Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
I wonder if perhaps this can be an ongoing thread, where we post examples
we find online or in the print media, of particularly egregious examples of audio mythology passed off as fact, by 'experts. here's my exmaple for today: http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/062104questions/ // Home Theater Magazine June 21 2004 20 Questions for. . .Don Bouchard By Scott Messler // (result of search using the term 'blind' or 'controlled': no results) // In a nutshell: Can you tell us a little about your background? I started in the specialty A/V business in 1972. Since then, I've worked for a number of audio companies, including Ohm Acoustics, Dahlquist, and with Mark Levinson at Cello. What brought you to Ultralink/XLO? I had almost made the decision to semi-retire when a mutual friend of mine and the Ultralink/XLO folks told me that they had something special going on. He felt we were perfectly suited for each other, and he was right. When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or fiction? Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide impurities at the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix and how they have a tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass current better in one direction than another. This slight polarization characteristic makes the cables do so, as well. It's subtle but noticeable as a bit more natural and open sounding. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way of telling which direction is the best one in a predictable way on the spool. You must listen to it?and do so before you mark it for directionality. // My favorite part of the article: * Audio Technical Editor's Note: The scientific community as a whole may not embrace all of Mr. Bouchard's explanations and conclusions. -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
Steven Sullivan wrote in
news:ZqHCc.176173$Ly.121769@attbi_s01: I wonder if perhaps this can be an ongoing thread, where we post examples we find online or in the print media, of particularly egregious examples of audio mythology passed off as fact, by 'experts. here's my exmaple for today: http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/062104questions/ // Home Theater Magazine June 21 2004 20 Questions for. . .Don Bouchard By Scott Messler // (result of search using the term 'blind' or 'controlled': no results) // In a nutshell: Can you tell us a little about your background? I started in the specialty A/V business in 1972. Since then, I've worked for a number of audio companies, including Ohm Acoustics, Dahlquist, and with Mark Levinson at Cello. In marketing, no doubt. What brought you to Ultralink/XLO? I had almost made the decision to semi-retire when a mutual friend of mine and the Ultralink/XLO folks told me that they had something special going on. He felt we were perfectly suited for each other, and he was right. When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or fiction? Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide impurities at the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix and how they have a tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass current better in one direction than another. This slight polarization characteristic makes the cables do so, as well. It's subtle but noticeable as a bit more natural and open sounding. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way of telling which direction is the best one in a predictable way on the spool. You must listen to it?and do so before you mark it for directionality. // I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to explain to cable directionality advocates, and this bozo in particular, that the signal presented to the speakers is AC? If his micro-diodes really do exist to the extent of affecting sound reproduction, reversing the cables would have no effect. My favorite part of the article: * Audio Technical Editor's Note: The scientific community as a whole may not embrace all of Mr. Bouchard's explanations and conclusions. Nicely understated. -- JS |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
And if cables make so much of a difference, why do cable companies make
so many different ones? Can't they tell you ahead of time that one is made to kill highs or lows if that were truly the case? If the cable is passing everything, why do they make another style/many more styles? Wouldn't one, well designed cable work with any piece of equipment? hmmmm....... John |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable
marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or fiction? Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide impurities at the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix and how they have a tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass current better in one direction than another. This slight polarization characteristic makes the cables do so, as well. It's subtle but noticeable as a bit more natural and open sounding. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way of telling which direction is the best one in a predictable way on the spool. You must listen to it?and do so before you mark it for directionality. I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to explain to cable directionality advocates, and this bozo in particular, that the signal presented to the speakers is AC? If his micro-diodes really do exist to the extent of affecting sound reproduction, reversing the cables would have no effect. And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance of such an easily performed measurement. +---------------------------------------+ | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | +---------------------------------------+ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
On 6/25/04 9:25 PM, in article Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54, "Dick
Pierce" wrote: And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance of such an easily performed measurement. However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a particular cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable (perhaps zip cord?). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
"Bromo" wrote in message
... On 6/25/04 9:25 PM, in article Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54, "Dick Pierce" wrote: And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance of such an easily performed measurement. However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a particular cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable (perhaps zip cord?). If a cable alters the sound in a frequency-related way, it's due to inductance and capacitance effects, not "micro diodes". Norm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
On 26 Jun 2004 14:29:00 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 6/25/04 9:25 PM, in article Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54, "Dick Pierce" wrote: And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance of such an easily performed measurement. However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a particular cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable (perhaps zip cord?). It would indeed - and it would fail most miserably, since it is readily observable that plain copper wire is absolutely linear to less than -160dB against reference level. You *claim* to be an engineer - would you care to explain how such a mechanism might exist? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
On 6/27/04 1:50 AM, in article detDc.116491$eu.53540@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a particular cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable (perhaps zip cord?). It would indeed - and it would fail most miserably, since it is readily observable that plain copper wire is absolutely linear to less than -160dB against reference level. You *claim* to be an engineer - would you care to explain how such a mechanism might exist? Nope - because of 2 reasons - 1. I have the belief that it doesn't matter 2. I have no clue as to what the mechanism would be if it did matter |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
"Bromo" wrote in message
... On 6/26/04 6:26 PM, in article , "Norm Dresner" wrote: "Bromo" wrote in message ... On 6/25/04 9:25 PM, in article Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54, "Dick Pierce" wrote: And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance of such an easily performed measurement. However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a particular cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable (perhaps zip cord?). If a cable alters the sound in a frequency-related way, it's due to inductance and capacitance effects, not "micro diodes". Fine - n0o issue by me. I have no idea what a micro diode might be - or how it might affect the sound (since a diode that is shorted out would only reduce the effective inductance by a micro-hair! :-) ) - or if it might do so. I do know that different cables if designed for it, might affect the sound. I do not question that there is an effect that relates some cables with their "sound". Even in the audio band, use of long runs of any type of cable present inductive and/or capacitive loads which alter frequency response -- resistivity can also affect "sound". For short lengths, only grossly mismatching cable and application -- say 24 gage coax cable for speakers vx 12 gage straight pair -- might be audible. It's been a long time but I vaguely recall that the inductance of a piece of straight wire is on the order of a microHenry per foot. This isn't normally audible until you get to the highest frequencies but some people's hearing is good enough to detect changes in that part of the spectrum. A uH/foot translates to .1 ohm/foot at 20 KHz so a 10 foot length of speaker cable would have an impedence at 20KHz that's 1 ohm greater than its impedence at 20 Hz or even 200 Hz. I think something like this is within the range of audibility; I know it's measurable because I've seen the potential difference that develops along a speaker cable between the speaker's -terminal and the amplifier's ground terminal on a 'scope. Norm |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
"Norm Dresner" wrote in message
news:CnLDc.126994$Sw.106436@attbi_s51... "Bromo" wrote in message ... I do know that different cables if designed for it, might affect the sound. I do not question that there is an effect that relates some cables with their "sound". Even in the audio band, use of long runs of any type of cable present inductive and/or capacitive loads which alter frequency response -- resistivity can also affect "sound". For short lengths, only grossly mismatching cable and application -- say 24 gage coax cable for speakers vx 12 gage straight pair -- might be audible. It's been a long time but I vaguely recall that the inductance of a piece of straight wire is on the order of a microHenry per foot. This isn't normally audible until you get to the highest frequencies but some people's hearing is good enough to detect changes in that part of the spectrum. A uH/foot translates to ...1 ohm/foot at 20 KHz so a 10 foot length of speaker cable would have an impedence at 20KHz that's 1 ohm greater than its impedence at 20 Hz or even 200 Hz. I think something like this is within the range of audibility; I know it's measurable because I've seen the potential difference that develops along a speaker cable between the speaker's -terminal and the amplifier's ground terminal on a 'scope. Norm My own "subjectivist" experiences which were later borne out by improved instrumentation started with a pre-amp/amp combination I had designed and built that we felt sounded audibly superior to a previous kit-built one. Both my wife and I were willing to swear that there was a difference in the sound of a voiced "sibilant 'S'" as in the work Australia on a particular recording. After I borrowed a really good constant-amplitude oscillator and digital RMS AC voltmeter we measured a peaking of about .15dB in the response of the more sibilant combination around 1-2KHz which is roughly where the first few overtones of the spoken voice reside. The second experience was that a new high-end amplifier sounded "crisper" than my old one, which was particularly noticable in plucked guitar and harp string sounds. The new amplifier has measurably higher slew rate and the waveform at the start of those sounds is "measurably" steeper --as observed on a 'scope. I was then convinced that subjective observation was only as valid as measurement could confirm. Norm |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
Bromo wrote:
If a cable alters the sound in a frequency-related way, it's due to inductance and capacitance effects, not "micro diodes". Fine - n0o issue by me. I have no idea what a micro diode might be - or how it might affect the sound (since a diode that is shorted out would only reduce the effective inductance by a micro-hair! :-) ) - or if it might do so. Hah, finally a reasonable and scientific view. You seem to be the real debunker of the micro diodes theory. I have nothing to add. I still do not know if cuprite really forms a semiconductor with pure copper. I think the pure copper must be doped too. But I'm not a chemist or physics guy. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
I was a cable skeptic, still remain so in some respects (as it pertains to
the $$$-reaches of audio) but having done a lot of work in measurement and instrumentation I know that -- just moving a cable when you are trying to measure microvolts will introduce an EMF that throws measurements off, sometimes it's better to crimp vs solder, a poorly shielded cable in the vicinity of a computer or switching power supply is going to drive the poor audiophile batty (if they didn't start in that condition in the first place.) there's probably more to be gained by proper system grounding, making sure that the connections fit snugly, avoid RFI/EMI sources -- things which can be done for no outlay, connectors and the connection joint second, cables third. too bad triax connectors cost a fortune. "Dick Pierce" wrote in message news:Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54... When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or fiction? Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide impurities at the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix and how they have a tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass current better in one direction than another. This slight polarization characteristic makes the cables do so, as well. It's subtle but noticeable as a bit more natural and open sounding. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way of telling which direction is the best one in a predictable way on the spool. You must listen to it?and do so before you mark it for directionality. I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to explain to cable directionality advocates, and this bozo in particular, that the signal presented to the speakers is AC? If his micro-diodes really do exist to the extent of affecting sound reproduction, reversing the cables would have no effect. And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance of such an easily performed measurement. +---------------------------------------+ | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | +---------------------------------------+ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...right999ES.htm
Steven Sullivan wrote: I wonder if perhaps this can be an ongoing thread, where we post examples we find online or in the print media, of particularly egregious examples of audio mythology passed off as fact, by 'experts. here's my exmaple for today: http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/062104questions/ // Home Theater Magazine June 21 2004 20 Questions for. . .Don Bouchard By Scott Messler // (result of search using the term 'blind' or 'controlled': no results) // In a nutshell: Can you tell us a little about your background? I started in the specialty A/V business in 1972. Since then, I've worked for a number of audio companies, including Ohm Acoustics, Dahlquist, and with Mark Levinson at Cello. What brought you to Ultralink/XLO? I had almost made the decision to semi-retire when a mutual friend of mine and the Ultralink/XLO folks told me that they had something special going on. He felt we were perfectly suited for each other, and he was right. When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or fiction? Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide impurities at the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix and how they have a tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass current better in one direction than another. This slight polarization characteristic makes the cables do so, as well. It's subtle but noticeable as a bit more natural and open sounding. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way of telling which direction is the best one in a predictable way on the spool. You must listen to it?and do so before you mark it for directionality. // My favorite part of the article: * Audio Technical Editor's Note: The scientific community as a whole may not embrace all of Mr. Bouchard's explanations and conclusions. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
"Wayne Van Kirk" wrote in message
... http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...right999ES.htm What is it specifically you object to? 1) the mod itself? 2) attention to power cords? 3) attention to interconnects? 4) the writer's conviction that this is the best SACD that he has heard? (including the SCD-1 and the 777ES). 5) the writer's overuse of definitive rather than relative terminology? If you were a SACD and CD enthusiast looking for a player in the "$2000 or under" range, and read this reveiw. Would you rush out and buy? Or would you go on the web, to forums and review sites, and see if there was a consensus of opinion? In other words, what's your beef? Steven Sullivan wrote: I wonder if perhaps this can be an ongoing thread, where we post examples we find online or in the print media, of particularly egregious examples of audio mythology passed off as fact, by 'experts. here's my exmaple for today: http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/062104questions/ // Home Theater Magazine June 21 2004 20 Questions for. . .Don Bouchard By Scott Messler // (result of search using the term 'blind' or 'controlled': no results) // In a nutshell: Can you tell us a little about your background? I started in the specialty A/V business in 1972. Since then, I've worked for a number of audio companies, including Ohm Acoustics, Dahlquist, and with Mark Levinson at Cello. What brought you to Ultralink/XLO? I had almost made the decision to semi-retire when a mutual friend of mine and the Ultralink/XLO folks told me that they had something special going on. He felt we were perfectly suited for each other, and he was right. When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or fiction? Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide impurities at the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix and how they have a tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass current better in one direction than another. This slight polarization characteristic makes the cables do so, as well. It's subtle but noticeable as a bit more natural and open sounding. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way of telling which direction is the best one in a predictable way on the spool. You must listen to it?and do so before you mark it for directionality. // My favorite part of the article: * Audio Technical Editor's Note: The scientific community as a whole may not embrace all of Mr. Bouchard's explanations and conclusions. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
"Wayne Van Kirk"
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...right999ES.htm A snippet from above link Cables are another matter altogether. The unit requires two power cords, and your choice is key. This must be done by ear, but when it's right (the most natural and transparent), you'll know. I guess we shall all have to call our local power companies up and ask them to demonstrate the sound of the cables run from the generating station, to the substation, to the transformers on the poles and then on into our homes. Then we need to call the builders up and ask them to audition their cable runs inside the house. And would some physicist please tell those pesky electrons to stop being so noisy! John |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
Midlant wrote:
"Wayne Van Kirk" http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...right999ES.htm A snippet from above link Cables are another matter altogether. The unit requires two power cords, and your choice is key. This must be done by ear, but when it's right (the most natural and transparent), you'll know. The most ridiculous thing about these overpriced tweaks is that the mods are presented as the most economical thing to do and what the competitors do is at least double the price. How can the interconnects of 250$/metre be a bargain? Seems a bit high for me. And when we have reached a transparent reproduction like any decent CD- or DVD players, what will that tweak do if not worsen the sound? That tube stage if it is audible at all will certainly introduce distortion that was not contained in the original data. These Quacks are a nuisance and shame to the audio-lover because they discredit our beautiful and satisfying hobby, and make a laughing stock out of misguided colleagues. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
"I’ve heard $2000 speakers with off-the-rack wires that sounded worse
than little $100 Radio Shacks with good cables. Twenty years of striving to make perfect-sounding recordings has taught me that WIRE IS A COMPONENT JUST AS CRUCIAL AS SPEAKERS OR AMPS." http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/twe...eakercable.php WVK |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
In article ,
Wayne Van Kirk wrote: "IÂ’ve heard $2000 speakers with off-the-rack wires that sounded worse than little $100 Radio Shacks with good cables. Twenty years of striving to make perfect-sounding recordings has taught me that WIRE IS A COMPONENT JUST AS CRUCIAL AS SPEAKERS OR AMPS." http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/twe...eakercable.php Looks like a personal opinion to me, and, until wireless speakers become common, he's correct in as much as wires are required for audio. It's also conceivable that there are $2000 speakers bad enough or sensitive enough to wire that an LX4 might be preferable. That said, I don't think I'll buy any of his wires, although his recordings are said to be good for sound quality. Stephen |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
On 8 Jul 2004 14:38:14 GMT, in article , Wayne
Van Kirk stated: "IÂ’ve heard $2000 speakers with off-the-rack wires that sounded worse than little $100 Radio Shacks with good cables. Twenty years of striving to make perfect-sounding recordings has taught me that WIRE IS A COMPONENT JUST AS CRUCIAL AS SPEAKERS OR AMPS." http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/twe...eakercable.php WVK Silly, yes, but they sell very nice amp stands at a reasonable price. And they are a pleasure to deal with. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
On 7/8/04 11:18 PM, in article N7oHc.50741$Oq2.19183@attbi_s52, "MINe 109"
wrote: In article , Wayne Van Kirk wrote: "IÂ’ve heard $2000 speakers with off-the-rack wires that sounded worse than little $100 Radio Shacks with good cables. Twenty years of striving to make perfect-sounding recordings has taught me that WIRE IS A COMPONENT JUST AS CRUCIAL AS SPEAKERS OR AMPS." http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/twe...eakercable.php Looks like a personal opinion to me, and, until wireless speakers become common, he's correct in as much as wires are required for audio. It's also conceivable that there are $2000 speakers bad enough or sensitive enough to wire that an LX4 might be preferable. That said, I don't think I'll buy any of his wires, although his recordings are said to be good for sound quality. Also it might be noted that room acoustics really *do* make a measurable and real difference in reproducing sound - might be good to treat the room before buying kilobuck wires -- you might find there is no need! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
The Beak:
"The 'Beak' was developed to control parasitic vibrations that occur on top of a speaker cabinet. These resonances actually interfere with speaker performance, specifically the lobbing action in tweeters. Implementing a Beak on any speaker; can actually control and provide a better interaction between speaker, tweeter and housing" http://www.gcaudio.com/products/reviews/infototem.html "Now let's talk about the Beaks. Vincent Bruzzese says that the design of the Beaks was determined with the help of a mainframe computer, and that every aspect of it (the cutout on the underside and the fine grooves milled into the surface) must be exactly the way they are. He adds that actual frequency measurements have been run on speakers with and without Beaks, but he has supplied neither the methodology nor the actual measurements. The Beak is meant to be at once a resonator (the air space trapped under the device) and--if we understand correctly--a diffraction device. It is claimed that it improves the bottom end, and it also allows the tweeter to go higher more linearly. How it does this is, for the moment, anyone's guess," http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue56/Forest.html WVK |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
"John Walton" wrote in message
... I was a cable skeptic, still remain so in some respects (as it pertains to the $$$-reaches of audio) but having done a lot of work in measurement and instrumentation I know that -- just moving a cable when you are trying to measure microvolts will introduce an EMF that throws measurements off, sometimes it's better to crimp vs solder, a poorly shielded cable in the vicinity of a computer or switching power supply is going to drive the poor audiophile batty (if they didn't start in that condition in the first place.) there's probably more to be gained by proper system grounding, making sure that the connections fit snugly, avoid RFI/EMI sources -- things which can be done for no outlay, connectors and the connection joint second, cables third. too bad triax connectors cost a fortune. Amen to all above. When you move a cable and an artifact is generated, that is called "roll noise" by Belden, and it _is_ a sigificant problem with microphone cables. There are low roll noise cables made specifically for mics. I once talked to a Belden engineer about directivity claims on high end cable. He told me that many audiophiles also believe the moon is made of green cheese. He said there is NO directivity to coaxial or paired cable, NONE. My .02 worth, Tom |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Audio quackwatch
Wayne Van Kirk wrote in news:cqmIc.58235$MB3.52570
@attbi_s04: The Beak: "The 'Beak' was developed to control parasitic vibrations that occur on top of a speaker cabinet. These resonances actually interfere with speaker performance, specifically the lobbing action in tweeters. Implementing a Beak on any speaker; can actually control and provide a better interaction between speaker, tweeter and housing" http://www.gcaudio.com/products/reviews/infototem.html "Now let's talk about the Beaks. Vincent Bruzzese says that the design of the Beaks was determined with the help of a mainframe computer, and that every aspect of it (the cutout on the underside and the fine grooves milled into the surface) must be exactly the way they are. He adds that actual frequency measurements have been run on speakers with and without Beaks, but he has supplied neither the methodology nor the actual measurements. The Beak is meant to be at once a resonator (the air space trapped under the device) and--if we understand correctly--a diffraction device. It is claimed that it improves the bottom end, and it also allows the tweeter to go higher more linearly. How it does this is, for the moment, anyone's guess," http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue56/Forest.html WVK I think someone's phase plug fell off and they didn't know where it was supposed to go. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
today's entries....
Mark Levinson is at it again, promoting his quack 'CDs hurt you' claim. In the current TAS, there's a roundtable forum on SACD and DVD-A (guess what -- they're *almost* as good as LP!) between Levinson, Valin, Pearson, and poor Doug Sax, who has to bear the entire weight for the sane/sensible faction (he's the only one who sticks up for CD, and happily, he makes the point very early on that analog *definitely* sounds different from the real thing). Levinson at one point claims that PCM 'causes listener stress and confusion. Its' not an opinoin, it's a physiological fact'. No one calls him on this. Valin also opines that he hears digital recordings as 'discontinuous' -- it sounds like 'steps'. Whereas LPs, of course , sounds like 'waves'. Similary, it is claimed (by Sax, unfortunately) that analog beats digital because it has 'at least an octave' over CD, and a better noise floor. I presume he is comparing 1/4 inch tape to CD -- that is, production analog to final product (Redbook 16/44) digital -- not LP to CD, or p[roduction digital to production analog, but that's not clarified. That said, I've also encountered this 'analog stomps digital' recently in another forum, this time the claim not being restricted to Redbook, to wit: "Well, in practice they aren't. The best analog electronics money can build or buy is light years ahead of the best digital electronics money can build or buy." - Dan Koren Comments? I can't say I'm up on what 'the best analog electronics money can buy' buys you these days, so perhaps others here can educate me on the truth value of Mr. Koren's statement. (Just on the production side, I asked him how the very best analog compares, measurably if not audibly, to the best digital, in terms of pitch stability and 'flutter'. No reply so far.) -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... today's entries.... Mark Levinson is at it again, promoting his quack 'CDs hurt you' claim. In the current TAS, there's a roundtable forum on SACD and DVD-A (guess what -- they're *almost* as good as LP!) between Levinson, Valin, Pearson, and poor Doug Sax, who has to bear the entire weight for the sane/sensible faction (he's the only one who sticks up for CD, and happily, he makes the point very early on that analog *definitely* sounds different from the real thing). Levinson at one point claims that PCM 'causes listener stress and confusion. Its' not an opinoin, it's a physiological fact'. No one calls him on this. Valin also opines that he hears digital recordings as 'discontinuous' -- it sounds like 'steps'. Whereas LPs, of course , sounds like 'waves'. Similary, it is claimed (by Sax, unfortunately) that analog beats digital because it has 'at least an octave' over CD, and a better noise floor. I presume he is comparing 1/4 inch tape to CD -- that is, production analog to final product (Redbook 16/44) digital -- not LP to CD, or p[roduction digital to production analog, but that's not clarified. That said, I've also encountered this 'analog stomps digital' recently in another forum, this time the claim not being restricted to Redbook, to wit: "Well, in practice they aren't. The best analog electronics money can build or buy is light years ahead of the best digital electronics money can build or buy." - Dan Koren Comments? I can't say I'm up on what 'the best analog electronics money can buy' buys you these days, so perhaps others here can educate me on the truth value of Mr. Koren's statement. (Just on the production side, I asked him how the very best analog compares, measurably if not audibly, to the best digital, in terms of pitch stability and 'flutter'. No reply so far.) Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its provocative thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions: 1) analog tape definitely colors the sound, but its distortions are euphonic and actually "improve" the sound to some ears. 2) pcm is "fragile"...everything has to be right but at 96/24 its first-generation sound is "very good, very good". However, any distortion introduced into the digital process is negative...non-euphonic. 3) there is a large difference between a first generation digital source and the production version..he calls "a great lie" the assertion that digital copies sound like the original. He says flat out "they do not". Despite that, he says that he has heard some CD's that sound "very, very good". 4) he prefers SACD as a medium, but for practical reasons as opposed to its sound, which he considers different from (but not better than) PCM. He does concur that the differences make it sound "more analog like" and "more forgiving" (as opposed to PCM's "fragility") in creating a reproduction medium. 5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous". If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there". 5) on records - "everything you measure about the disk is worse, except that it has very good phase relationships." 6) (perhaps his most controversial and far-out comment, but one his experience as a "cutter" certainly should give him experience with) "I could consistently take a very good tape and cut it in a certain spot of the disk only, and A/B the tape to the disc, and the disc always sounded better." He goes on to postulate that the mechanical action of the cutting/cartridge playback "predigests" the sound to mechanical parameters so the speaker has an easier time handling it. 7) finally, he talks about multi-track tape being the industry's preferred storage format for multichannel hi-res, since it can be used easily to put into any digital multichannel format (PCM, SACD, DD, DTS, etc). When asked what the prevailing view in the industry is towards storing on tape, he says "It's excellent. Analog tape is high resolution, which means two things. One, the extended bandwidth over a conventional CD....and, two, more low-level performance than a conventional CD." (Note to Steve's point above...his comparison in defining tape's hi-rez is to conventional CD, not to high-rez PCM or SACD.) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
B&D wrote in :
On 8/17/04 12:05 AM, in article , "Steven Sullivan" wrote: today's entries.... Mark Levinson is at it again, promoting his quack 'CDs hurt you' claim. In the current TAS, there's a roundtable forum on SACD and DVD-A (guess what -- they're *almost* as good as LP!) between Levinson, Valin, Pearson, and poor Doug Sax, who has to bear the entire weight for the sane/sensible faction (he's the only one who sticks up for CD, and happily, he makes the point very early on that analog *definitely* sounds different from the real thing). Levinson at one point claims that PCM 'causes listener stress and confusion. Its' not an opinoin, it's a physiological fact'. No one calls him on this. Well, you just did. IN a public forum that goes around the world. It is a silly comment he made - though I would say that an overly bright sound does make my jaw tighten, but u CD player and setup does not sound overly bright. Valin also opines that he hears digital recordings as 'discontinuous' -- it sounds like 'steps'. Whereas LPs, of course , sounds like 'waves'. I hate when people speculate about that sort of thing! :-) The part that I noticed about the article is that every time Levinson says something a bit off, the other people either ignore it and continue as if he didn't say anything, or change the subject. I did like the part about steps. It sure gave me a chuckle. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote: Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its provocative thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions: ...snip to specific comment..... 5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous". If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there". Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the sound of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several months"? I can understand how operating functions or quirks might become familiar over time and with usage and training. But how does the "sound" referenced to live acoustical performance manage to change or adjust itself over time? In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a system seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a live acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener re-adjusting his internal bias. Did I say I agreed with this? Where in my post? I simply reported what Mr. Sax said. Some I may agree with; some I may not. This is simply an attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
today's entries.... Similary, it is claimed (by Sax, unfortunately) that analog beats digital because it has 'at least an octave' over CD, and a better noise floor. I presume he is comparing 1/4 inch tape to CD -- that is, production analog to final product (Redbook 16/44) digital -- not LP to CD, or p[roduction digital to production analog, but that's not clarified. Well, I don't know what planet Doug gets his analog tape decks from, but I've never encountered a 1/4" *or* 1/2" machine with a "better" noise floor than Red Book CD. But he's right about the extra octave, that's just a given. The issue is whether or not this extra octave+ is audible to humans...or audible beneath that aforementioned analog noise floor! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a system seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a live acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener re-adjusting his internal bias. Did I say I agreed with this?**Where*in*my*post?**I*simply*reported*what Mr. Sax said.**Some*I*may*agree*with;*some*I*may*not.**Thi s*is*simply*an attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass. I have to say it takes 'chutzpah' to call Doug Sax a quack.. -- Richard |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Dale wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote: In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a system seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a live acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener re-adjusting his internal bias. Did I say I agreed with this???Where?in?my?post???I?simply?reported?what Mr. Sax said.??Some?I?may?agree?with;?some?I?may?not.??Thi s?is?simply?an attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass. I have to say it takes 'chutzpah' to call Doug Sax a quack.. Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then. At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making 'i hear it therefore it is true' claims. But as I said in the first post, if you had to pick 'one of these is not like the other' for that particular collection of audiophiles, it would be Sax. he was by far the most sympathetic to digital in general and redbook in particular (though Pearson also chimed in that he's heard some astonishginly good 16/44 -- how big of him!) -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then. At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making 'i hear it therefore it is true' claims. Excuse me if I've lost the plot, but isn't that what they're paid to do? Their work stand or falls by how good it sounds on the end user delivery medium. Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in business for over 30 years, why is that? -- Richard |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Dale wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then. At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making 'i hear it therefore it is true' claims. Excuse me if I've lost the plot, but isn't that what they're paid to do? Indeed. Their work stand or falls by how good it sounds on the end user delivery medium. True. But their claims about audible difference do not. Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in business for over 30 years, why is that? So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true? Interesting idea. Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product? -- -S. "We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's. Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." -- David Lee Roth |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its provocative thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions: ...snip to specific comment..... 5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous". If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there". Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the sound of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several months"? I can understand how operating functions or quirks might become familiar over time and with usage and training. But how does the "sound" referenced to live acoustical performance manage to change or adjust itself over time? In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a system seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a live acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener re-adjusting his internal bias. Did I say I agreed with this? Where in my post? I simply reported what Mr. Sax said. Some I may agree with; some I may not. This is simply an attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass. Oh so you don't agree. That's good. This is another of those Urban Legends that is often heard and re-quoted without any evidentiary support whatever. This kind of high-end bluster leads one to question much of the other stuff Sax says as well. Can you respond without putting words into my mouth? Did I say I disagreed? Where in the original post or the followup? Here is the only thing I said: "I simply reported what Mr. Sax said." What part of that do you not understand? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
Dithering Digital Audio | High End Audio | |||
FAQ: RAM LISTING OF SCAMMERS, SLAMMERS, AND N'EER DO WELLS! V. 8.1 | Audio Opinions | |||
science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio |