. Jon |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Scott, you're a ****ing moron . .
My judgement wasn't based on personal opinion, just on the fact you don't know ****. Cheers and peace, Jodster "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Jodster wrote: I remember a flame war that went on here last year between some loser that said he could hear the difference silver patch cords made while transferring a DIGITAL signal!!! Maybe he could. WTF?! I used to work in an electronics lab that did calibration for the military and I'm used to measuring jitter and slew rates in the pico-second range. What does the Military use . .good old copper my friend! a $5.00 BNC cable from Pomona is good to over 500MHz before it drops 3 dB. as long as you keep capacitance in check, you could use ****ing coathangers for patch cables. This guy got rode for over $200.00 to patch a digital signal through silver. Yes, and cables that MIGHT have resulted in much higher jitter rates to the point where the degradation was audible. It's easy to build something that sounds different, it's hard to build something that sounds better. The problem is that it's much too easy to mistake different for better. Don't laugh when people say they can hear something weird. Laugh when they say it's an improvement. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Frank, ever measure the resistance of those cables? . . if it's low,
they'll never degrade a signal. If it's high , you're a ****ing moron for using them . . and maybe if you wiggle them you'll find they're intermittent .. .which makes you a ****ing double-moron for not checking your gear and then posting your hallucinations to newsgroups.. send the cables to me Frank, I'll test them in a Gov't approved , military standard calibration lab . . . Otherwise you can **** off with Scott . . Cheers and Peace, Jodster "Frank Vuotto" wrote in message ... On 3 Jan 2005 16:39:24 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: It's EASY to make cables that make the music sound worse. How does one go about that? Just wondering because I have a set of speaker cables that will make any amp/speaker sound like crap. They are flat, made for under the carpet in autos. There's plenty of copper there,lots of strands in six groups that are flattened and woven together (like you see in some large ground cords). Seems like they should pass a speaker level signal ok but even in 3' lengths they suck. Must be the weave. Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10 @/ |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Kudos to TCS, Stewart, Geoff and Jon for trying to be the voice of reason in
a ****storm of ignorance. Sorry for my callousness gang, but has't this debate raged on for long enough? My apologies to those I offended. (except for Frank and Scott who can get ****ed. I'm sure they own Bose; the best speakers on the market.) Cheers and Peace, Jodster "TCS" wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 06:34:06 +1300, Geoff Wood wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On 3 Jan 2005 16:39:24 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: It's EASY to make cables that make the music sound worse. Actually, that's *extremely* difficult - and nigh on impossible with digital. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I just tried it - I used a coathanger (2 actually) on a 3ft spdif connection. Trimmed the output files to the same sample at each each end, and the results were bit-perfect when compared to the conventional cable one. I don't have enough spare time to try it with wet string.... But *everyone* knows that if you use an extremely expensive cable, the bits will be golden and the music will of course sound better. You can save a trip to the store and get the same effect by burning a few hundred dollar bills and letting the fumes waft over the cables. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:34:56 -0500, Jon Yaeger
wrote: in article , Stewart Pinkerton at wrote on 1/4/05 12:09 PM: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:23:33 -0500, Jon Yaeger wrote: Hey Pinkie, How's your "Andre Jute Inspired" solid state design coming along?? As previously noted, it's on hold until February, when I might get some parts together. The paper design itself is done, but no way would I be foolish enough to post it until I've tested and optimised it in the metal. Pinkie, I am among a number of folks who would be interested in seeing what you've come up with thus far. It really doesn't matter if you've worked all of the bugs out . . . the basic concept is what's of import. You . . . of all people . . . shouldn't be concerned with possible criticism or bias from others. In general, this is a generous and helpful group, and you might be pleasantly surprised. Having kicked around the various possible topologies, and having concluded that the simplest and best design has already been done (by JL Linsley Hood), I decided to stick with some basic principles just for fun, i.e. no loop NFB, local degeneration to stabilise gain, and a single voltage gain stage. Accordingly (wait for screams from the self-acclaimed 'purists'), what I propose is a single common-emitter driver stage with an unbypassed emitter resistor, loaded by a bootstrapped resistor chain, to give a stable gain from DC upwards. This stage is partnered by an emitter follower input buffer and a pair of P-P emitter-follower output devices, giving four active devices, no loop feedback, and with the distortion characteristics entirely dominated by the 'driver' stage. I don't regard this as violating any basic principles, as the input and output stages are merely impedance converters. Comments should be interesting. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Jodster wrote:
Hey Scott, have I reminded you today? You're a ****ing moron. . go away. You have no reasonable basis to state what you stated other than the fact that you know **** all . . I don't? Send me an address and I'll send you a cable with a resistor in it. Put it on your S-PDIF line and your error rate will go through the roof. It will sound different. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
On 5 Jan 2005 09:09:24 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jodster wrote: Hey Scott, have I reminded you today? You're a ****ing moron. . go away. You have no reasonable basis to state what you stated other than the fact that you know **** all . . I don't? Send me an address and I'll send you a cable with a resistor in it. Put it on your S-PDIF line and your error rate will go through the roof. It will sound different. So ****ing what? I can send you a cable cut in two and it'll also fail to send the data through. But any cable that is in good physical condition will work perfectly. Even the ten cent cables given away free with equipment will work perfectly. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
TCS wrote:
On 5 Jan 2005 09:09:24 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote: Jodster wrote: Hey Scott, have I reminded you today? You're a ****ing moron. . go away. You have no reasonable basis to state what you stated other than the fact that you know **** all . . I don't? Send me an address and I'll send you a cable with a resistor in it. Put it on your S-PDIF line and your error rate will go through the roof. It will sound different. So ****ing what? I can send you a cable cut in two and it'll also fail to send the data through. But any cable that is in good physical condition will work perfectly. Even the ten cent cables given away free with equipment will work perfectly. That's what I said. Did you read my original article at ALL? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
On 5 Jan 2005 09:33:20 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
TCS wrote: On 5 Jan 2005 09:09:24 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote: Jodster wrote: Hey Scott, have I reminded you today? You're a ****ing moron. . go away. You have no reasonable basis to state what you stated other than the fact that you know **** all . . I don't? Send me an address and I'll send you a cable with a resistor in it. Put it on your S-PDIF line and your error rate will go through the roof. It will sound different. So ****ing what? I can send you a cable cut in two and it'll also fail to send the data through. But any cable that is in good physical condition will work perfectly. Even the ten cent cables given away free with equipment will work perfectly. That's what I said. Did you read my original article at ALL? Yes. You said you could make a defective cable that would "sound different". I pointed out that it is irrelevent. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
TCS wrote:
Yes. You said you could make a defective cable that would "sound different". I pointed out that it is irrelevent. No, that's not irrelevant at all, because MANY of the fancy expensive cables out there are in fact deliberately defective and specifically built to cause aberrations that make them sound different. For a really amusing case, look at the MIT speaker cables, which actually have lumped-sum reactances in metal boxes at each end of the cable. In the case of digital cables about all you can do is to induce phase noise (which is still audible in a lot of poorly designed DACs) or cause errors (which many of the fancy high-end digital cables do). Check some of the high end digital cables and you'll find they aren't anything even approaching 75 ohms in a lot of cases.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
On 5 Jan 2005 09:51:33 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
TCS wrote: Yes. You said you could make a defective cable that would "sound different". I pointed out that it is irrelevent. No, that's not irrelevant at all, because MANY of the fancy expensive cables out there are in fact deliberately defective and specifically built to cause aberrations that make them sound different. For a really amusing case, look at the MIT speaker cables, which actually have lumped-sum reactances in metal boxes at each end of the cable. In the case of digital cables about all you can do is to induce phase noise (which is still audible in a lot of poorly designed DACs) or cause errors (which many of the fancy high-end digital cables do). Check some of the high end digital cables and you'll find they aren't anything even approaching 75 ohms in a lot of cases.... --scott OK. I agree with everything you said there. Not only are expensive digital cables often defective, but so are expensive analog cables. It isn't easy making a cable so amazingly mediocre that it muffles high audio frequencies but that's exactly what a "warm sounding" cable is. I'd rather buy speakers that aren't shrill than muffle them with crap cables. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
"TCS" wrote in message ... On 5 Jan 2005 09:51:33 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote: TCS wrote: For a really amusing case, look at the MIT speaker cables, which actually have lumped-sum reactances in metal boxes at each end of the cable. In the case of digital cables about all you can do is to induce phase noise (which is still audible in a lot of poorly designed DACs) or cause errors (which many of the fancy high-end digital cables do). Check some of the high end digital cables and you'll find they aren't anything even approaching 75 ohms in a lot of cases.... --scott OK. I agree with everything you said there. Not only are expensive digital cables often defective, but so are expensive analog cables. It isn't easy making a cable so amazingly mediocre that it muffles high audio frequencies but that's exactly what a "warm sounding" cable is. I'd rather buy speakers that aren't shrill than muffle them with crap cables. Ah, but that wouldn't be the Audiophile Way. The Audiophile Way would be to muffle the highs with a carefully-chosen cable so you can use the speakers you just bought that have fantastic stereo imaging and bizarrely unbalanced, shrieky tonal balance. The "imaging is everything" school of audiophilia has been responsible for a lot of the nonsense in the audiophile world. Peace, Paul |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:08:37 GMT, Paul Stamler wrote:
Ah, but that wouldn't be the Audiophile Way. The Audiophile Way would be to muffle the highs with a carefully-chosen cable so you can use the speakers you just bought that have fantastic stereo imaging and bizarrely unbalanced, shrieky tonal balance. The "imaging is everything" school of audiophilia has been responsible for a lot of the nonsense in the audiophile world. That, or they grew up listining to records and want their CD player to sound the same. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
I grew up listening to records, and I listen to CDs too. My rega table has plenty of top end, but it sounds different than my CD player. It seems that alot on Analog CDs don't sound real good to me, not all all mind you. Some early CDs that were made from the analog originals sound pretty lifeless. Its always a challenge to get all sources sounding good in your system, and I think it is true that we are all going the a specific sound we like. The think the cartridge is a good way to change the tone as well in a table. Some material I think sounds better on my system on the table some on the CD player, however I think the quality of the recording is more important than the format. I poor recording always sounds crapy. HD dvd will be interesting, we get some more bit to play with there. Scott TCS wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:08:37 GMT, Paul Stamler wrote: Ah, but that wouldn't be the Audiophile Way. The Audiophile Way would be to muffle the highs with a carefully-chosen cable so you can use the speakers you just bought that have fantastic stereo imaging and bizarrely unbalanced, shrieky tonal balance. The "imaging is everything" school of audiophilia has been responsible for a lot of the nonsense in the audiophile world. That, or they grew up listining to records and want their CD player to sound the same. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
TCS wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:08:37 GMT, Paul Stamler wrote: Ah, but that wouldn't be the Audiophile Way. The Audiophile Way would be to muffle the highs with a carefully-chosen cable so you can use the speakers you just bought that have fantastic stereo imaging and bizarrely unbalanced, shrieky tonal balance. The "imaging is everything" school of audiophilia has been responsible for a lot of the nonsense in the audiophile world. That, or they grew up listining to records and want their CD player to sound the same. Why on earth would anyone take such a huge step backwards in sound quality? I don't know about you but the records and playback equipment "I" grew up with I wouldn't use in a machine shop today it was just god awful some type of belt driven wow and flutter generator by technics,a 19$ audio-technica cartridge, a crappy 30 watt pioneer reciever and albums that spent as much time as drink coasters and ashtrys as they did on the "turntable" Oh and the hifi sound of some crappy tower speaker from KlH Good playback gear was just not affordable to "me" growing up. and even if it was my lifestyle had no place for it who needed hifi to listen to the Clash? CD were and are a blessing to the music consumer |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Scott, why you using a cable with a resistor in it??? I thought you said you
knew something? "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Jodster wrote: Hey Scott, have I reminded you today? You're a ****ing moron. . go away. You have no reasonable basis to state what you stated other than the fact that you know **** all . . I don't? Send me an address and I'll send you a cable with a resistor in it. Put it on your S-PDIF line and your error rate will go through the roof. It will sound different. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
DeserTBoB wrote:
As someone with over 20 years in the telecommunications field, the last half being digital, I'll end this by saying that the ONLY parameter that directly affects digital is level...period...as long as the cables are within specified length. Over that length, lump constants start rounding leading edges, but it STILL doesn't matter...as long as the threshhold is reached for a 1, -1 or 0, who cares what the leading edge looks like?? Yes, but you're also working with well-designed equipment that accurately regenerates clock from a noisy signal. You would not BELIEVE how badly-designed the input stages on some of the equipment out there is. And it's not just a Japanese manufacturer whose name begins with "PAN" and ends with "SONIC" either. There is a lot of high dollar D/A boxes out there which are shockingly sensitive to the quality of received clock. And it is just getting worse with the shift to 96 ksamp/sec rates, too. It's not hard to design this stuff properly, but it does require test equipment that can display spectra of received clocks, etc. And it requires engineers to actually pay attention to what they are doing. It's certainly a lot better than it was 20 years ago in the PCM 1630 days, but there's still a lot of trash out there. I did an experiment similar to the "coathanger" experiment years ago, using SO cord as a patch cord on a 110 ohm digital patch trunk at the DS-1 level. Results, NO change. Of course, with analog, things would have gotten nasty on a 600 or 135 ohm balanced pair if this went for any distance, especially at group frequencies (60-108 KHz) or above, but digital didn't care at the DS-1 and E-1 levels, 1.544 and 2.048 Kb/s respectively. At 45 MB/s (DS-3), then things went to coax and loss was indeed a factor. The cure? Crank the gain up a little on the transmit side, and I got error free performance on the receive...even using SO cord at the DS-3 level. Would I use this as an in-service thing? Hell no...110 ohm balanced patch cords (same things as used for 600 ohm voice, actually) and RG-187 coax with WECO connectors ONLY. But, it proved my point...digital's either "good" or it's "bad," there are no varying impairments like in analog, just varying bit error rates. If Bell Labs designed the S-PDIF standards, you'd be able to do this with audio gear too. With some audio gear you still can. Don't try it with the Wadia. I swear, I need to go into the snake oil business. There's too much money to take away from fools who obviously don't need it. The whole audio business is snake oil. You're making people think there is an orchestra behind those two black boxes, when there really isn't any such thing. There's some pride in that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Jodster wrote:
Scott, why you using a cable with a resistor in it??? I thought you said you knew something? No, I just said that I had a reasonable basis to state what I did. I have never claimed to know something. I know less and less every day. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Jodster wrote: Scott, why you using a cable with a resistor in it??? I thought you said you knew something? No, I just said that I had a reasonable basis to state what I did. I have never claimed to know something. I know less and less every day. You have a teenager? Glenn D. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Check some of the high end digital cables and you'll find they aren't anything even approaching 75 ohms in a lot of cases.... Dunno what impedence my coathangers were. But that was spdif. geoff |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 21:19:16 +1300, Geoff Wood wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Check some of the high end digital cables and you'll find they aren't anything even approaching 75 ohms in a lot of cases.... Dunno what impedence my coathangers were. But that was spdif. Are you sure? Did you check the coathanger package for the "digital audio" emblem? :-p |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Whey do people buy Bose Acousticmass systems instead of something like this? | General | |||
Bose receiver broken and need alternate. | General | |||
FA: 2 Replacement Bose 5.5" Bose woofer / subwoofer | General | |||
Best place to buy Bose products and home theater systems. | General | |||
World First! Halcro dm10 pre-amplifier review! | General |