| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 3, 11:32 am, DougA wrote:
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga Yes I can. I have an all Ayre system (K1xe, V1xe, C1xe with Vandersteen 5A speakers. I have found the absolute best cables. Unbelievablly, they sound very much the same, although the price difference is tremendous. Audioquest all Silver designs are absolutely fabulous, but so is a cable called Anticable. I spent months auditioning cables, and found these 2 to be the very best. Cardas is extremely disappointing - their power cords are abysmal. The best power cords available are the G&G Discoveries power cords which can be baught from AudioConnection in Verona New Jersey. Go online to get to all the websites. |
|
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 3, 11:32 am, DougA wrote:
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga ....by the way - Ayre equipment - all of it should be used with balanced interconnects. They are built using balanced circuits. They sound quite pooer using single ended interconnects. Some equipment is built using single single ended circuitry, but they include XLR connections to seem that they are "higher end" then the RCA's would indicate. Surprisingly, these components sound better single ended and you should use RCA interconnects for them. |
|
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 14, 10:49 pm, Chung wrote:
DougA wrote: We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects. A review can be read he http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm We're happy for you that you are in a strong enough financial position to spend that kind of money on cables. Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be quantified and measured. Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and therfore explained? Surely we can measure better than our ears can detect, no? For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc. A cable is really among the simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like cellular communication systems for instance? Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home systems or are all the arguments based on theory? A lot of us have tried high-end cables. Some of us have tried controlled testing: via carefully controlled listening tests or via measurements. By the way, theory is an excellent place to base ones aruments on. Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave about cables are full of beans? In short, yes. Are bought by the high end cable companies? That I am not sure about. The raving can be simply due to lack of understanding of the effects of perception bias, or lack of appreciation for the importance of controlled testing when differences are subtle. Ever read a review of cables where they actually show (a) measurement results, or (b) controlled listening test results? All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables? Well, yes. But if you find happiness in high-end cables and do not mind the expense, who are we to judge? "DougA" wrote in message ... After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - A problem with discussions like this is that lots of people give their ideas with little experience to back up their points. Comments like "surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the more expensive table. There are amps, preamps, and everything electronic the like measurements that sound completely different. The ear is the final arbeitor |
|
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On 14 Mar 2007 23:40:06 GMT, DougA wrote:
Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be quantified and measured. I too, can sometimes clearly hear the difference if other interconnects or cables are placed. The same improvement is sometimes incurred by taking out en replacing the *same* cables again. In short - re-seating the existing cables and interlinks may make a remarkable difference. (Disclaimer: My audio equipment is a hand picked, well serviced assortment of very cheap, old, sometimes modified and secondhand leftover stuff, - lovingly balanced to sound quite nice (to my ears). I might actually not belong in this group..) -- - René |
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Chung wrote:
we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in levels, etc.), then more like 0.1 dB. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 15, 11:37 pm, Chung wrote:
You don't understand the point. If we do not understand what difference a cable makes to an audio signal, we would have no chance to be able to design all those electronic systems that are orders of magnitude more complex, that really push the science of transporting energy from one point to another via cables or other media. I have stayed out of this donnybrook until now, but two observations: a) Those who have invested an obscene (or even a mere insane) amount on cabling are required to believe that there are audible and significant differences that are in direct proportion to the cost. b) There will never be a meeting of the minds on this. Those who simply do not hear the difference will seek proof that there is one. "I hear it so it must be so" is not an acceptable proof to them. Overall, I refer the assembled multitude to Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In the realm of Magic, either you 'get it' or you do not. Discussion is futile. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 15, 6:34 pm, wrote:
Comments like "surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false. In an age of electron microscopes, would you say that the human eye can see things we can't measure? In an age where cosmologists have used tiny ripples in temperature to confirm the Big Bang hypothesis, would you say that our skin can feel things that cannot be measured? Then how in the world can you possibly believe that our ears can hear things we cannot, in this day and age, mesure? bob |
|
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message
Comments like "surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the more expensive table. The fallacy here is very obvious. Flutter and wow are not the only parameters that characterise the sonic performance of a turntable. There are amps, preamps, and everything electronic the like measurements that sound completely different. This is a false claim because at some level of detail no two amps measure the same. Heck, the left and right channels of stereo amps are generally measurably different. The ear is the final arbeitor. No arguement there. It is possible to *fully* characterize audio gear in such a way that equipment that measures to be accurate enough to be sonically transparent, can be tested by ear and found to be sonically transparent. Yes, this means that some equipment not only sounds the same but can also pass a straight-wire bypass test. |
|
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 15, 8:35�pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 15 Mar 2007 22:34:13 GMT, wrote: A problem with discussions like this is that lots of people give their ideas with little experience to back up their points. *Comments like "surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the more expensive table. *There are amps, preamps, and everything electronic the like measurements that sound completely different. *The ear is the final arbeitor And yet when the eye is blocked the ear becomes unable to tell the difference. *Strange, that. Really? You have done or know of DBTs or even SBTs between a Rega P25 and a VPI Scoutmaster where no differences were detected? Or are you just making assumptions here? Scott |
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 15, 8:37?pm, Chung wrote:
wrote: On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung wrote: DougA wrote: We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects. A review can be read he http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be quantified and measured. Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and therfore explained? How do we know it *can't* be backed up by measurements? The OP said so...Maybe you should ask the OP. Oh you are taking his word for it? then there is nothing more to discuss. cables sound different. Surely we can measure better than our ears can detect, no? Indeed we can. For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc. OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no measurable effect within these tolerances? I was under the impression that there were readily measurable differences between various cables. Are you suggesting that SOTA measurements fail to detect any measurable differences between cables? You fail to understand one key issue. No, I'm just calling you guys on what I see as a straw man argument by inference. The laws of physics have been envoked and our superior ability measure beyond the human thresholds of hearing have been envoked. The thing that wasn't mentioned is that those very laws of physics actual dictate that not only do cables distort an audio signal they *must* do so by those very laws envoked. It also isn't mentioned that those very sensitive measuring devices actually do measure differences between cables as dictated by those laws of physics. That is the real irony. Lets talk about physics and sensitive measurments let's just casually ignore what they really say. There may be differences in cable length, inductance, capacitance, etc. Gotta love that "etc." It could mean a lot of things. What is important is the voltage that is delivered to the load, be it speaker terminals or inputs of the power amp. If two cables deliver the same voltage within tolerances that we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in levels, etc.), then the two cables must sound the same to us. But alas they don't deliever the same exact signal. Certainly not within a 0.01 dB tolerance. Unless you claim to have hearing acuity finer than those differences. No my claim is quite simple. The posturing about the "laws of physics" and the ability to measure beyond the thresholds of human hearing are a meaningless burning straw man because the "laws of physics" dictate that cables will distort an audio signal and the measurements that extend beyond the threshold of human hearing bear that fact out. Once those facts are disclosed all the hand waving about those measurements and the laws of physics are reduced to a non-argument at best. THE ISSUE. The ONLY issue is whether or not the real world distortions (predicted by "the laws of physics" and supported by the imperical measurements) are within or beyond the threshold of human hearing. That is my point. Nothing more nothing less. If there are studies that have measured all parameters of cable distortion and there is sufficient listening tests for the thresholds of human hearing for all those distortions then we have something to talk about. But no one is talking about that. Why not? A cable is really among the simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like cellular communication systems for instance? What does that have to do with anything? Just because they can be made quite simply does not mean they are all free from distortion. You don't understand the point. No I do understand the point. there is an apparent attempt to misrepresent the laws of physics and the measured evidence of cable distortion. This is just another angle. Just because something is simple doesn't mean it is distortion free. Plain and simple. If we do not understand what difference a cable makes to an audio signal, we would have no chance to be able to design all those electronic systems that are orders of magnitude more complex, That is simply not true. Are you suggesting that *All* the distortions that happen in an audio cable had to be fully known and understood before anyone could design any circut? I think that is an absurd claim. that really push the science of transporting energy from one point to another via cables or other media. In the end none of my questions were answered. Funny that. I beleive they were avoided because the answers would expose the burning straw man for what it is. Scott |
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 3, 11:32 am, DougA wrote:
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga Monster Cable brand is widely available, not excessively expensive, and good-sounding. |
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"bob" wrote in message
... On Mar 15, 6:34 pm, wrote: Comments like "surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false. In an age of electron microscopes, would you say that the human eye can see things we can't measure? In an age where cosmologists have used tiny ripples in temperature to confirm the Big Bang hypothesis, would you say that our skin can feel things that cannot be measured? Then how in the world can you possibly believe that our ears can hear things we cannot, in this day and age, mesure? bob Most of us wouldn't....but we might say that there is not consensus on *what* should be measured....no verified science tying the measured phenomenon with subjective aural ratings when it comes to reproducing music. |
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On 16 Mar 2007 21:16:10 GMT, "Peter Wieck" wrote:
b) There will never be a meeting of the minds on this. Those who simply do not hear the difference will seek proof that there is one. "I hear it so it must be so" is not an acceptable proof to them. First, it is a dubious assumption that anyone's goal here is a "meeting of minds". The discussion is just a discussion, there is no requirement that anyone "win" or "lose". Second, the attitude that '"I hear it so it must be so" is not proof', is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty well lies behind all of science. Some of us know how easily we can be fooled, and therefore take precautions against that. Some of us seem to think that we cannot be fooled but are in fact, based on the available evidence, the most foolable of all of us. But "I hear it so it must be so" is certainly not a scientific scientific attitude, and last I saw it was the scientists and engineers who have given us the ability we have to bring a pretty good approximation of live musical performances into our living rooms. |
|
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 12, 8:31�pm, "bob" wrote:
On Mar 12, 6:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in any way. For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format *can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it generates minimal excitment. The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44 KHz *was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted. Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for basic engineering principles fail to *perceive engineering papers as they were intended to be understood. The problem goes much deeper than this. To believe, for example, that different brands of measurably similar cables can be audibly different, you have to believe that physicists' understanding of how electrical signals pass through wires is fundamentally wrong. It is scientific denialism, pure and simple. Do tell. What exactly do you mean by "measurably similar"? and how does that mena one would have to believe physicists understanding of how electrical signals pass through wire is fundamentally wrong? Are you saying that physicists believe that cables pass audio signals with no measurable distortion? I don't believe that is true. Scott |
|
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Mar 15, 11:37 pm, Chung wrote: You don't understand the point. If we do not understand what difference a cable makes to an audio signal, we would have no chance to be able to design all those electronic systems that are orders of magnitude more complex, that really push the science of transporting energy from one point to another via cables or other media. I have stayed out of this donnybrook until now, but two observations: a) Those who have invested an obscene (or even a mere insane) amount on cabling are required to believe that there are audible and significant differences that are in direct proportion to the cost. b) There will never be a meeting of the minds on this. Those who simply do not hear the difference will seek proof that there is one. "I hear it so it must be so" is not an acceptable proof to them. On the other hand, there may be those who have not made up their minds on the subject, and would want to understand better... Overall, I refer the assembled multitude to Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So you think an interconnect audio cable qualifies as "sufficiently advanced technology"? In the realm of Magic, either you 'get it' or you do not. Discussion is futile. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 17, 10:42 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
....no verified science tying the measured phenomenon with subjective aural ratings when it comes to reproducing music. Of course there is, gobs of it. See any DBT done with music. See Floyd Toole and Sean Olive's work rating speakers. See all of the things you don't want to see, Harry. bob |
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
... On 16 Mar 2007 21:16:10 GMT, "Peter Wieck" wrote: b) There will never be a meeting of the minds on this. Those who simply do not hear the difference will seek proof that there is one. "I hear it so it must be so" is not an acceptable proof to them. First, it is a dubious assumption that anyone's goal here is a "meeting of minds". The discussion is just a discussion, there is no requirement that anyone "win" or "lose". Second, the attitude that '"I hear it so it must be so" is not proof', is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty well lies behind all of science. Some of us know how easily we can be fooled, and therefore take precautions against that. Some of us seem to think that we cannot be fooled but are in fact, based on the available evidence, the most foolable of all of us. But "I hear it so it must be so" is certainly not a scientific scientific attitude, and last I saw it was the scientists and engineers who have given us the ability we have to bring a pretty good approximation of live musical performances into our living rooms. Very true. But it needs also to be pointed out that it was the audiophiles and audio reveiwers who pointed out the audible flaws in the audio technology that promised "perfect sound forever", first in early transistor amplifiers, and later in early CD players. And it was audio reveiwers who developed a subjective language to describe what they heard, so that audio engineers knew where to focus their attention. It takes both good engineering knowledge and good listening skills to create superior audio equipment, even if the engineering alone is sufficient in some other fields. |
|
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 17, 7:43�am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 16 Mar 2007 21:16:10 GMT, "Peter Wieck" wrote: b) There will never be a meeting of the minds on this. Those who simply do not hear the difference will seek proof that there is one. "I hear it so it must be so" is not an acceptable proof to them. First, it is a dubious assumption that anyone's goal here is a "meeting of minds". *The discussion is just a discussion, there is no requirement that anyone "win" or "lose". Nice to hear you say it. I agree. The idea that there must be a meeting of the minds is..well...a bit creepy. Second, the attitude that '"I hear it so it must be so" is not proof', You are right. But then this begs the question, does one need proof to merely have an opinion about their subjective experiences? is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty well lies behind all of science. *Some of us know how easily we can be fooled, and therefore take precautions against that. Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against being fooled when you make purchase choices in audio? *Some of us seem to think that we cannot be fooled but are in fact, based on the available evidence, the most foolable of all of us. Where is the evidence of that? That attitude affects vulnerability to bias affects in audio? But "I hear it so it must be so" is certainly not a scientific scientific attitude, "Scientific attitude?" Science is a process not an attitude. and last I saw it was the scientists and engineers who have given us the ability we have to bring a pretty good approximation of live musical performances into our living rooms. And yet many of those folks were what we would call subjectivists. Scott� |
|
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 17, 9:46 am, Chung wrote:
So you think an interconnect audio cable qualifies as "sufficiently advanced technology"? Um... no. There are those who would wish it so, however. And under those conditions, the only consistent explanation is Magic. And as there is no dearth of logical fallacies herein, one may as well reason from the specific to the general. If immeasurable (magical) properties are attributed to an item, then it is either highly advanced technology undiscernable using presently available methods, or... magic. Either way, it ain't nohow measurable, quantifiable or (and therefore not) definable. Whatever legends I may or may not believe about Audio, good quality cables above a certain very easily achieved plateau are inaudible in my experience and my opinion. Othere believe otherwise. That is there privilege. It is my privilege not to believe them. When I am in an advisory role, I always tell people to start with the speakers, then the signal sources, then the amplification, and then distant and last the interconnects. $500 additional put into speakers with cabling at $50, will be far more audible than $50 additional put into speakers with cabling at $500. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 17, 1:22 pm, "Peter Wieck" wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:46 am, Chung wrote: So you think an interconnect audio cable qualifies as "sufficiently advanced technology"? Um... no. There are those who would wish it so, however. And under those conditions, the only consistent explanation is Magic. And as there is no dearth of logical fallacies herein, one may as well reason from the specific to the general. If immeasurable (magical) properties are attributed to an item, then it is either highly advanced technology undiscernable using presently available methods, or... magic. Either way, it ain't nohow measurable, quantifiable or (and therefore not) definable. Or "design-able." Which is why it's so funny when defenders of high- end cables claim the prices reflect R&D costs. bob |
|
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"René" wrote:
DougA wrote: Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be quantified and measured. I too, can sometimes clearly hear the difference if other interconnects or cables are placed. The same improvement is sometimes incurred by taking out en replacing the *same* cables again. In short - re-seating the existing cables and interlinks may make a remarkable difference. Only if they were originally RUBBISH ! The reticence of the hi-fi industry to adopt decent reliable connectors like XLRs as used in pro-audio is very telling. Graham |
|
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Chung wrote: we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in levels, etc.), then more like 0.1 dB. 0.01 dB is measurable. It needs around 0.3 dB to be audible by a very highly trained ear.. Graham |
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 17, 10:20?am, "bob" wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:42 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote: ....no verified science tying the measured phenomenon with subjective aural ratings when it comes to reproducing music. Of course there is, gobs of it. See any DBT done with music. Please cite the peer reviewed published DBTs of cables. See Floyd Toole and Sean Olive's work rating speakers. Speakers=cables? I don't think so. See all of the things you don't want to see Show me. I'm just not finding it. Scott |
|
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message ...
A problem with discussions like this is that lots of people give their ideas with little experience to back up their points. Comments like "surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the more expensive table. There is a lot more to TT performance than wow and flutter which I can't recall hearing since I ditched my BSR changer for an AR-XA at the age of 12. ScottW |
|
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message
On Mar 12, 8:31?pm, "bob" wrote: On Mar 12, 6:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in any way. For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it generates minimal excitment. The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted. Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for basic engineering principles fail to perceive engineering papers as they were intended to be understood. The problem goes much deeper than this. To believe, for example, that different brands of measurably similar cables can be audibly different, you have to believe that physicists' understanding of how electrical signals pass through wires is fundamentally wrong. It is scientific denialism, pure and simple. Do tell. What exactly do you mean by "measurably similar"? Have similar effective series L, C, and R, equivalent quality factors for the L and C, and similar frequency-dependence of L, C, and R. Have effective shielding. Be capable of maintaining a good grounding system. and how does that mean one would have to believe physicists understanding of how electrical signals pass through wire is fundamentally wrong? The theory of passage of audio signals through short cables is thought to be well-understood. The performance of a short audio cable is essentially described by the parameters I listed above. Are you saying that physicists believe that cables pass audio signals with no measurable distortion? No, it is well known that audio signals can undergo all kinds of measurable changes when they pass through cables. There is usually very little nonlinear distortion, but there can easily be measurable amounts of linear distortion. However, the measurable amounts of linear distortion are often so small as to be irrelevant to sound quality. I don't believe that is true. I see it as a straw man. Scott |
|
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Eeyore" wrote in
message Steven Sullivan wrote: Chung wrote: we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in levels, etc.), then more like 0.1 dB. 0.01 dB is measurable. Agreed. I've done it many times. It needs around 0.3 dB to be audible by a very highly trained ear.. Agreed. I've done it many times. However, this takes careful close comparisons that audiophiles rarely ever do. The audibility of a change is highly dependent on the range of frequencies that the change effects. 5 dB at 20 KHz is moot, 5 dB over the 20-20 KHz range is can be pretty signficant. But, if someone says that a sound is too soft or too loud, you may have to change the levels by 5 dB 20-20 KHz for them to think you've made a significant change. |
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message ... But "I hear it so it must be so" is certainly not a scientific scientific attitude, and last I saw it was the scientists and engineers who have given us the ability we have to bring a pretty good approximation of live musical performances into our living rooms. Very true. But it needs also to be pointed out that it was the audiophiles and audio reveiwers who pointed out the audible flaws in the audio technology that promised "perfect sound forever", first in early transistor amplifiers, and later in early CD players. Straw man arguments. There was never a claim that early SS amps had "perfect sound forever", and their audible flaws were widely discussed. However, their audible flaws were minor compared to their lack of reliablity. The claim that the CD format offered "perfect sound forever" was part of an advertising pitch. Anybody who confuses advertising pitches with adequate technical statements of equipment performance deserves what they get. However, I have a working sample of a CDP 101 that appears to be well-maintained. This was one of the two original CD players. I defy anybody to detect its insertion into an audio system playing back typical recordings. And it was audio reveiwers who developed a subjective language to describe what they heard, so that audio engineers knew where to focus their attention. Actually, the audio reviewers were just aping a descriptive language that was first developed by recording engineers and sound system installation engineers. It takes both good engineering knowledge and good listening skills to create superior audio equipment, even if the engineering alone is sufficient in some other fields. As a rule audio journalists do not use proper descriptive teminology. They tend to write poetry, not usuable descriptive reports. There is an AES standard, AES22 that lays out a usable set of descriptive terms. |
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
You are right. But then this begs the question, does one
need proof to merely have an opinion about their subjective experiences? Not if they don't wish to have credibility for their opinions. If a person wishes to have an opinion, then they are certainly free to have that opinion. If people wish that opinion to be credible to others, and if that opinon is such of a nature that can raise a controversy, then proof or at least further evidence-gathering may be appropriate. is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty well lies behind all of science. Some of us know how easily we can be fooled, and therefore take precautions against that. Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against being fooled when you make purchase choices in audio? I base my purchases on both technical and subjective evaluations. Wherever possible, I use bias controls in my subjective evaluations. Case in point - I just bought a Microtrack digital recorder. I bought it without auditioning it, based on its technical specs, the credibility of the organization that published those specs, and several formal and informal reviews of the product. BTW, I expect it to provide essentially perfect sound for 3-5 years. ;-) I haven't finished my formal and informal evaluation of the Microtrack, but it seems to be suitable for the purpose that I purchased it for. I do have return privileges with a 15% restocking fee, but based on making about 25 recordings with it, I don't think that will happen. |
|
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message
On Mar 15, 8:37?pm, Chung wrote: wrote: On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung wrote: For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc. OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no measurable effect within these tolerances? An important point seems to have been missed. The stated tolerances were provided to show that we can measure far smaller differences than we can hear. Audible tolerances are far greater. No, I'm just calling you guys on what I see as a straw man argument by inference. You mean like the straw man that I dealt with above? The laws of physics have been envoked and our superior ability measure beyond the human thresholds of hearing have been envoked. So far so good. However it is apparent that the point that was obviously being made was misunderstood. The thing that wasn't mentioned is that those very laws of physics actual dictate that not only do cables distort an audio signal they *must* do so by those very laws envoked. Missing the point that just because there is measurable distortion, does not mean that said distortion is audible. It also isn't mentioned that those very sensitive measuring devices actually do measure differences between cables as dictated by those laws of physics. If by distortion, you are using the common meaning, which is actually nonlinear distortion, then neither the laws of physics nor actual measurements suggest that cables have audible nonlinear distortion. That is the real irony. Lets talk about physics and sensitive measurments let's just casually ignore what they really say. No, there is an implication of relevance which seems to being swept under some figurative carpet. There may be differences in cable length, inductance, capacitance, etc. Gotta love that "etc." It could mean a lot of things. I provided a complete list in another post. What is important is the voltage that is delivered to the load, be it speaker terminals or inputs of the power amp. If two cables deliver the same voltage within tolerances that we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in levels, etc.), then the two cables must sound the same to us. But alas they don't deliever the same exact signal. Certainly not within a 0.01 dB tolerance. There is no need to do so. The 0.01 dB tolerance is irrelevant to audibility. Unless you claim to have hearing acuity finer than those differences. No my claim is quite simple. The posturing about the "laws of physics" and the ability to measure beyond the thresholds of human hearing are a meaningless burning straw man because the "laws of physics" dictate that cables will distort an audio signal and the measurements that extend beyond the threshold of human hearing bear that fact out. However, the fact that the *only* measured issues are far less than human audibility *is* relevant. Once those facts are disclosed all the hand waving about those measurements and the laws of physics are reduced to a non-argument at best. THE ISSUE. The ONLY issue is whether or not the real world distortions (predicted by "the laws of physics" and supported by the imperical measurements) are within or beyond the threshold of human hearing. That is my point. This point is irrelevant to the immediate discussion at hand, which was a discussion as to whether we can measure more sensitively than we can hear. It was claimed that we can hear more sensitively than we can measure, when the facts support the exact opposite conclusion. Nothing more nothing less. If there are studies that have measured all parameters of cable distortion and there is sufficient listening tests for the thresholds of human hearing for all those distortions then we have something to talk about. But no one is talking about that. Why not? Because someone raised a different issue. A cable is really among the simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like cellular communication systems for instance? What does that have to do with anything? Just because they can be made quite simply does not mean they are all free from distortion. You don't understand the point. No I do understand the point. No, another point was brought in when discussion of the first point was incomplete. I see no response to Chung's post from "DougA". This whole discussion of audibility is currently out of order. |
|
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message
On Mar 15, 8:35?pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On 15 Mar 2007 22:34:13 GMT, wrote: A problem with discussions like this is that lots of people give their ideas with little experience to back up their points. Comments like "surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the more expensive table. There are amps, preamps, and everything electronic the like measurements that sound completely different. The ear is the final arbeitor And yet when the eye is blocked the ear becomes unable to tell the difference. Strange, that. Really? You have done or know of DBTs or even SBTs between a Rega P25 and a VPI Scoutmaster where no differences were detected? Or are you just making assumptions here? I would be happy to conduct a full objective and subjective comparison of these two turntables, were they available to me for evaluation. In fact there are few if any proper comparisons of turntables, tone arms, and cartrdiges by the high end audio press. I think that Stereophile did one a few years back, but that was apparently a one-time event. I also don't know how thorough that comparison was, but I'm quite sure given the continuing angst at Stereophile over proper subjective comparison techniques that none were done. |
|
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
Most of us wouldn't....but we might say that there is not consensus on *what* should be measured....no verified science tying the measured phenomenon with subjective aural ratings when it comes to reproducing music. Actually there is a consensus, its just not a perfect consensus. One problem is that there is an ongoing controversy, largely fueled by ignorance of audio by consumers. |
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"ScottW" wrote in message
wrote in message ... A problem with discussions like this is that lots of people give their ideas with little experience to back up their points. Comments like "surely we can test more accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the more expensive table. There is a lot more to TT performance than wow and flutter which I can't recall hearing since I ditched my BSR changer for an AR-XA at the age of 12. It's quite possible for an AR-XA to have audible wow and flutter. I'm surprised you never heard it. |
|
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"UC" wrote in message
On Mar 3, 11:32 am, DougA wrote: After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and speaker cables.) This is the gear we chose: YBA Passion 200 Focal Electra 1027 Be Ayre CX-7 Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal recommendations? douga Monster Cable brand is widely available, not excessively expensive, and good-sounding. Actually, just about everything Monster Cable sells is wildly overpriced unless bought at clearance sales. MCM Electronics often sells Monster Cable products that are being cleared out. |
|
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote:
On Mar 15, 8:37?pm, Chung wrote: wrote: On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung wrote: DougA wrote: We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects. A review can be read he http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be quantified and measured. Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and therfore explained? How do we know it *can't* be backed up by measurements? The OP said so...Maybe you should ask the OP. Oh you are taking his word for it? then there is nothing more to discuss. cables sound different. OK, it seems that you don't really understand my point at all. I raised the question "Ever wonder why those feelings cannot be backed up by meaasurements?" since the OP made that statement, to bring the point up that perhaps those feelings were NOT actually based on the actual performance differences in cables. You somehow interpreted that as me taking his word for it, that I am agreeing with him that cables sound different, and hence there is nothing more to discuss. Given your consistent lack of understanding on what points are being made, and your inability to follow logic, there is really nothing more to discuss. (snip) |
|
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Arny Krueger wrote:
I would be happy to conduct a full objective and subjective comparison of these two turntables, were they available to me for evaluation. In fact there are few if any proper comparisons of turntables, tone arms, and cartrdiges by the high end audio press. I think that Stereophile did one a few years back, but that was apparently a one-time event. I also don't know how thorough that comparison was, but I'm quite sure given the continuing angst at Stereophile over proper subjective comparison techniques that none were done. There is no "simple" way to really A-B turntables. It is not like passing a signal through two electronic items, matching levels, and then simply switching back and forth. Usually, one just spends big bucks on something new, and then pronounces that the newer item "blows away" the old. In the old days (if I remember correctly), Linn demonstrated their "AR-like" suspended deck with a competing Japanese DD. At that time they used the Keith Monks tonearm which allowed swapping the entire arm tube/cartridge assembly (the KM arm tube was sunk in a vat of mercury and could easily be lifted off). But even this was far from a controlled test. Few "high end" arms have detachable shells, these days. The ones that do are very expensive. I suppose it would be possible to set up two different turntables with, say, two identical Ikeda (think FR) arms, swap headshells and use the same record. But then the test would not have the advantage of quick comparison. The old Audio Magazine tests measured for wow and flutter, speed stability, and rumble. Is anyone doing that now? Today, a high end turntable is more a work of art. It is difficult to not believe that a chrome and lucite deck selling for 5 to 10 large is not somehow better than, say, a Technics SL-1200 that looks pretty industrial by comparison. Finally, often those in the hi-fi press now writing about these things are the same people who hear big differences in a few feet of mystery wire. How credible are they? For many reasons, it is really hard to get a handle on this topic in order to make any reasonable sense out of it. mp |
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
|
|
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message On Mar 12, 8:31?pm, "bob" wrote: On Mar 12, 6:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in any way. For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it generates minimal excitment. The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted. Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for basic engineering principles fail to perceive engineering papers as they were intended to be understood. The problem goes much deeper than this. To believe, for example, that different brands of measurably similar cables can be audibly different, you have to believe that physicists' understanding of how electrical signals pass through wires is fundamentally wrong. It is scientific denialism, pure and simple. Do tell. What exactly do you mean by "measurably similar"? Have similar effective series L, C, and R, equivalent quality factors for the L and C, and similar frequency-dependence of L, C, and R. Have effective shielding. Be capable of maintaining a good grounding system. And more importantly, the voltage waveforms reaching the load (speakers, power amp, etc.) are sufficiently similar to be below thresholds of audibility of differences. |
|
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 18, 7:15�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message Do tell. What exactly do you mean by "measurably similar"? Have similar effective series L, C, and R, equivalent quality factors for the L and C, and similar frequency-dependence of L, C, and R. *Have effective shielding. Be capable of maintaining a good grounding system. and how does that mean one would have to believe physicists understanding of how electrical signals pass through wire is fundamentally wrong? The theory of passage of audio signals through short cables is thought to be well-understood. The performance of a short audio cable is essentially described by the parameters I listed above. Sorry but that does not answer the question about how we would have to believe physicists' are wrong about how a cable passes a signal to believe that a cable can distort a signal. Are you *saying that physicists believe that cables pass audio signals with no measurable distortion? No, it is well known that audio signals can undergo all kinds of measurable changes when they pass through cables. BINGO. Correct answer. So all the hand waving about the "laws of physics" and the fact that we have ways of measuring signal that are far more sensitive than uman hearing is a burning straw man and plainly misleading because in fact the laws of physics dictates that a cable should distort an audio signal and the measurements confirm that. Thank you. Scott |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Here's another one | Audio Opinions | |||
| MIT Oracle cables...what's in the box? | High End Audio | |||
| mini cable suggestions | Pro Audio | |||
| FA: Neve, Manley, TT patch cables, Eventide, Neumann, Coles, bulk cable, connectors, etc. | Pro Audio | |||
| Suggestions on what cable to use inside a console. | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
