Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I
want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way? I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"Mike S." wrote: I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way? I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable. RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos IME (as opposed to cheap POS computer speakers for example). Are you SURE those connectors are actually SPEAKER outputs ? Are they marked as such ? More likely that they are preamp level outputs. Not even sure what you mean by a "stereo RCA speaker cable". Never met anything marketed as such in 40 years of taking an serious interest in audio. To be honest, if you don't know this stuff you probably shouldn't be touching any wires at all. Graham |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"Mike S." wrote ...
I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way? I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable. There is no functional difference between "two mono cables" and "a stereo cable". It isn't magic. HOWEVER, it is highly questionable whether any output from audio equipment using RCA jacks is *speaker level*. I would assume that it is NOT and will not work to connect speakers to, unless proved otherwise. Note that unless you identify the equipment you are talking about, we can only speak in generalities which is of doubtful usefuleness to you. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
Eeyore wrote: "Mike S." wrote: I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way? I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable. RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos IME (as opposed to cheap POS computer speakers for example). Are you SURE those connectors are actually SPEAKER outputs ? Are they marked as such ? More likely that they are preamp level outputs. Not even sure what you mean by a "stereo RCA speaker cable". Never met anything marketed as such in 40 years of taking an serious interest in audio. To be honest, if you don't know this stuff you probably shouldn't be touching any wires at all. Graham The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system. The stereo (amplifier) and speakers does use use RCA/phono connections. I didn't realize until today that stereo RCA speaker cable even existed (I never saw it before). Just to be clear, the mono RCA cable has two plugs (one on each end), and the stereo RCA speaker cable has four plugs (two on each end). I've always used two mono cables. I was just wondering if one stereo cable would be better or the same as two mono cables. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
On Mar 13, 6:22 am, "Mike S." wrote:
Eeyore wrote: "Mike S." wrote: RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system. Are being deliberately secretive? What is your system? What brand? What model? |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"Mike S." wrote in message
... Eeyore wrote: "Mike S." wrote: I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way? I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable. RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos IME (as opposed to cheap POS computer speakers for example). Are you SURE those connectors are actually SPEAKER outputs ? Are they marked as such ? More likely that they are preamp level outputs. Not even sure what you mean by a "stereo RCA speaker cable". Never met anything marketed as such in 40 years of taking an serious interest in audio. To be honest, if you don't know this stuff you probably shouldn't be touching any wires at all. Graham The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system. The stereo (amplifier) and speakers does use use RCA/phono connections. I didn't realize until today that stereo RCA speaker cable even existed (I never saw it before). Just to be clear, the mono RCA cable has two plugs (one on each end), and the stereo RCA speaker cable has four plugs (two on each end). I've always used two mono cables. I was just wondering if one stereo cable would be better or the same as two mono cables. Your post looks more like a troll than a serious one. Allowing that you really have rca jacks on your speakers, which is possible, unless you wish to place the speakers right next to each other you need to use individual rca cables. And not very many sources have rca cables for speakers. The rca cables for low level signals have even smaller wire that the ones used for speakers. If you are buying them commercially you want ones where a single rca to rca cable has wire that looks like a pair of wires side by side. Not where one rca jack connects to one round wire as these are the low level shielded cables. The shielded cables will work if used though. Which is why you got a lot of questions about the rca connection for speakers. RCA connections are typically for low level signals, not speakers. When they were used for speakers it was only for amplifiers with rather limited output power. Like computer pc sound cards and "boom box" style systems. No one really listens to albums anymore either. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. No ? Graham |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"Eeyore" wrote in message
... jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. No ? Graham Let's just say the bulk of the world quit listening to albums. I won't argue that there is still some music that never got re-released on cds. But that's because it's audience was quite limited which just further supports my statement. If there was a market someone released it on cd. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message ... "Eeyore" wrote in message ... jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. No ? Graham Let's just say the bulk of the world quit listening to albums. I won't argue that there is still some music that never got re-released on cds. But that's because it's audience was quite limited which just further supports my statement. If there was a market someone released it on cd. In the old days, a record was listened to in 2 distinct halves of about 20 minutes each, that had a beginning, middle and end. Nowadays the (often many) duff tracks on a very long CD are skipped. Not quite the same listening experience at all IMHO. Mind you I don't smoke dope any more ....... Gareth. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
... "jamesgangnc" wrote in message ... "Eeyore" wrote in message ... jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. No ? Graham Let's just say the bulk of the world quit listening to albums. I won't argue that there is still some music that never got re-released on cds. But that's because it's audience was quite limited which just further supports my statement. If there was a market someone released it on cd. In the old days, a record was listened to in 2 distinct halves of about 20 minutes each, that had a beginning, middle and end. Nowadays the (often many) duff tracks on a very long CD are skipped. Not quite the same listening experience at all IMHO. Mind you I don't smoke dope any more ...... Gareth. I won't argue that some music was produced intentionally designed for a single lp side and to be played through. But even then the majority of the music produced was targeted at single plays on the radio. I'll admit that many new cds are produced as just a collection of tracks. Today, just like yesterday, you do not find many that have arranged the tracks so they combine to make something more complete than just a collection of songs. But the factors that drive that are the same as they were back then. Point is that you can get those albums on cd if you want. And you can listen to them from track one to the end. Plus cd collections are a bit more rugged. My album collection never grew past a certain size because albums deteriorate when they are played. They require delicate handling. And accidents happen to them, particularly when associated with the rest of the culture that went with the music experience of that era, ie smoking dope. The oldests cds in my collection are still just fine even though I bought them 20+ years ago. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
In article , "Mike S." wrote:
I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way? I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable. How did you do it before ? greg |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
Mike S. wrote:
Eeyore wrote: "Mike S." wrote: I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way? I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable. RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos IME (as opposed to cheap POS computer speakers for example). Are you SURE those connectors are actually SPEAKER outputs ? Are they marked as such ? More likely that they are preamp level outputs. Not even sure what you mean by a "stereo RCA speaker cable". Never met anything marketed as such in 40 years of taking an serious interest in audio. To be honest, if you don't know this stuff you probably shouldn't be touching any wires at all. Graham The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system. I believe you--as far as the RCA speaker connectors go. Those plugs have been used for speakers over the years, may even be so today, in some gear. They were even more common in the 70's; but they were never--repeat, *never*--used for high quality equipment; which is why many here have never experienced the practice. As far as 'better than some...made today'; well, you're right there. There has always been lo-fi crap available, and there still is today. This is a forum which deals mostly with mid to high fidelity equipment. Most gear produced with RCA speaker outs was in the range of three or four lo-fi watts per channel. Mostly, the speaker cabling used was 20 gauge or even smaller. Radio Shack used to carry them. They might still.... The stereo (amplifier) and speakers does use use RCA/phono connections. I didn't realize until today that stereo RCA speaker cable even existed (I never saw it before). Just to be clear, the mono RCA cable has two plugs (one on each end), and the stereo RCA speaker cable has four plugs (two on each end). I've always used two mono cables. I was just wondering if one stereo cable would be better or the same as two mono cables. No offense, but your question(s) and comments belie a general lack of technical acumen. For instance, as another responder queried; how would you use a stereo cable unless you put your speakers directly beside each other? That's not accepted practice...at least if your intention is to hear what the artists and engineers of the source material intended. If you're happy with your 'system' as it is, then fine. Who am I to say that you shouldn't be? Buy some speaker cables at the Rat Shack...or strip some long stereo signal cables apart and use those (many--but not all--can be separated and used individually..shouldn't hurt anything in this application--although again--not 'best practice'). At the very least, though, you should separate the speakers by a distance roughly equal to the distance from which you listen to them. OTOH, you might want to audition some really high (or even mid) fidelity gear. Check out an audio retailer...or perhaps friends' systems. If the difference doesn't astound you, then there's little hope, and you might as well enjoy what you have. Not everybody cares...but don't trumpet 'quality' of which you have little concept. jak |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
Mike S. wrote:
Eeyore wrote: "Mike S." wrote: I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way? I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable. RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos IME (as opposed to cheap POS computer speakers for example). Are you SURE those connectors are actually SPEAKER outputs ? Are they marked as such ? More likely that they are preamp level outputs. Not even sure what you mean by a "stereo RCA speaker cable". Never met anything marketed as such in 40 years of taking an serious interest in audio. To be honest, if you don't know this stuff you probably shouldn't be touching any wires at all. Graham The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system. The stereo (amplifier) and speakers does use use RCA/phono connections. I didn't realize until today that stereo RCA speaker cable even existed (I never saw it before). Just to be clear, the mono RCA cable has two plugs (one on each end), and the stereo RCA speaker cable has four plugs (two on each end). I've always used two mono cables. I was just wondering if one stereo cable would be better or the same as two mono cables. Consider this: If you take a ordinary RCA plug patch cable and grab the red plug in one hand and the black in the other and pull it into two single pieces of wire, does that change the functionality of the cable? And I'm with Dick, what exactly is this mystery machine?? -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote: HOWEVER, it is highly questionable whether any output from audio equipment using RCA jacks is *speaker level*. I would assume that it is NOT and will not work to connect speakers to, unless proved otherwise. I've seen a few radios and receivers which did in fact use RCA jacks for the speaker-level outputs. They were either very old models, or very cheap low-end models, or both. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
On Mar 13, 12:13*pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. * * I bet more than you think. -- * * * * h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! * * * * * Clicks h3re 4 hlep! * * * *http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote: jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. Not on this forum.... jak |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"jakdedert" wrote in message
. .. wrote: On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote: jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. Not on this forum.... jak The population of this forum is not even statistically significant for a small town. What's your rational for playing albums? Music not available on modern formats? Or you're just losers? |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
jamesgangnc wrote: "Eeyore" wrote jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. No ? Let's just say the bulk of the world quit listening to albums. I won't argue that there is still some music that never got re-released on cds. But that's because it's audience was quite limited which just further supports my statement. If there was a market someone released it on cd. Oh you mean VINYL not 'albums'. You still get albums on CD. Graham |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
jamesgangnc wrote:
"jakdedert" wrote in message . .. wrote: On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote: jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. Not on this forum.... jak The population of this forum is not even statistically significant for a small town. What's your rational for playing albums? Music not available on modern formats? Or you're just losers? Oops...sorry. I didn't realize who you were. How are things under the bridge these days? jak |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"jakdedert" wrote in message
... jamesgangnc wrote: "jakdedert" wrote in message . .. wrote: On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote: jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. Not on this forum.... jak The population of this forum is not even statistically significant for a small town. What's your rational for playing albums? Music not available on modern formats? Or you're just losers? Oops...sorry. I didn't realize who you were. How are things under the bridge these days? jak A lot better than the rock you're under, yukyuk. Wake up and smell the 21 century. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote: jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. Maybe. I'm sure you pulled that number out of your hind end, but it could be close to correct. It is still most likely more than you think it is though, which was my only point. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
jamesgangnc wrote:
"jakdedert" wrote in message . .. wrote: On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote: jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. Not on this forum.... jak The population of this forum is not even statistically significant for a small town. What's your rational for playing albums? Music not available on modern formats? Or you're just losers? ??? Where did you come from? Doesn't sound like you've been around the audio groups much. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
Mike S. wrote:
The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system. Idiot. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"Dave Platt" wrote in message news I've seen a few radios and receivers which did in fact use RCA jacks for the speaker-level outputs. They were either very old models, or very cheap low-end models, or both. That is my experience too. Always very low quality, and most usually the "all in ones". MrT. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"WindsorFoxSS" wrote in message
... wrote: On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote: jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. Maybe. I'm sure you pulled that number out of your hind end, but it could be close to correct. It is still most likely more than you think it is though, which was my only point. I'm game. Why? Can't say that I frequent any music categories that might tend to have something really obscure but it sure seems like just about everything is available on cds these days. At least everyting that got released on vinyl. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message ... "WindsorFoxSS" wrote in message Maybe. I'm sure you pulled that number out of your hind end, but it could be close to correct. It is still most likely more than you think it is though, which was my only point. I'm game. Why? Usually nostalgia. Can't say that I frequent any music categories that might tend to have something really obscure but it sure seems like just about everything is available on cds these days. At least everyting that got released on vinyl. Not even close! Most of the top 40 albums maybe. I've even done one off vinyl-CD transfers for the original artists personal collection. MrT. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
Usually nostalgia.
Nolstalgia? I'm in the camp that just wants my audio system to as accurately as possible recreate the sound of the live performance. But to each their own. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
jamesgangnc wrote:
I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. Maybe. I'm sure you pulled that number out of your hind end, but it could be close to correct. It is still most likely more than you think it is though, which was my only point. I'm game. Why? Can't say that I frequent any music categories that might tend to have something really obscure but it sure seems like just about everything is available on cds these days. At least everyting that got released on vinyl. Which actually doesn't have a lot to do with why some people listen to records. If it were then you're only a $70 USB turntable away from 100% digital bliss. The same reason some people listen to tubes and some people put those little riser thingies under their speaker wire. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"WindsorFoxSS" wrote in message
... Which actually doesn't have a lot to do with why some people listen to records. If it were then you're only a $70 USB turntable away from 100% digital bliss. The same reason some people listen to tubes and some people put those little riser thingies under their speaker wire. You forgot the people that buy thousand dollar speaker wire. Although I'm inclined to say that's two different groups. The group that falls for those various gimcracks like monster speaker wire, speaker wire risers, $200 interconnects, etc. And the other group that thinks their audio system should participate in the music production by adding "color". Tube amps would be fine if you didn't have to have that stupid transformer at the end. Just no way to make a tube current amp. And no way to make a transformer that is transparent from 20hz to 20khz. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
wrote in message
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote: jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. If by album you mean LP, then you have to come up with a number that relates to the fact that about 1% of all sales of recordings is for LPs. 1 in 10,000 is IMO far too few. Besdies, there are people who listen to LPs who don't buy new LPs. I'll bet for every album listener there are more like 50 listening exclusively to other formats. That would be a more reasonable guess. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
jamesgangnc wrote:
"WindsorFoxSS" wrote in message ... Which actually doesn't have a lot to do with why some people listen to records. If it were then you're only a $70 USB turntable away from 100% digital bliss. The same reason some people listen to tubes and some people put those little riser thingies under their speaker wire. You forgot the people that buy thousand dollar speaker wire. Although I'm inclined to say that's two different groups. The group that falls for those various gimcracks like monster speaker wire, speaker wire risers, $200 interconnects, etc. And the other group that thinks their audio system should participate in the music production by adding "color". I didn't forget, Ididn't have time or room to mention everything Tube amps would be fine if you didn't have to have that stupid transformer at the end. Just no way to make a tube current amp. And no way to make a transformer that is transparent from 20hz to 20khz. I'm going to back up now, cuz I'm sure that is going to garner some replies from those more qualified than I. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote: I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. Maybe. I'm sure you pulled that number out of your hind end, but it could be close to correct. It is still most likely more than you think it is though, which was my only point. I'm game. Why? Can't say that I frequent any music categories that might tend to have something really obscure but it sure seems like just about everything is available on cds these days. At least everyting that got released on vinyl. Which actually doesn't have a lot to do with why some people listen to records. If it were then you're only a $70 USB turntable away from 100% digital bliss. The same reason some people listen to tubes and some people put those little riser thingies under their speaker wire. That's just silly. Personally, I listen to the LPs because I have them, have had them for 40 years or so, and have the equipment to listen to them. I don't listen to them exclusively. I don't listen to them every day. Most of what I have is available on MP3 or CD--but not all. I don't listen to every single piece often enough to either digitize or replace it with CD, as it would cost many thousands of dollars (many of which I've already spent, years ago)...or countless hours. Personally, I prefer the ease and accessibility (and sound) of popping in a CD, or pulling up a file; but I also enjoy pulling out an old track I haven't even thought about in years.... I've never been a consumer of snake oil. My speaker cables came from Home Depot, bulk (labeled SOJ). Most of my gear was bought second-hand at thrift stores, pawn shops or yard sales...some eBay, some picked up off the curb. Much of it was non-functional, incomplete or defective in some fashion when I obtained it. I haven't paid a service person a dime in 30 years.... I don't have special power cords, outlet covers, magic rocks or anything else of that ilk. jak |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
On Mar 14, 9:31*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote: jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. If by album you mean LP, then you have to come up with a number that relates to the fact that about 1% of all sales of recordings is for LPs. * 1 in 10,000 is IMO far too few. *Besdies, there are people who listen to LPs who don't buy new LPs. I'll bet for every album listener there are more like 50 listening exclusively to other formats. That would be a more reasonable guess. Ya think? Seems unlikely to me. Where do you get your 1%? And 1% equals 1 in a 100, not 1 in 50. And assumes an equal distribution of sales. And I'm betting that the lp listeners don't fit that profile. There are no "new" lps. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message ... Usually nostalgia. Nolstalgia? I'm in the camp that just wants my audio system to as accurately as possible recreate the sound of the live performance. But to each their own. There is an arguement that the CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz does not provide enough bandwidth for truly perfect sound reproduction. Sound is an analog signal. To convert analog to digital, samples are taken, in this case 44,100 times per second, and a digital representation is made of each sample. A CD player contains a digital to analog converter which reverses the process. Problem is, you can't reproduce a sound wave, which is a curve, from discrete digital samples, you can only approximate it. The more samples, the better the approximation. Remember that the CD standard sample rate was adopted in the 80's, when PC's didn't exist and the fastest processor ran at 8 or 16MHz. There is a contingent of the population, and I'll grant you that it's a small contingent when compared to the general population, that believes that LP's _CAN_ sound better than CD's. Granted, LP's come with their own set of issues as far as perfect sound reprodution, but they are a true analog medium and can, POTENTIALLY, deliver truer sound than can a CD. If you've ever heard a really really good vinyl system playing a really really well-mastered album, you'll know what I mean. The popularity of CD's is due to a number of factors, but a real big one is that for a tiny fraction of the cost of an awesome turntable, you can get a CD player with 95% of the sound quality. With the advent of the computer age, CD's offer transferability that vinyl cannot. Things like music distribution evolve with technology, but remember that just because it's newer doesn't always mean it's better. Also, better for one person doesn't always equal better for all. I'll take a well-mastered LP over some piece of crap 128kbps-encoded mp3 any day of the week, but a VAST VAST majority of music purchasers (who are, btw, mainly kids) are perfectly happy with the highly compressed format and accompanying loss of sound quality. But then I'm old.... Dave |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
"Dave" wrote in message
news:hOwCj.108382$C61.35398@edtnps89... "jamesgangnc" wrote in message ... Usually nostalgia. Nolstalgia? I'm in the camp that just wants my audio system to as accurately as possible recreate the sound of the live performance. But to each their own. There is an arguement that the CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz does not provide enough bandwidth for truly perfect sound reproduction. Sound is an analog signal. To convert analog to digital, samples are taken, in this case 44,100 times per second, and a digital representation is made of each sample. A CD player contains a digital to analog converter which reverses the process. Problem is, you can't reproduce a sound wave, which is a curve, from discrete digital samples, you can only approximate it. The more samples, the better the approximation. Remember that the CD standard sample rate was adopted in the 80's, when PC's didn't exist and the fastest processor ran at 8 or 16MHz. Absloutely not! For any band-limited signal, provided you sample at more than twice the highest frequency, you recreate *exactly* (to the limits of noise) the original signal. Mr Nyquist showed this very many years ago. There is a contingent of the population, and I'll grant you that it's a small contingent when compared to the general population, that believes that LP's _CAN_ sound better than CD's. Granted, LP's come with their own set of issues as far as perfect sound reprodution, but they are a true analog medium and can, POTENTIALLY, deliver truer sound than can a CD. If you've ever heard a really really good vinyl system playing a really really well-mastered album, you'll know what I mean. Also not true. LPs *cannot* deliver a truer sound than CD. They have massively higher distortion, noise and frequency response errors than CD. That some people *prefer* the sound if vinyl is a subjective issue, more to do with those people, but under any objective measure CD is vastly better in performance. Sadly these days, many CDs are mastered with excessive compression, limiting and even clipping in an attempt to impress the punters, but that's got nothing to do with the capability of CD. The popularity of CD's is due to a number of factors, but a real big one is that for a tiny fraction of the cost of an awesome turntable, you can get a CD player with 95% of the sound quality. With 150% I'd say..... With the advent of the computer age, CD's offer transferability that vinyl cannot. Things like music distribution evolve with technology, but remember that just because it's newer doesn't always mean it's better. Also, better for one person doesn't always equal better for all. I'll take a well-mastered LP over some piece of crap 128kbps-encoded mp3 any day of the week, but a VAST VAST majority of music purchasers (who are, btw, mainly kids) are perfectly happy with the highly compressed format and accompanying loss of sound quality But then I'm old.... Dave So am I.... S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
wrote in message
... On Mar 14, 9:31 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote: jamesgangnc wrote: No one really listens to albums anymore either. I bet more than you think. -- h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC?? OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11! Clicks h3re 4 hlep! http://tinyurl.com/yjm842 I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some other format. If by album you mean LP, then you have to come up with a number that relates to the fact that about 1% of all sales of recordings is for LPs. 1 in 10,000 is IMO far too few. Besdies, there are people who listen to LPs who don't buy new LPs. I'll bet for every album listener there are more like 50 listening exclusively to other formats. That would be a more reasonable guess. Ya think? Seems unlikely to me. Where do you get your 1%? And 1% equals 1 in a 100, not 1 in 50. And assumes an equal distribution of sales. And I'm betting that the lp listeners don't fit that profile. There are no "new" lps. Of course there are! Just look on Amazon or in the larger record stores (if there are any left in your locality). There's plenty of new vinyl being offered for sale. There's also a significant reissue market of classic LPs being remastered and recut on 180gm vinyl. Now, why anyone would want to pay significantly more for the vinyl than for the same album on CD is beyond me, but having heard some abortions that pass for remastered CDs recently, perhaps the vinyl *is* better. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
On Mar 14, 11:26 am, "Dave" wrote:
There is an arguement that the CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz does not provide enough bandwidth for truly perfect sound reproduction. Sound is an analog signal. To convert analog to digital, samples are taken, in this case 44,100 times per second, and a digital representation is made of each sample. A CD player contains a digital to analog converter which reverses the process. Problem is, you can't reproduce a sound wave, which is a curve, from discrete digital samples, you can only approximate it. The more samples, the better the approximation. Forgive me for my impatience, Dave but, in a word, bull****. This same tired, old and, most importantly wrong technical explanation is unearthed now and again. While it may seem intuitively correct, it is technically completely wrong. The falacy of your argument was proven quite a long time ago, over a half century, by Shannon, Nyquist and others. I'll spare you the technical details primarily because others and myself have written MANY times that once you have sampled at a rate exceeding twice the highest frequency, no higher sampling rate buys you ANY increase of accuracy or fidelity in sampling waveforms contained within that bandwidth. That means that for a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, it is capable of theoretically perfect capture and reproduction of any waveform or combination of waveforms whose combined bandwidth is less than 22.05 kHz, within the accuracy of the quantizer itself, and that, for CD audio, is 16 bits broadband, or some 96 dB of dynamic range. Remember that the CD standard sample rate was adopted in the 80's, when PC's didn't exist and the fastest processor ran at 8 or 16MHz. True but completely irrelevant. issues as far as perfect sound reprodution, but they are a true analog medium They are no truer an "analog" than digital. The difference is one is a time and amplitude continuous analog, one is a discrete time, quantized analog. and can, POTENTIALLY, deliver truer sound than can a CD. No, they cannot. LPs have a substantially more limited dynamic range and, with very RARE exceptions, equal of less practical bandwitdh than CD, far better speed stability and more. newer doesn't always mean it's better. Also, better for one person doesn't always equal better for all. I'll take a well- mastered LP over some piece of crap 128kbps-encoded mp3 any day Irrelevant strawman: you're tarring the CD with a "crappy MP3 brush). I'd much rather NOT have a crappy, badly mastered LP, CD or whatever, but they all exist. But then I'm old.... And, with no disrespect intended, not very knowledgeable on digital vs analog principles, technology and capability. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
RCA speaker cable/patch cable
On Mar 14, 11:26*am, "Dave" wrote:
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message ... Usually nostalgia. Nolstalgia? *I'm in the camp that just wants my audio system to as accurately as possible recreate the sound of the live performance. *But to each their own. There is an arguement that the CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz does not provide enough bandwidth for truly perfect sound reproduction. *Sound is an analog signal. *To convert analog to digital, samples are taken, in this case 44,100 times per second, and a digital representation is made of each sample. *A CD player contains a digital to analog converter which reverses the process. *Problem is, you can't reproduce a sound wave, which is a curve, from discrete digital samples, you can only approximate it. *The more samples, the better the approximation. *Remember that the CD standard sample rate was adopted in the 80's, when PC's didn't exist and the fastest processor ran at 8 or 16MHz. There is a contingent of the population, and I'll grant you that it's a small contingent when compared to the general population, that believes that LP's _CAN_ sound better than CD's. *Granted, LP's come with their own set of issues as far as perfect sound reprodution, but they are a true analog medium and can, POTENTIALLY, deliver truer sound than can a CD. *If you've ever heard a really really good vinyl system playing a really really well-mastered album, you'll know what I mean. The popularity of CD's is due to a number of factors, but a real big one is that for a tiny fraction of the cost of an awesome turntable, you can get a CD player with 95% of the sound quality. *With the advent of the computer age, CD's offer transferability that vinyl cannot. *Things like music distribution evolve with technology, but remember that just because it's newer doesn't always mean it's better. *Also, better for one person doesn't always equal better for all. *I'll take a well-mastered LP over some piece of crap 128kbps-encoded mp3 any day of the week, but a VAST VAST majority of music purchasers (who are, btw, mainly kids) are perfectly happy with the highly compressed format and accompanying loss of sound quality. But then I'm old.... Dave Totally wrong. The cd format is vastly superior to vinyl in frequency range and dynamic range. And the vinyl deteriorates every time you play it. CDs are not lossy so you can't compare them to mp3s. We're talking about the standard cd uncompressed format against vinyl. Compression, mp3s, is a sacrifice for portability. What are you going to do to make the vinyl portable? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
patch cable help/question | General | |||
patch cable help/question | Pro Audio | |||
FA: New! MONSTER CABLE SuperFlat Mini Speaker Cable 20ft w/Conn. | Marketplace | |||
FA: New! MONSTER CABLE SuperFlat Mini Speaker Cable 20ft w/Connectors | Marketplace | |||
FA: MONSTER CABLE SuperFlat Mini Speaker Cable 50ft w/Connectors | Marketplace |