# 50/50



## vcoheda

a recent article in Hi-Fi magazine argues that your system in terms of money spent per components should resemble an equilateral triangle. in general, to get a balanced system, equal attention should be given to each part of the set up - with one part being the items that reproduce the sound and the other the ones that deliver or influence it. this means that 50 percent of your expenditures should be spent on source, amp, speakers (headphones) and the other 50 on power, support, and cables. any other division is going to be either top heavy or bottom heavy and out of sync. you are either not going to get the most from your audio components or your audio components won't be good enough to give you the best music for your money.

 basically, you want this







 and not this






 not a new concept but the article takes you through a setup of good quality but with all entry level associated gear or "tweaks" and upgrades each one, which in order of importance it lists as power and then support/isolation and then cables (which ideally should be of matching brands), noting the improvements as the system becomes more balanced heard along the way.

 he notes how he has heard many expensive systems which sounded bad because all effort/money was spent on the electronics and little attention was paid to power, support, cables, and other less expensive systems which sounded far better because of symmetry. he also sees a common fault of people who are not entirely happy with their system to upgrade the "main" components instead of addressing the other factors and of course the result - further disappointment - is the same.

 of course, this article assumes that there is a difference among power units/conditioners, support racks and isolation devices, and cables and that going up the chain if smartly done translates to real and tangible improvements in sound quality. a good article overall.


----------



## jaduffy007

Thanks for the heads up on this HiFi article. Good to see this understanding getting the attention it deserves. 

 I used to be a tweek-oholic....using stuff like Shun Mook Audio's Mpingo products. Those would truly make the skeptics die from laughter.


----------



## bigshot

There's no proper proportion for how much to spend on a system. Money doesn't buy good sound. Careful planning and proper priorities do.

 First and foremost, always keep focused on the music. That's what really matters. Spend more on software than you do on hardware. You aren't listening to wires, you're listening to music.

 The best place to spend your money is on speakers and headphones. More money there equates to better sound more than anywhere else.

 Next focus your energy on room acoustics and equalization. This can take a lot of work, but the best equipment sounds no better than the worst in a lousy room with unbalanced response. There's no "magic box" you can buy that can do this for you. You have to do the research and put in the effort.

 Spend just enough money on electronics to get the features you want. Spend just enough on an amp to be able to power your speakers efficiently. Don't waste money on piddly stuff that would be better spent on getting really well recorded and well performed music. A great sounding CD will improve the sound of every stereo... much more than a fancy wire will.

 Last piece of advice... Stereo magazines and salesmen in stereo stores aren't your friend. They pretend to be and suck up to you, but they have only one use for you. The magazines belong to the equipment manufacturers. They just want to sell advertising. In fact, most of their articles are written from information provided by the manufacturers.

 For solid advice, look for people with experience that know what they're talking about. People who explain how to solve problems in basic English. People who aren't trying to sell anything. Getting good sound is just plain common sense and the application of basic acoustic principles. It doesn't require a degree in electrical engineering or magical chicken bleeding. Look for folks who make sense. If someone starts talking a bunch of flowery poetry about sound, or goes into incomprehensible tech speak, they don't have anything to offer you. They're just trying to buffalo you. Look for people who give you solid advice you can use.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Penchum

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ It doesn't require a degree in electrical engineering or magical chicken bleeding.
 See ya
 Steve_

 

Steve, when you said this, I laughed and splatted coffee on my monitor!


----------



## Sarchi

Oh please. My BS-o-meter just bounced off the redline.


----------



## Penchum

I've been looking at that equilateral triangle and thinking about it for a while now. Whether they are right or wrong, doesn't it also represent the best sales possibilities, to make the most profit?


----------



## Chu

Am I the only one a little confused about why you're using a triangle here?

 I really have issues with this logic though. It makes the assumption that (a) cost is directly proportional to quality and (b) cost:quality is an unyielding ratio. I really would like to see any serious justification of that. 

 A trivial counterexample -- Grado's cost about twice as much in Europe as the US after exchange rate and dealer markup. Does that mean their Grado's are twice as good as ours?


----------



## Sarchi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Am I the only one a little confused about why you're using a triangle here?

 I really have issues with this logic though. It makes the assumption that (a) cost is directly proportional to quality and (b) cost:quality is an unyielding ratio. I really would like to see any serious justification of that. _

 

C'mon, look at the ads in the magazine and you have the answer....they want readers to spend equal money with the holy triad based on some suit's market categorization. We've heard it all before.


----------



## ZarakiSan

Let's say you purchase a pair of speakers at 400 total (Low-end), a 400 dollar amp, and you use a 400 CD player as well.

 Would those components need interconnects of 600 dollars, speaker cable worth another 400 (That's the same as the speakers) and a $200 power brick?

 NO. WAY. I call bull here as well, this just doesn't make any sense. It's simple that the margins on cables and such are so extraordinarily high (It could cost mroe to make $200 cables than $2000, who'd know the difference? Certainly not the audiophiles!) that he claims this is right. He's trying to make money, just like us all. Lying is a small thing to do.


----------



## nick20

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Money doesn't buy good sound_

 



 Yes it does. You need money to get a good setup. You need money to get good quality music. I could go on-and-on, but I won't.


----------



## Uncle Erik

I don't agree at all. There is no direct correlation between price and quality. Extremely high quality gear can be made simply. It is more about the design and workmanship than the price tag.

 The price threshold for good sound continues to drop. The $300-$400 CD players are excellent today and the prices for good DACs continue to fall. Storage on computers is cheaper than ever, and so are music server computers.

 Further, the secondhand market for amps, speakers and other components is the best place to buy. You can pick up well made equipment for 50% of retail or less. Don't buy into the hype that you need the latest n' greatest minor tweak over the 2006 system. You can get an older model still capable of excellent performance.

 The best example of this is the Quad ESL-57. 50 years old and still better than most gear. Even the K-1000 came out in 1990. Newer doesn't always equal better.

 As for the cabling, it may or may not change the sound. We can't agree on that and I accept that people hear a difference while I do not. However, we can all agree on the price tag. The prices are high.

 Among other things, I am an accountant. I've looked at the costs of the raw materials, manufacturing, etc. and plugged in educated guesses for overhead and R&D. Even overstating the overhead and R&D, the profit margins on cables are off the charts. We can go back and forth on the sound and science, but every cable sale puts a whopping profit in someone's pocket.

 That profit doesn't just go off to a trust account somewhere. It goes back into driving the demand. Advertising isn't just print ads, either. These days, you can never be sure when you're being marketed to. Draw your own conclusions.

 But the numbers don't lie. Cables have a massive markup and are, without question, the most profitable audio item on the market. People make a lot of money from them. What would you do to keep the cash flowing?


----------



## chesebert

the cable profit is insane..I think that's a known fact. I wouldn't disagree with the idea that cable should probably be on the back burner until you got most of your other stuff out of the way or you see a good deal


----------



## LawnGnome

This seems best only from a marketing position.

 From what I have seen from them before, they seem to be in the manufacturers pocket when it comes to this stuff.


----------



## Chu

I think the audiophile press in general is completely advertising driven, but that's another topic.


----------



## Arainach

I have to agree, this article seems like it was written by the marketing division of some cable company somewhere.

 I'd say more like 25% Speakers/Headphones, 20% Amplification, 20% Source, 30% Media, 5% Cables. But that's just me.


----------



## AdamP88

What a load of BS.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick20* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes it does. You need money to get a good setup. You need money to get good quality music. I could go on-and-on, but I won't._

 

Only people who want to be elitists and show off their equipment think cost is proportional to how good something sounds.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Only people who want to be elitists and show off their equipment think cost is proportional to how good something sounds._

 

I'm not sure how to go into how many ways your argument is wrong.

 First, he's not saying cost is proportional to quality. He's saying that to get the best-grade sound, you have to go to some pretty expensive equipment. The best $600 speakers in the world won't compare to most $20,000 pairs. Most well-mastered albums are more expensive than noise war CDs. Sometimes you just have to spend Money.

 Second, there *is* a definite positive correlation between cost and money. It may be exponential, but it's there. Take a stats class - saying two variables are related doesn't mean EVERY SINGLE DATA POINT fits that relationship. There is some very good cheap equipment and there is some poor expensive equipment, but in general the more money you spend the better product you get. The relationship is there, period.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure how to go into how many ways your argument is wrong.

 First, he's not saying cost is proportional to quality. He's saying that to get the best-grade sound, you have to go to some pretty expensive equipment. The best $600 speakers in the world won't compare to most $20,000 pairs. Most well-mastered albums are more expensive than noise war CDs. Sometimes you just have to spend Money.

 Second, there *is* a definite positive correlation between cost and money. It may be exponential, but it's there. Take a stats class - saying two variables are related doesn't mean EVERY SINGLE DATA POINT fits that relationship. There is some very good cheap equipment and there is some poor expensive equipment, but in general the more money you spend the better product you get. The relationship is there, period._

 

You'd be surprised how similiar "high end" units are to many "mid range" units when it comes to schematics and component quality.

 Even with speakers, many "high end" ones perform no better than "mid range" ones.

 A lot of current products are really just a meshing of reference designs.


----------



## Arainach

And how many high-end speaker setups have you demoed? Looking at circuit designs means nothing until you listen to how they sound. The Grado SR-60 through SR-225 look identical even under close evaluation, and I will vouch 100% for their differences in SQ.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And how many high-end speaker setups have you demoed? Looking at circuit designs means nothing until you listen to how they sound. The Grado SR-60 through SR-225 look identical even under close evaluation, and I will vouch 100% for their differences in SQ._

 


 You ask many people, including Grado lovers, and they will tell you that SR-60 through SR-225 sound almost Identical. After trying them all, I feel the same.

 This was actually just brought up in the headphone forum recently actually.


----------



## vcoheda

i'm not so sure i would go with or recommend a straight 50/50 division between gear and other related components, but i think the article does try to impress upon people the idea that things like power, proper stabilization, and quality cables are important, do to a reasonable degree affect the quality of the sound, and therefore should not be neglected - relegated to purely secondary or even tertiary status - when building a system. and to this extent, i agree.


----------



## tyrion

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even with speakers, many "high end" ones perform no better than "mid range" ones._

 

That is quite a generalization. What is someone supposed to take away from reading that. I'm demoing a pair of monitors that retail for aroudn $4200. They clearly sound better than speakers I've heard that cost less. Is there a speaker out there that costs say $500 to $1000 that I would believe sound as good or better, I have no idea. I know that I haven't heard them yet. I owned and auditioned a fair number of speakers. Most of the ones that cost more, sound better then the ones that cost less. This is all to my ears, of course but I believe there is a correlation to cost and performance. It's not the be all and end all but it certainly, in my experience, has some correlation. There are always exceptions.


----------



## chesebert

ppl should just ignore the trolls (I find 'ignore list' especially useful)


----------



## colonelkernel8

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ppl should just ignore the trolls (I find 'ignore list' especially useful)_

 

No one is trolling here. The ignore list only proves your ignorance.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tyrion* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is quite a generalization. What is someone supposed to take away from reading that. I'm demoing a pair of monitors that retail for aroudn $4200. They clearly sound better than speakers I've heard that cost less. Is there a speaker out there that costs say $500 to $1000 that I would believe sound as good or better, I have no idea. I know that I haven't heard them yet. I owned and auditioned a fair number of speakers. Most of the ones that cost more, sound better then the ones that cost less. This is all to my ears, of course but I believe there is a correlation to cost and performance. It's not the be all and end all but it certainly, in my experience, has some correlation. There are always exceptions._

 

Of course; its not even a generalization. He said many, not most or all. There are indeed a lot of mid-range speakers that sound better than high end ones, and there are also high-end speakers that sound better than other high-end ones. Its all about the design and the build of the speaker, and there certainly is the opportunity for low-cost "mid-fi" speakers to sound better than there high-end counterparts, especially because typically, the only thing that dictates "fidelity" (or the "fi" in high and mid-fi) is the price, not the quality.


----------



## tyrion

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *colonelkernel8* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of course; its not even a generalization. He said many, not most or all. There are indeed a lot of mid-range speakers that sound better than high end ones, and there are also high-end speakers that sound better than other high-end ones. Its all about the design and the build of the speaker, and there certainly is the opportunity for low-cost "mid-fi" speakers to sound better than there high-end counterparts, especially because typically, the only thing that dictates "fidelity" (or the "fi" in high and mid-fi) is the price, not the quality._

 

I think when you make the statement that LawnGnome made, he is generalizing. It adds nothing to the position he has taken in this regard. I've heard most of the System Audio line, a few different pairs of Amphions, the entire Omega Hemp line plus numerous others at the Stereophile Show, as examples and imo as you go up the line and price, sq improves. That's not to say that a lesser priced speaker from one company can't sound better than a higher priced speaker from another. However, in my experience, the bottom level Amphion doesn't sound better (to me) than the mid level System Audio speaker. In my experience, the higher the cost, the better the sq from the speaker. I will agree that as you move up the ladder, the amount of increase in sq diminishes based upon dollar spent to some extent. There will always be exceptions as I stated earlier. To a certain extent we always make generalizations when making statements about subjects like this. When they are made by someone who has experience the generalizations tend to have greater meaning to those reading them.

 Addressing the first post, I believe that what that HiFi mag said is nuts.

 I don't know that there is a lot of trolling. Nor do I feel it needs to be pointed out when it occurs. If you feel someone is a troll, ignore them, don't call more attention to it. Why is this so difficult. By making the statement you are inviting them to respond.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tyrion* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think when you make the statement that LawnGnome made, he is generalizing. It adds nothing to the position he has taken in this regard. I've heard most of the System Audio line, a few different pairs of Amphions, the entire Omega Hemp line plus numerous others at the Stereophile Show, as examples and imo as you go up the line and price, sq improves. That's not to say that a lesser priced speaker from one company can't sound better than a higher priced speaker from another. However, in my experience, the bottom level Amphion doesn't sound better (to me) than the mid level System Audio speaker. In my experience, the higher the cost, the better the sq from the speaker. I will agree that as you move up the ladder, the amount of increase in sq diminishes based upon dollar spent to some extent. There will always be exceptions as I stated earlier. To a certain extent we always make generalizations when making statements about subjects like this. When they are made by someone who has experience the generalizations tend to have greater meaning to those reading them.

 Addressing the first post, I believe that what that HiFi mag said is nuts.

 I don't know that there is a lot of trolling. Nor do I feel it needs to be pointed out when it occurs. If you feel someone is a troll, ignore them, don't call more attention to it. Why is this so difficult. By making the statement you are inviting them to respond._

 


 Well within the same line, there is normally a correlation between price/performance that is pretty clear. Once you start looking at many different brands, that line becomes much less defined.

 Just look at it like this, take several pair from many brands that cost 2000$, you will quickly find some sound quite a large amount better. Even though the cost the same. You will even find some of them perform on par with some speakers that cost half as much, and some perform on par with speakers that cost twice as much. 


 The reason for this, is because when it comes to selling audio, it isn't sound quality that sells most. It is marketing. The article goes to show that very well.


----------



## infinitesymphony

I think that the equilateral triangle concept is funny, because it feeds into many audiophiles' desire for perfect symmetry or balance. Notice the symmetrical arrangements of many listening setups, down to identical speaker placement, power amplifier placement, rack placement, subwoofer placement (.2, of course!), etc.

 I hope that the author's point was that those elements shouldn't be ignored, because a system can definitely sound better if care is paid when examining room acoustics, power, cables, and isolation. But as others have said, price and performance are not necessarily related, especially in the higher price ranges.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


 Just look at it like this, take several pair from many brands that cost 2000$, you will quickly find some sound quite a large amount better. Even though the cost the same. You will even find some of them perform on par with some speakers that cost half as much, and some perform on par with speakers that cost twice as much. 
 

That's because there's much more to cost than Audio Quality. There's Build Quality, Research Costs (something which people often neglect when claiming audio products are overpriced), and Supply/Demand.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_in general the more money you spend the better product you get._

 

That was the case in the 1940s and 50s, but I don't see that in most audio equipment. I don't think they teach "build a better mousetrap" in business school any more. It's all cost vs markup and marketing now.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's because there's much more to cost than Audio Quality. There's Build Quality, Research Costs (something which people often neglect when claiming audio products are overpriced), and Supply/Demand._

 

Build quality has more to do with the longevity of a component than it does sound quality, research may or may not result in better sound- but the consumer is going to foot the bill for it either way, and supply and demand have no effect on sound quality.

 I think you're absolutely right, but along with marketing, these are the are the things that are being substituted for an increase in sound quality in expensive equipment.

 But all of this aside, speakers are probably the most likely to sound much better for more money, particularly at low end to upper midrange prices. CD players are the least likely. They're a much better example of how price doesn't necessarily equate to sound quality.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i'm not so sure i would go with or recommend a straight 50/50 division between gear and other related components, but i think the article does try to impress upon people the idea that things like power, proper stabilization, and quality cables are important_

 

Everything is relative. The important thing in building a good sound system is to have some sense of proportion and balance... from balancing the frequency response, to understanding what the audible difference is between one number and another, to spending your money on things that make the biggest improvement before spending it on things that make the least. Anyone can say "everything is important" and come up with some sort of diagram to tell you everything is as important as everything else, but that isn't particularly helpful to people who want to make the most of their resources.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Uncle Erik

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's because there's much more to cost than Audio Quality. There's Build Quality, Research Costs (something which people often neglect when claiming audio products are overpriced), and Supply/Demand._

 

With cables, the claim is generally that their performance cannot be measured with traditional electronic test equipment. That the differences are such that they can only be heard by ear, not measured with an O-Scope or a DMM.

 Alright. Let's accept that premise as true.

 If you cannot measure the difference in cables, then how do you do any research and development? If you come up with two different designs, how do you compare them? How do you judge one better than another? How do you improve on your designs if there is no way to prove it?

 If there is science behind it, why don't the manufacturers tell us about it? How come they don't use their research and figures to differentiate their products from competitors? If you do extensive and expensive research, why not put it in an ad to prove your product is better than the competition?

 For that matter, some have called cables snakeoil for years. Certainly, the manufacturers have heard these claims. They know there are people out there calling their product, their livelihood, complete and utter BS. So, why not get out the research and kick some skeptic ass? Why not prove the skeptics wrong on their own terms?

 There are a number of cable manufacturers out there, yet not one uses their research to get a leg up on the competition. Funny, isn't it? Look at Intel or AMD. Ford, Toyota, Honda, Mercedes... they all do significant research. And they regularly advertise with their research to demonstrate why their products are better.

 My point being that it seems that there isn't much, if any, R&D from cable manufacturers. They are, apparently, not spending money on research. For one, there is no evidence of that. Second, they say it is impossible to apply traditional scientific methods to their products, thereby making it impossible to do research in the first place.

 That leaves us with the cost of raw materials, manufacturing, payroll taxes, shipping, and the other overhead. And the markup. For the life of me, I can't see where the wide margin goes, other than profit.

 Nothing wrong with capitalism and charging what the market will bear, but that doesn't mean you get equivalent performance.


----------



## chesebert

I reject the idea that cable can't be measured; I accept the idea that cable cannot be measured by Oscope or DMM. e.g. Oscope or DMM can not possibly measure effects of electron deposition


----------



## kpeezy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First and foremost, always keep focused on the music. That's what really matters. Spend more on software than you do on hardware. You aren't listening to wires, you're listening to music._

 

Just wondering about this. Don't get me wrong, this is the way I personally view things. However, is it really wrong to enjoy the equipment more than the music or is it just deviance?


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kpeezy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just wondering about this. Don't get me wrong, this is the way I personally view things. However, is it really wrong to enjoy the equipment more than the music or is it just deviance?_

 

An audiophile would care more about the music than anything. A "techno/gadgetphile" would care more about the equipment than the music.

 We should be listening to the music, not the equipment.

 I'd call myself a gadget lover, but I always try and find the "best-for-the-least" when I'm looking for a gadget I "need." (Ie. amp, dac, GPS, pdaphone, computer parts/peripherals, etc.)


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kpeezy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just wondering about this. Don't get me wrong, this is the way I personally view things. However, is it really wrong to enjoy the equipment more than the music or is it just deviance?_

 

Music is an artform. Stereo equipment is stuff you plug in the wall. I imagine there are people who make a fetish out of equipment, but all you can do is look at them and shake your head. There's nothing to be learned from them.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_An audiophile would care more about the music than anything. A "techno/gadgetphile" would care more about the equipment than the music._

 

This is about photography, but it applies to music as well...

Seven Levels of Photographers © 2005 KenRockwell.com

 And here's one that shows that magical thinking is alive and well in photography as well...

Pixel Peepers

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kpeezy

Sure there are things to be learned from them. But, I'm in the same boat as all of you so I'll leave the topic alone.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, why not get out the research and kick some skeptic ass? Why not prove the skeptics wrong on their own terms?_

 

Cause the "skeptics" likely won't be swayed no matter what "research" is presented?

 Or, cause the skeptics represent a minority market share which is already within a niche?

 Or, cause skeptics wouldn't buy the cables even if there was absolute proof?

 Or, cause the skeptics are cheap?

 Or, cause the skeptics don't really care?

 Or, cause the cable companies don't like you?

 These are not my opinions, but just some ideas to keep in mind... if the issue boils down to marketing, thes are likely things that "marketers" have thought of.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just look at it like this, take several pair from many brands that cost 2000$, you will quickly find some sound quite a large amount better. Even though the cost the same. You will even find some of them perform on par with some speakers that cost half as much, and some perform on par with speakers that cost twice as much._

 

Or maybe the engineers at each company have different priorities? Maybe they've heard a "perfectly flat" speaker, and they didn't like how it sounded? Perhaps there were different parts used in each speaker?

 As an aside: how many (and which) $2000 speakers have you actually listened to? How many $1000 speakers have you listened to? How many $4000 speakers have you listened to? Which one sounded best? Which one measured best? What measurements? Conducted under what circumstances and conditions? With what gear? I'm skeptical of your claims, so provide some objective proof!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cause the "skeptics" likely won't be swayed no matter what "research" is presented?_

 

<spit take>

 Are you just goofing here? You can't be serious.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_<spit take>

 Are you just goofing here? You can't be serious.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I dunno, ask someone in marketing.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I dunno, ask someone in marketing._

 

You seem to be trying to antagonize people into a flame war.

 You post ridiculous things, and then just give sideways and often backhanded answers when you are asked questions.

 In fact you make many baseless claims in your last few posts.

  Quote:


 Or, cause skeptics wouldn't buy the cables even if there was absolute proof?

 Or, cause the skeptics are cheap?

 Or, cause the skeptics don't really care?

 Or, cause the cable companies don't like you? 
 

That is just garbage posted to draw attention away from the real issue, which is the claims for cables cannot be proven, and the physics they propose to "prove" their ideas are false.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You seem to be trying to antagonize people into a flame war.

 You post ridiculous things, and then just give sideways and often backhanded answers when you are asked questions.

 In fact you make many baseless claims in your last few posts.



 That is just garbage posted to draw attention away from the real issue, which is the claims for cables cannot be proven, and the physics they propose to "prove" their ideas are false._

 

I've dealt with 'marketers' in the past and, i'm sorry, but this is how they think! Their jobs are to assess potential for profit, and means by which to increase perceived value. I was merely presenting what I think might be some alternative insight as to "why cable companies charge so damn much" for a set of cables... These are NOT my opinions!

 However, you've neglected my questions directed to you, as to your personal experience with $1000, $2000 and $4000 speakers. What sounds best?


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've dealt with 'marketers' in the past and, i'm sorry, but this is how they think! Their jobs are to assess potential for profit, and means by which to increase perceived value. I was merely presenting what I think might be some alternative insight as to "why cable companies charge so damn much" for a set of cables... These are NOT my opinions!

 However, you've neglected my questions directed to you, as to your personal experience with $1000, $2000 and $4000 speakers. What sounds best?_

 


 I've auditioned a decent amount (dozen or so) through that price range, and found that none were obviously better in terms of sound quality in relation to price. (SQ didn't necessarily go up with price.) The build quality did seem to though.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is just garbage posted to draw attention away from the real issue, which is the claims for cables cannot be proven, and the physics they propose to "prove" their ideas are false._

 

I thought we were talking about a 50/50 split for components and accessories in audio? The whole triangle thing, right?

 As far as what you believe the issue to be: please, show me the physics "proving" that the cable company's ideas are false - as I am stupid and have no experience with physics...


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've auditioned a decent amount (dozen or so) through that price range, and found that none were obviously better in terms of sound quality in relation to price. (SQ didn't necessarily go up with price.) The build quality did seem to though._

 

what models, specifically? with what gear? and what's your listening room like? did you take measurements?


----------



## vcoheda

OT as usual and by the usual bunch.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've dealt with 'marketers' in the past and, i'm sorry, but this is how they think!_

 

Ah, I get it... Thanks for the clarification.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I thought we were talking about a 50/50 split for components and accessories in audio? The whole triangle thing, right?_

 

Can I ask the obvious question that no one seems to have asked yet?

 How does an equalateral triangle with three equal sides divide up into 50-50? Shouldn't it be 33 1/3-33 1/3-33 1/3?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## vcoheda

think of it less of a triangle per se and more of a figure representing symmentry where the top and bottom halves are equal (50/50) as opposed to something more obtuse and less proportional.


----------



## Chu

Ignoring the fact the anology still fails (a line drawn through the "center' divides both triangles into equal areas), I still don't understand why anyone would take the 50/50 premise seriously. The value of equipment in many ways is arbitrary, especially considering the vast difference between prices in geographical regions.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_think of it less of a triangle per se and more of a figure representing symmentry where the top and bottom halves are equal (50/50) as opposed to something more obtuse and less proportional._

 

The top and bottom half of a triangle aren't equal! And why does it have to be proportional? The whole thing sounds made up to by someone with OCD and very little experience with geometry.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:
 Originally Posted by LawnGnome 
 I've auditioned a decent amount (dozen or so) through that price range, and found that none were obviously better in terms of sound quality in relation to price. (SQ didn't necessarily go up with price.) The build quality did seem to though. 

 what models, specifically? with what gear? and what's your listening room like? did you take measurements?

 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 Why no response to yotacowboy?

 LawnGnome, for someone who expects DBT proof for most everything and who attacks many well stated answers as incomplete .... you cant do any better than that vague answer. You know the price of the equipment but not the names? You cant answer the corresponding equipment? No info whether the audition was in a store or at home? Your reply sounds like a made up response to support your point. If you did actually listen .... how seriously did you listen if you dont know anything about what you listened to. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would like to see an answer to these questions too .... before I believe you.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quote:
 Originally Posted by LawnGnome 
 I've auditioned a decent amount (dozen or so) through that price range, and found that none were obviously better in terms of sound quality in relation to price. (SQ didn't necessarily go up with price.) The build quality did seem to though. 

 what models, specifically? with what gear? and what's your listening room like? did you take measurements?

 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 Why no response to yotacowboy?

 LawnGnome, for someone who expects DBT proof for most everything and who attacks many well stated answers as incomplete .... you cant do any better than that vague answer. You know the price of the equipment but not the names? You cant answer the corresponding equipment? No info whether the audition was in a store or at home? Your reply sounds like a made up response to support your point. If you did actually listen .... how seriously did you listen if you dont know anything about what you listened to. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would like to see an answer to these questions too .... before I believe you._

 

My guess is that his impressions of any of those speakers were largely subjective, but... that's okay... or not.. right? lol...


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quote:
 Originally Posted by LawnGnome 
 I've auditioned a decent amount (dozen or so) through that price range, and found that none were obviously better in terms of sound quality in relation to price. (SQ didn't necessarily go up with price.) The build quality did seem to though. 

 what models, specifically? with what gear? and what's your listening room like? did you take measurements?

 //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 Why no response to yotacowboy?

 LawnGnome, for someone who expects DBT proof for most everything and who attacks many well stated answers as incomplete .... you cant do any better than that vague answer. You know the price of the equipment but not the names? You cant answer the corresponding equipment? No info whether the audition was in a store or at home? Your reply sounds like a made up response to support your point. If you did actually listen .... how seriously did you listen if you dont know anything about what you listened to. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would like to see an answer to these questions too .... before I believe you._

 


 Please show me where I even mentioned DBT. 

 Would you like to continue fabricating stories?

 And it was mostly Totem, B&O, Klipsch, and PSB, and it was at a listening room at bay bloor radio.

 Also, I did not respond to him, as whenever you get into yota like that, he just keeps asking endless question, knowing you won't know every detail of the setup, before he goes "aha, see?!"

 In other words, he is just doing the run around, since he doesn't know a thing about the principles behind audio.


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Please show me where I even mentioned DBT. 

 Would you like to continue fabricating stories?

 And it was mostly Totem, B&O, Klipsch, and PSB, and it was at a listening room at bay bloor radio.

 Also, I did not respond to him, as whenever you get into yota like that, he just keeps asking endless question, knowing you won't know every detail of the setup, before he goes "aha, see?!"

 In other words, he is just doing the run around, since he doesn't know a thing about the principles behind audio._

 


 Reading comprehension .... read what I wrote a little more closely? You mention DBT's as the answer in every cable thread. Is that a fabrication? Just ask the membership. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Gee .... I can rattle of random speakers too. Could you provide a few more details? What models at what prices? The sound was mostly the same .... what does that mean?

 Please .... you cant answer a member a few simple questions for yota?

 He doesnt know the principles of audio .... but you do? I have not seen any evidence you know anymore than he does. What does that have to do with his questions anyway?


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Reading comprehension .... read what I wrote a little more closely? You mention DBT's as the answer in every cable thread. Is that a fabrication? Just ask the membership. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Gee .... I can rattle of random speakers too. Could you provide a few more details? What models at what prices? The sound was mostly the same .... what does that mean?

 Please .... you cant answer a member a few simple questions for yota?

 He doesnt know the principles of audio .... but you do? I have not seen any evidence you know anymore than he does. What does that have to do with his questions anyway?_

 

Buddy, are you ****ting me? Say I need reading comprehension? 

 I NEVER MENTIONED DBT. *EVER.

*continuously accusing me of things I do not say, is only going to end with me telling you to go ---- yourself.


----------



## Killercrush

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* 
_ You ask many people, including Grado lovers, and they will tell you that SR-60 through SR-225 sound almost Identical. After trying them all, I feel the same._

 

So, you tried the SR60, SR80, SR100, SR125, SR200 & SR225 and you A/B'ed them ?!

 I recently compared most of these models in April 07 (*SR100 vs SR200*), July 07 (SR80 vs SR225, SR100 vs SR225, SR80 vs SR100) so I can attest that there are major differences that I perceived as improvements or downfalls between all those models even though they look sooooooooo much the same.


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Buddy, are you ****ting me? Say I need reading comprehension? 

 I NEVER MENTIONED DBT. *EVER.

*continuously accusing me of things I do not say, is only going to end with me telling you to go ---- yourself._

 


 No measurements, no blind tests, no PROOF. 

 Is that not your typical stance?

 Does this ring a bell? You wrote that.


----------



## vcoheda

how come nobody can stay OT.

 triangles people


----------



## evilking

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Killercrush* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, you tried the SR60, SR80, SR100, SR125, SR200 & SR225 and you A/B'ed them ?!

 I recently compared most of these models in April 07 (*SR100 vs SR200*), July 07 (SR80 vs SR225, SR100 vs SR225, SR80 vs SR100) so I can attest that there are major differences that I perceived as improvements or downfalls between all those models even though they look sooooooooo much the same._

 


 I've A/B'ed the SR60, SR80, SR125, SR225 and SR325i and the first four do sound almost exactly the same. The mids of SR125 sounded a little more like the mids of the SR325i but the rest of the response is same as the others. I chose the SR325i because the bass is _slightly_ smoother, the highs a little more relaxed and the extra weight sits better on my head. Oh, and it's *gold.*

*The SR60, SR80, SR125 and SR225 were practically identical.*

 I found more differences between batches of Grados than between the first four models.


 :gradosmile:
 EK


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You mention DBT's as the answer in every cable thread. Is that a fabrication?_

 

You seem to misunderstand the point of double blind testing. It isn't a way to judge whether something is better than something else. It's a way to determine if a difference exists. The sound of various cables is very similar. Some folks say that there's no difference at all. If a listener can consistently demonstrate that they can tell the difference between them using controlled testing, then you can assume that there is a difference and move on to trying to quantify and define that difference.

 The sound of various speakers is dramatically different. No one says that the tiny speaker in your TV set sounds the same as a $4000 a side audiophile speaker. Controlled testing for something that is self evident is a total waste of time. Discussion of how to quantify and define the differences between speakers, and how to optimize their performance is much more worthwhile.

 Are you *really* interested in the best way to audition and compare speakers? Because if you are, go ahead and create a thread for that, and I'll participate in it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You seem to misunderstand the point of double blind testing. It isn't a way to judge whether something is better than something else. It's a way to determine if a difference exists. The sound of various cables is very similar. Some folks say that there's no difference at all. If a listener can consistently demonstrate that they can tell the difference between them using controlled testing, then you can assume that there is a difference and move on to trying to quantify and define that difference.

 The sound of various speakers is dramatically different. No one says that the tiny speaker in your TV set sounds the same as a $4000 a side audiophile speaker. Controlled testing for something that is self evident is a total waste of time. Discussion of how to quantify and define the differences between speakers, and how to optimize their performance is much more worthwhile.

 Are you *really* interested in the best way to audition and compare speakers? Because if you are, go ahead and create a thread for that, and I'll participate in it.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I am well aware of what DBT is for. You seem to have completely misunderstood the context.

 I didnt address DBT for speakers. I asked the same question yotacowboy asked. I asked what LG heard at what price, in regard to what speakers at what price point he listened to etc .... speaking to his experience or lack thereof. LG claims expertise with numerous speakers at various price points but didnt demonstrate any specifics .... we are still waiting. LG is always demanding proof in cable threads; usually stating the proof is on the other guy. But, this time LG is the other guy and he cant seem to answer a few questions. Hypocritical?

 I dont have any interest in auditioning and comparing speakers I been there and done that for the past 30 years. I had my perfect speaker I just ended up in a situation where I could not use them. At this point, I dont even have any speakers and my post had nothing to do with speakers.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No measurements, no blind tests, no PROOF. 

 Is that not your typical stance?

 Does this ring a bell? You wrote that._

 

Where does DBT fit in there?

 DBT are NOT the same as those, and DBT talk is prohibited here at Head-fi.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Please show me where I even mentioned DBT. 

 Would you like to continue fabricating stories?

 And it was mostly Totem, B&O, Klipsch, and PSB, and it was at a listening room at bay bloor radio.

 Also, I did not respond to him, as whenever you get into yota like that, he just keeps asking endless question, knowing you won't know every detail of the setup, before he goes "aha, see?!"

 In other words, he is just doing the run around, since he doesn't know a thing about the principles behind audio._

 

Aha! seee???

 B&O??? You gotta be kidding me... no wonder you think "audiophile" is synonymous with "overpriced"! jk...

 Seriously, I'm not looking to flame you, I like think I know a bit about audio, not all of it, and I could be absolutely wrong about everything. My experiences tell me otherwise. I'm hoping bring some other opinions to the discussion to balance yours (you do realize that's what a discussion is, right?). And I know enough to ask some specific "audio" questions of you, no? I'm willing to admit that I don't know it all, tho... No personal accusations, however i do tend to think you take this a little too seriously at times. You can postulate, pontificate, toss about as many interpretations of "objective science" as you wish, but in the end I think you need to listen to more music. I'm happy knowing at the end of the day, I'm not the one calling every cable manufacturer a scam, or trying to tell everyone that "I am right, and you are wrong". I am trying to show that within this topic, there are multiple ways of understanding, multiple belief systems at work, and many many multiple "right answers". Spewing your rhetoric (in the fashion you choose), in my opinion, is counter productive to constructive discourse.

 Go grab the latest Absolute Sound and read the editorial. And really read it. Or not. Its not my loss.


----------



## evilking

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...I asked what LG heard at what price, in regard to what speakers at what price point he listened to etc...

*I dont have any interest* in auditioning and comparing speakers I been there and done that for the past 30 years. I had my perfect speaker I just ended up in a situation where I could not use them. At this point, I dont even have any speakers and my post had nothing to do with speakers._

 


 So why are you asking LawnGnome to list his speaker experience?

 It's obvious you have no respect for LawnGnome as a member of Head-Fi (I'm not saying that's a problem), so it's incredibly improbable that you'll change your opinion of him _whatever_ he posts. Therefore there is no benefit for LawnGnome to list speakers and prices (I can't see what this would achieve in the first place), it's natural to assume that you would ridicule and dismiss everything he says.

 This reasoning can apply to a lot of other "requests" for "proof of experience" that are _so_ in demand.


 EK


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am well aware of what DBT is for. You seem to have completely misunderstood the context.

 I didnt address DBT for speakers. I asked the same question yotacowboy asked. I asked what LG heard at what price, in regard to what speakers at what price point he listened to etc .... speaking to his experience or lack thereof. LG claims expertise with numerous speakers at various price points but didnt demonstrate any specifics .... we are still waiting. LG is always demanding proof in cable threads; usually stating the proof is on the other guy. But, this time LG is the other guy and he cant seem to answer a few questions. Hypocritical?

 I dont have any interest in auditioning and comparing speakers I been there and done that for the past 30 years. I had my perfect speaker I just ended up in a situation where I could not use them. At this point, I dont even have any speakers and my post had nothing to do with speakers._

 

Do you have a particular point you're trying to make? I'm afraid you don't make a lot of sense when you wiggle all over the subject like this.

 See ya
 Steve

 edit: breadandbutter, evilking!


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *evilking* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So why are you asking LawnGnome to list his speaker experience?

 It's obvious you have no respect for LawnGnome as a member of Head-Fi (I'm not saying that's a problem), so it's incredibly improbable that you'll change your opinion of him whatever he posts. Therefore there is no benefit for LawnGnome to list speakers and prices (I can't see what this would achieve in the first place), it's natural to assume that you would ridicule and dismiss everything he says.

 This reasoning can apply to a lot of other "requests" for "proof of experience" that are so in demand.


 EK_

 

Why is it that I ask for a simple answer to a persons experience and I have no respect for them? How can you assume I will dimiss what he says? If you want my attention I want to see some practical knowledge and experience.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ like think I know a bit about audio, not all of it, and I could be absolutely wrong about everything. My experiences tell me otherwise. I'm hoping bring some other opinions to the discussion to balance yours (you do realize that's what a discussion is, right?). And I know enough to ask some specific "audio" questions of you, no? I'm willing to admit that I don't know it all, tho... No personal accusations, however i do tend to think you take this a little too seriously at times. You can postulate, pontificate, toss about as many interpretations of "objective science" as you wish, but in the end I think you need to listen to more music. I'm happy knowing at the end of the day, I'm not the one calling every cable manufacturer a scam, or trying to tell everyone that "I am right, and you are wrong". I am trying to show that within this topic, there are multiple ways of understanding, multiple belief systems at work, and many many multiple "right answers". Spewing your rhetoric (in the fashion you choose), in my opinion, is counter productive to constructive discourse..._

 

Holy cow! All those words waffling back and forth and you end up criticizing someone else for rhetorical pontificating! Please don't play word games. Just share whatever info you have that's pertinent and let others do the same.

 SACD Lover, if you want people to respond to your questions, it might help to be interested in the subject. No one's demanding your attention or your approval. If you aren't interested in the topic, join in a different conversation.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Holy cow! All those words waffling back and forth and you end up criticizing someone else for rhetorical pontificating! Please don't play word games. Just share whatever info you have that's pertinent and let others do the same.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Speaking of games .... you might want to leave my comments in the sentence and paragraph where they originate. Combining parts of two sentences from two different paragraphs so you can accuse me of wiggling is in very bad taste.


----------



## bigshot

Generally, in a threaded discussion, you just quote enough of the post you're replying to for the context to be clear. However, since you wanted me to include all of your wiggling and waffling, I went back and put your whole quote in.

 My point still stands. Please try to offer some information related to the topic. Don't just dwell on semantics and rhetorical tricks. If you don't have an interest in the subject, find a subject that does interest you.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you cant interpret my posts; dont respond to them!_

 

You can save us time by not posting them in the first place.

 TAG! You're it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Generally, in a threaded discussion, you just quote enough of the post you're replying to for the context to be clear. However, since you wanted me to include all of your wiggling and waffling, I went back and put your whole quote in.

 My point still stands. Please try to offer some information related to the topic. Don't just dwell on semantics and rhetorical tricks. If you don't have an interest in the subject, find a subject that does interest you.

 See ya
 Steve_

 



 Combining two sentences from two different paragraphs does nothing for clarity. There was no wiggling and waffling just you trying to plant the idea there was by manipulating my comments.

 If you cant interpret my posts; dont respond to them!

 Lastly, you might want to follow your own advice and offer something related to the topic instead of trying to play games with me.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *evilking* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So why are you asking LawnGnome to list his speaker experience?

 It's obvious you have no respect for LawnGnome as a member of Head-Fi (I'm not saying that's a problem), so it's incredibly improbable that you'll change your opinion of him whatever he posts. Therefore there is no benefit for LawnGnome to list speakers and prices (I can't see what this would achieve in the first place), it's natural to assume that you would ridicule and dismiss everything he says.

 This reasoning can apply to a lot of other "requests" for "proof of experience" that are so in demand.


 EK_

 

I was seeking LawnGnome's personal experiences with speakers... HIS personal experience of some phenomena. I was trying to show that HIS subjective conclusions about those speakers are indeed valuable to some extent, and in my opinion have merit in this discussion. Just as my, and your personal experiences with some audio related phenomena, too, have merit and relevance. It is hypocritical to claim that valid conclusions may *only* be made when objective (positivist, actually...) 'data' describing some property of audio related phenomena is available.

 I think what many are skeptical of around here is referred to as "tacit knowledge". Many believe "tacit knowledge" of audio and audio related topics is "subjective", and therefore worthless. I don't think this is the case. However, we're getting into the realm of philosophy here...

 Many also claim that the only way creating a value system for audio components is by comparing some measurements of electrical properties inherent in audio components. This, in theory, makes a LOT of sense. This, in practice, is ultimately futile. There's a lot more going on here than many are willing to admit. As one said, "We know much more than we can tell."


----------



## Chu

What one considered "tactic knowledge" is not necessarily teachable, but is testable. A lot of the voodoo in audiophile circles is a direct result that certain bits of "knowledge" that have embedded themselves into the culture simply don't hold up under testing.

 This goes a lot further then just cables.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What one considered "tactic knowledge" is not necessarily teachable, but is testable. A lot of the voodoo in audiophile circles is a direct result that certain bits of "knowledge" that have embedded themselves into the culture simply don't hold up under testing.

 This goes a lot further then just cables._

 

I think you've maybe misunderstood what tacit knowledge means, as coined by Michael Polanyi, it is also what some call "private knowledge" or "personal knowledge". It is not actually something 'testable', as per their descriptions/definitions.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you've maybe misunderstood what tacit knowledge means, as coined by Michael Polanyi, it is also what some call "private knowledge" or "personal knowledge". It is not actually something 'testable', as per their descriptions/definitions._

 

I know of no definition of tactic knowledge that excludes the testing of it. Provide one please.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know of no definition of tactic knowledge that excludes the testing of it. Provide one please._

 

'Tactic'? or 'tacit'? 

 "Polanyi's argument was that the informed guesses, hunches and imaginings that are part of exploratory acts are motivated by what he describes as 'passions'. They might well be aimed at discovering 'truth', but they are not necessarily in a form that can be stated in propositional or formal terms... He termed this pre-logical phase of knowing as 'tacit knowledge'. Tacit knowledge comprises a range of conceptual and sensory information and images that can be brought to bear in an attempt to make sense of something (see Hodgkin 1991)."

 see:

Michael Polanyi and tacit knowledge


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was trying to show that HIS subjective conclusions about those speakers are indeed valuable_

 

And as I pointed out (and you dismissed) subjective impressions of large differences are more likely to be useful than subjective impressions of things that are so similar, they may in fact be identical. When we strain to hear a difference, we're more likely to convince ourselves we hear a difference that doesn't exist.

 ie: Subjective impressions of two cables, which sound very similar may be flawed. Subjective impressions of two sets of speakers which are very different sounding are likely to be generally correct.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Chu

I know what the word means. I'm going to approach this a different way because I still don't understand why you think tacit knowledge is untestable.

 Have you ever read "Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post Critical Philosophy"? There are several passages referring to the role of Tacit knowledge in his field, chemistry, specifically referring to beliefs and intuitions he held absent of the basis of rigor.

 The key is though, as chemistry advanced, eventually rigorous tests could be applied to those theories that came out of this tacit knowledge of chemistry.

 If those theories turned out to be wrong, essentially it is proof that the pool of tacit knowledge he draws upon is faulty.


----------



## bigshot

Science doesn't always work the way we expect it to. We tend to apply attributes that don't exist because they make some sort of human sense. For example, light colored metals supposedly sound "brighter" than darker ones, and some imagine that current flows through a wire in one direction like a river. The problem is, this sort of "internal logic" isn't logical at all, it's wrong, and it leads to magical thinking. You come up with much better "hunches" if you have a grasp of the basic principles of how things work.

 The problem here isn't that people shouldn't be making these sorts of observations, or that their intuition is wrong. Every human being perceives and thinks pretty much the same way. The problem is that their method of thinking and working out problems is wrong.

 Logic and analytical thought are the tools to hone intuition into a useful tool. Intuition is like a caveman's club compared to the samurai sword of logic. Embracing magical thinking and being dead set on the accuracy of one's all-too-human perceptions are barriers to understanding. You always have to test your perceptions and ideas to see if they hold up to the way things really are. That's where logic comes in.

 A side note... No one here needs to prove that they're smart. We don't need to run irrelevant knowledge up the flagpole, or trot out high falootin' sentence structure to prove that we're intelligent. We should focus our efforts on problem solving and analysis of information... and stick to the subject of audio.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know what the word means. I'm going to approach this a different way because I still don't understand why you think tacit knowledge is untestable.

 Have you ever read "Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post Critical Philosophy"? There are several passages referring to the role of Tacit knowledge in his field, chemistry, specifically referring to beliefs and intuitions he held absent of the basis of rigor.

 The key is though, as chemistry advanced, eventually rigorous tests could be applied to those theories that came out of this tacit knowledge of chemistry.

 If those theories turned out to be wrong, essentially it is proof that the pool of tacit knowledge he draws upon is faulty._

 

I've only read "Meaning", but I believe Polanyi was speaking more to pre-logical knowledge, that is, some barely transcribable, informal, and mostly inexpressible (subconscious) knowledge. Some have interpreted Polanyi's work by considering tacit knowledge as part of a process (which i think was his intent, too), and have applied a cognitive, "theater of consciousness" interpretation, which again, points to tacit knowledge as being something that is very difficult to tease from the mind (unmolested), but it is always there, always creating some non-objective bias, that it is largely untestable. Yes, once some logic is applied (say, preparing a valid and rigorous experiment to investigate a "gut instinct") it is testable against other existing (post-logical) information, but I'm not sure Polanyi claims the knowledge could be considered faulty.

 Another way (maybe?) to understand this conversation is that science "fact" is only able to be communicated (between humans, informally) through models and metaphors. Since every phenomena is explicit, our only way of communicating something is by applying logic which is only an approximation, a model or a metaphor, because our tacit knowledge of phenomena is potentially explicit as well.


----------



## Chu

If every phenomia was explicit, a lot of the debates on this forum would vanish. I really can't accept that premise in any form.

 Polanyi might not argue that the pre-logical knowledge is faulty, but what word would you use if it leads to faulty conclusions?

 I still don't understand the definition of "untestable" you are using. It's certainly possible to cateorigize people by seemig tacit beliefs shared (as papers on tacict knowledge and relgions have tried to do) and there has been research in tacic knowledge in real-world fields (for example, while on might not be able to lay out their tacit beliefs by definition, they can recognize others who possess the same beliefs by the real-world manifstations of their work).


----------



## bigshot

I'm going to the quad to get a coke. You can leave your bluebooks on my desk when you're done.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

To be honest guys, I find these posts funny. Not because you guys aren't eloquent, but because you are debating about things which most in the audio industry, including scientists understand to be rather objective truth. First, psychoacoustics are a subjective science that does revolve around human aural proclivity, and many of us have subtle differences in how we perceive sound. But at the same time there are also many things that are exactly the same every time. For instance: humans don't generally hear fundamental frequencies past 20,000Hz so we don't have speakers the have a low of 60,000Hz to a high of 100,000Hz. That is because Psychoacoustics have deduced that humans don't hear that way. We have objective rules that can be tested on a subjective perception. but to be fair not all of the rules are written or completely understood. Most audiophile engineers that do scientific tests and even do cable designs for NASA, and who have worked for the government, can know that power cords make a beneficial difference. This beneficial difference can be demonstrated at shows to all in the audience with everyone agreeing that there are audible effects. However, at that same time those same engineers cannot measure why it makes an audible and beneficial effect. so you can tout objectivity all you want, but we are still limited by what we haven't discovered or learned yet and our subjective "scientific" interpretation. Ask a Biologist, Physicist, Political Scientist, Electrical Engineer, and psycholgist what the scientific method/ methods are and you will get 5 different and contradictory answers. Objective reasons exist for what the industry agrees are it's proper design philosophies, we just haven't necessarily learned how to measure or discovered all of them yet.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Most audiophile engineers that do scientific tests and even do cable designs for NASA, and who have worked for the government, can know that power cords make a beneficial difference. This beneficial difference can be demonstrated at shows to all in the audience with everyone agreeing that there are audible effects._

 

Can you back this up with specifics? A specific instance where all the audience agreed to hear a beneficial difference? An explanation of the circumstances, the hypothesis to be tested? Survey data that shows that "most engineers" agree that power cords make a beneficial difference?

 I find it laughable that by laying wires in certain pattern and coating them with multiple non-conductive materials a cable can magically alter the AC that has flowed hundreds of miles over regular old copper wire to get to the wall outlet.

 As for the Polanyi argument, how the hell did we get there? He's one dead knowledge theorist out of a thousand who disagree with him. When these debates turn epistemological, it's a sure sign that one side or another is desperate (and this is coming from someone with graduate study in philosophy).

 --Chris


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

"Can you back this up with specifics? A specific instance where all the audience agreed to hear a beneficial difference? An explanation of the circumstances, the hypothesis to be tested? Survey data that shows that "most engineers" agree that power cords make a beneficial difference?"

 Well I will assume that you have never been to a CES or T.H.E. Show before since you are saying that, in fact I was told the power cord info by the reps at Nordost. They explained that engineers still don't understand why it works, they can only demonstrate that it does. They did this when they demonstrated their new odin cable. in that demonstration they a/b'ed it with vahalla interconnects only, playing the same song on the same equipment. every one in the room agreed there was a sonic change, on person said it wasn't even debatable, but questioned how they did it. Both Nordost and Anylsis Plus have done projects for NASA using their cable, Nordost wasn't even in the audio cable business until after their flatline gold cable was used in space shuttles in the late 80's. Another little factoid is that untill about 15 years ago nobody in the industry even believed that power cords made a difference, for the most part. Conrad Johnson only used to manufacture their products with hard wired power cords, since their are some benifits to doing this they stuck by it for years until people started to complain and even they admit that different power cords change the sound. I may be flamed for this but, I am going to say it anyway. Any person that thinks cables don't make a difference are clearly not in the audio industry and have little to no understanding of it. Pursuant to that, they probably shouldn't pontificate about what they do not understand. I manage a high end audio store. My job depends on proving that cables make a difference by doing A/B tests. I have brought in my friends who have never listened to a high end system. One such example was a time I did an A/B test between a 120$ Tara Labs cable and a 500$ Acoustic Zen cable. My uninitiated friend told me the difference was like night and day. The funny thing is he didn't really even notice me changing the cable, just that the sound had changed for the better. And if you would like some scientific data.

http://www.analysis-plus.com/images/SoundStage93.pdf
Analysis Plus
Analysis Plus

 I am not giving you this from analysis plus just because I like them, I think there are some better cables then theirs for audio. However, they really have done very thorough science on their cables and have the tests to show it.


----------



## Chu

I've wondered about how hard it would be to get the raw data from the Analysis Plus test. I've wondered why they chose cables with such a huge difference in area, and why they didn't go one step further and publish the resulting waveforms of the simulation.

 I would also be incredibly interested with what their simulation does with stranded cable, since it's closer to hollow then solid core from a topology perspective.

 About trade shows though, it always has bothered me that there are such a large number of people who, at the same time, criticize blind testing on the basis that the listeners are not familiar with the systems involved, but give credence to trade show reports on completely unfamiliar systems in probably the least ideal listening environment possible.

 EDIT : I don't see what cables have to do with the op at all. It's an absurd statement if you believe in cables or not, with trivial counterexamples.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

About trade shows though, it always has bothered me that there are such a large number of people who, at the same time, criticize blind testing on the basis that the listeners are not familiar with the systems involved, but give credence to trade show reports on completely unfamiliar systems in probably the least ideal listening environment possible.

 EDIT : I don't see what cables have to do with the op at all. It's an absurd statement if you believe in cables or not, with trivial counterexamples.[/QUOTE]

 I agree it isn't the best environment, however we are talking about an A/B test. so you are looking for improvement over the original sound you heard. Second, not all of the sound at shows is bad, it really depends on the room and size of the speakers involved. If you have a big enough hotel room you can simulate a descent listening space. This is actually why all of the high end companies only really are in the venetian and not the convention center, it isn't ideal but it is more than sufficient for an A/B test to mark change or imporvment. for the record, Nordost's room at the venitian was one of the better sounding ones at CES. 

 I kind of wish Analysis plus also showed the results of complex frequencies with the test, but that kind of shows that not all "science" is the same, 
 I think this is actually a problem with engineering in general, if one cross over, or one cable, or one capacitor all test at the same specs then some engineers say it doesn't matter if you use the most expensive one or not. Well specs don't tell the whole story because those specs may not be all the specs we have discovered to measure performance, nor are they all of the specs we are going to discover. In fact this is sort of how David Berning got in the industry and started creating amps. He actually created some of the signal transfer measurement specs when he worked for government in military applications. because in the 60's and 70's they hadn't been figured out yet, or quantifyiably measured yet. If we have learned so much in 30 year just think about how much better we will understand measurement and psycho-acoustics in another 50 years. Just think about what notions will be accepted as facts and how stupid it was for us to question such a thing. audiophile engineering is part instrument maker, part art, part science. Science is just a vehicle for creating an artistic or musical vision. so some discernment is involved. and this is what separates a 70 watt Pioneer, From a 70 watt Conrad Johnson amp. They both have the same wattage but one has a better artistically musical design and plays like a typical 300 watt amp. So getting back to the OP. It is possible to have a completely un-equilateral triange and have spent half of you money on cables and have a system that sounds like it costs 3 times as much as it did. it is about synergy of all of the parts involved and that has to be carefully chosen in order for the music window to open up and you to have a musical epiphany. It really just depends on the system and the parts involved. That is why cables and all components make a huge difference they may or may not work the same way uniformly in all systems. some times changing out one cable can be the difference between an average system and a fabulous system. I have witnessed it myself.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any person that thinks cables don't make a difference are clearly not in the audio industry and have little to no understanding of it. Pursuant to that, they probably shouldn't pontificate about what they do not understand._

 

Then why does the audio industry overwhelmingly still use good old platinum, copper, and PVC?

 I think you are confusing the audio industry with the audiophile industry. And I don't think an audiophile salesperson has any more right to pontificate than a dedicated audio amateur. What do they understand better than the rest of us other than perhaps entrepreneurship?

 --Chris


----------



## achristilaw

With Music as the bottom line. The three "equal" sides denotes balance. That equalibrium or synergy . Can be had at all price levels. The Minibox E+ combo. Paired with the PK1. Add a trusty portable DVD. Or a premium source, amp and headphone combo. NOT ALL GREAT COMPONENTS WORK WELL TOGETHER. And not all cables are created equal. I've made pairings. That should have worked. But didn't. And have been shocked. At the quality of some incidental ones. Go figure!?!


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then why does the audio industry overwhelmingly still use good old platinum, copper, and PVC?

 I think you are confusing the audio industry with the audiophile industry. And I don't think an audiophile salesperson has any more right to pontificate than a dedicated audio amateur. What do they understand better than the rest of us other than perhaps entrepreneurship?

 --Chris_

 

yeah I guess someone who spends 8 hours a day just studying equipment and who has to demonstrate it's superlative nature to people understands absolutely nothing about it. I guess the fact that I spend day after day talking to egineers and distributors in the industry doesn't make me perhaps a little more familiar compared to someone who ignorantly makes comments wihtout experience to discuss it. By the way there really isn't a "audiophile industry" it is part of the audio industry at large. There is a great deal of cross over. Also I don't think that people who aren't in the industry shouldn't comment on it, in fact some of my customers understand it better than most. My problem are people who claim things without having thoroughly investigated them and have probably only heard horribly designed crap. The problem about high end audio is that many people have not heard it demonstrated to them correctly. many audio retailers don't understand good two channel audio and the synergy between components. I have heard 140,000$ speakers that looked beautiful but sounded horrible. I have had systems in my store that sounded horrible until I swapped out the speaker cables or interconnects I was using on a particular speaker or amp. It made the system sound truly revealing. most end users don't necessarily understand this interplay, nor do they think they have the time to mess with it. It gets very tiring when people who have never heard good equipment start acting like they can prove the emperor is wearing no clothes, and that all exotic treatments for audio are just snake oil, because the knowledge of the fact that these things effect the way I perform my job every day and how I put together systems that are truly musical and not just over hyped boring pieces of electronic art.

 I have never heard of a platinum solder, dielectric, or conductor in any cable. Copper and Silver are used quite frequently and are the best conductors for audio. both are actually better than gold for audio, gold is just usually used to prevent corrosion and oxidation on terminations. but I guess you must be just as knowledgeable as me right?


----------



## bigshot

I work in the industry, and all the engineers I've ever spoken to all say a wire is a wire. They buy wire on big spindles because it's cheaper that way. Salesmen in stereo stores are the ones who love high priced cables, not pros in the industry.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I work in the industry, and all the engineers I've ever spoken to all say a wire is a wire. They buy wire on big spindles because it's cheaper that way. Salesmen in stereo stores are the ones who love high priced cables, not pros in the industry.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

by the industry do you mean you work at best buy? yeah CI guys say that because they believe in doing things quick and dirty, and laying thousands of feet of crap cable, but I would love to know who your distributors and engineers are or which ones you know. It sounds like they either follow the audio critique or are not audiophiles. I cannot tell you how many companies at both CES and T.H.E. Show make a point to demo with cable that they aren't affiliated with through distribution. Like I saw a room in the venetian with Kubala Sonsa, Wilson audio and Lamm Monoblocks, even though I know Wilson uses monster to make their speakers. Much to many people's chagrin I am sure. The point is those people who said "wire is wire" and not cable is cable obviously are hearers and not listeners.There is a difference one requires discernment, but not necessarily high cost. You also know that all of the people that make cable are also egineers right? many of them design cables, speakers and electronics. also if "wire is wire" as you say why would Sim Audio's engineers choose to use high quality copper trace in their PCB if it doesn't matter.


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


 I work in the industry, and all the engineers I've ever spoken to all say a wire is a wire. They buy wire on big spindles because it's cheaper that way. Salesmen in stereo stores are the ones who love high priced cables, not pros in the industry.

 See ya
 Steve 
 

Hi everyone. I am new here and all. I must say that I agree with HiFi FOR METAL here. I am an electrical engineering major about to graduate who has been into playing clarinet and guitar and listening to high quality music for years. Although they really do not seem to teach you at my school much about wires outside of the basic physics, I do know that a wire is not a wire. If a wire was a wire, then would it be correct to say that a wire made of copper of length 1m would have the same characteristics as a wire of length 1km? I would argue that they do not. Capacitance and inductance due to the impurities in the wire will change how the wire behaves. If a wire was a wire, I think that many power systems engineers would be out of a job. Buying wire off of a spool is a wonderful thing if you like cheap solutions. I think we all like that to some extent. However, wire on a spool will never get you the sound quality that wire or cable that has specific design characteristics for carrying sound will give you. The difference is like listening to low-end solid state and high-end tubed amps. Also, even as an engineer, I do not put too much stock into the statistics that companies put out. Statistics are just that, statistics. You can do almost anything with them. I believe that to a certain extent audio equipment is like music, an art. Even the designing process of cable should be an art to an extent. If you let the cable just go without any direction of how it should be used, then it is just a wire. Also, I am curious to know exactly what part of the industry is being discussed here? The industry of music and audio is huge. Also, as a soon-to-be pro here, I do enjoy having high-end cables because they make a wire more than a wire. They can become that art within an art.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_by the industry do you mean you work at best buy? yeah CI guys say that because they believe in doing things quick and dirty, and laying thousands of feet of crap cable, but I would love to know who your distributors and engineers are or which ones you know. It sounds like they either follow the audio critique or are not audiophiles. I cannot tell you how many companies at both CES and T.H.E. Show make a point to demo with cable that they aren't affiliated with through distribution. Like I saw a room in the venetian with Kubala Sonsa, Wilson audio and Lamm Monoblocks, even though I know Wilson uses monster to make their speakers. Much to many people's chagrin I am sure. The point is those people who said "wire is wire" and not cable is cable obviously are hearers and not listeners.There is a difference one requires discernment, but not necessarily high cost. You also know that all of the people that make cable are also egineers right? many of them design cables, speakers and electronics. also if "wire is wire" as you say why would Sim Audio's engineers choose to use high quality copper trace in their PCB if it doesn't matter._

 

He actually runs a hi-fi business...


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yeah I guess someone who spends 8 hours a day just studying equipment and who has to demonstrate it's superlative nature to people understands absolutely nothing about it. I guess the fact that I spend day after day talking to egineers and distributors in the industry doesn't make me perhaps a little more familiar compared to someone who ignorantly makes comments wihtout experience to discuss it._

 

No one said you didn't understand anything about it. What was said was that just because you sell it doesn't mean you are any more knowledgeable than educated consumers, and you admitted as much in the very same post.

 It's impossible to discuss the issue if you're only going to start a pissing match over who is more qualified than whom. It doesn't take an audio dealer, a NASA scientist, or a recording engineer to understand the basic principles of resistance, inductance, and capacitance.

 --Chris


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If a wire was a wire, then would it be correct to say that a wire made of copper of length 1m would have the same characteristics as a wire of length 1km?_

 

I don't think that anyone seriously argues that the characteristics of a 1m wire are the same as the characteristics of a 1km wire. What they may argue, however, is that the differences among wires are so small that they have no audible effect on audible frequencies when used in such relatively small lengths as we see in audio applications.

 Just out of curiosity, since you seem to have the background to answer this question, how much of a difference is there in the characteristics of a wire 1 km in length compared to a wire 1.001 km in length?


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No one said you didn't understand anything about it. What was said was that just because you sell it doesn't mean you are any more knowledgeable than educated consumers, and you admitted as much in the very same post.

 It's impossible to discuss the issue if you're only going to start a pissing match over who is more qualified than whom. It doesn't take an audio dealer, a NASA scientist, or a recording engineer to understand the basic principles of resistance, inductance, and capacitance.

 --Chris_

 

If you had read my post more carefully I think that people who aren't in the industry understand a great deal about it, some of my customers are so dedicated to the hobby they understand it better then some of my distributors. That being said they have actually spent time to investigate, the sound of different technologies. cables being and integral part of a system are a given fact in the industry. it is something that has been verified via tests and years of research. Also your assumption seems to be based on ignorance of this industry. If I had you in my store I could demonstrate for you that cable makes a difference. the difference isn't subtle. by saying that cable doesn't make a difference you are implying that magazines like stereophile, soundstage, enjoy the music, the absoulute sound, the audiophile voice, and all retailers selling high end cable are either dillusional or lying, and that we are snake oil salesmen. But this isn't based on actual experience in the field. have you ever gone to a high end dealer to hear it for yourself? My suspicion is that you haven't. I beleive this qoute fits you, 
 "Most people can sense and appreciate the subtle differences between a good meal and a great one, while others will deny there are any differences at all without ever tasting the food.' --adapted from George Short, North Creek Music northcreekmusic.com
 I invite you to go to a high end audio salon that has a good background in two channel audio and actually hear the difference on equipment that can demonstrate it.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it is something that has been verified via tests and years of research._

 

Why don't they make _any_ of this information avaliable to us? I've never seen an audio whitepaper that wasn't just a marketing brochure.

 Also, I really take appeals to authorities without hard science with a huge grain of salt. We've seen entire industries in the past based around falsehoods. Witness almost the entire medicinal industry in the 1800's. "Snake Oil" entered our vocabularly for a reason.

 The subtulty argument is also odd. There are tons of things in the audio world that trivially pass double blind tests. _Blind_ tests, not a/b. Cables don't. What's the explanation?


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why don't they make any of this information avaliable to us? I've never seen an audio whitepaper that wasn't just a marketing brochure.

 Also, I really take appeals to authorities without hard science with a huge grain of salt. We've seen entire industries in the past based around falsehoods. Witness almost the entire medicinal industry in the 1800's. "Snake Oil" entered our vocabularly for a reason.

 The subtulty argument is also odd. There are tons of things in the audio world that trivially pass double blind tests. Blind tests, not a/b. Cables don't. What's the explanation?_

 

actually I said the difference wasn't subtle, it is actually quite drastic. Second, there are white papers on the subject. by the way, is there scientific method to prove if an instrument is made better than another one? there is some science yes, but after it has passed all of those benchmarks it becomes somewhat subjective. Try telling a guitarist that a machine made guitar is just as good as a hand made one and they will tell you that you are crazy. Food is another subjective field, can you scientifically prove gourmet food is better than McDonald's? Now that being said there is a lot of science in cable theory, but the science is only a tool that has to correlate to a subjective experience that is based on several variables: the equipment involved, the room involved, and the listener, just to mention the basic ones. 
 I will post this again, analysis plus does have technical white papers with graphs and charts using square waves to measure performance. Nordost also has some technical papers on their cables as well. Now both companies have designed cables for NASA. These cables were not for use on the stereos in the space shuttle, but were chosen based on objective scientific tests by NASA based on the cable's resistance inductance, bandwidth, and slew rate, for the purpose of using conductors in the craft. Still there is another problem with science. Unfortunately it isn't as exact as most people think. Just because you have a list of specs doesn't mean that all of the specs listed address every psychical aspect of signal transfer and the psycho-acoustic response therein. Electrons still are not completely understood by ENGRs because they truly operate on the quantum level and signal transfer theory hasn't really evolved that far. I mean mainstream electrical engineering has only existed for about 150 years. We have to perhaps realize we may not be able to measure every spec that exists and effects a signal. ENGRs know the how more than the why. also Chu, have you ever visited a high end audio salon yourself to experience the difference first hand?
Analysis Plus
Nordost Corporation | Birth of Flatline


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


 actually I said the difference wasn't subtle, it is actually quite drastic. Second, there are white papers on the subject. by the way, is there scientific method to prove if an instrument is made better than another one? there is some science yes, but after it has passed all of those benchmarks it becomes somewhat subjective. but try telling a guitarist that a machine made guitar is just as good as a hand made one and they will tell you that you are crazy. food is another subjective field, can you scientifically prove gourmet food is better than McDonald's? 
 

I can proove, withouth the shadow of a doubt, that two instruments/meals are different. That's what it's about.
 You're seriously trying to make such an awkward attempt of changing the subject? My 14 Year old niece would see through your humbug.


  Quote:


 Now that being said there is a lot of science in cable theory, but the science is only a tool that has to correlate to a subjective experience that is based on several variables. the equipment involved, the room involved, and the listener, just to mention the basic ones. 
 

The fact that cables do not make a difference for the transmition of audiosignals within the usual dimensions (0,5 to 3m) does fit perfectly in the scientific world view. It's just that the explanation isn't completely physical. The explanation is of a (perceptional) psychological nature, which just doesn't seem to fit your bill. Your problem, not mine.

  Quote:


 I will post this again, analysis plus does have technical white papers with graphs and charts using square waves to measure performance. Nordost also has some technical papers on their cables as well. 
 

So they sure can show us the effects on the signal between 20Hz and 20 000Hz, in the range from 0 to 2 V. I'm not interested in square waves and heavy current. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 We're waiting.


  Quote:


 Now both companies have designed cables for NASA. These cables were not for use on the stereos in the space shuttle, but were chosen based on objective scientific tests by NASA based on the cable's resistance inductance, bandwidth, and slew rate. for the purpose of using conductors in the craft 
 

So they build "cables, that can handle a 120A, 80V pulse". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Come on, you're a pro. Tell us how many A's are flowing through a speaker cable with an average speaker at upper level listening, and what measurable (NASA-style) benefits the customer should have by using the "NASA"-Cable.

  Quote:


 But still there is another problem with science. Unfortunately it isn't as exact as most people think. Just because you have a list of specs doesn't mean that all of the specs listed address every psychical aspect of signal transfer and the psycho-acoustic response therein. Electrons still are not completely understood by ENGRs because they truly operate on the quantum level and signal transfer theory hasn't really evolved that far. I mean mainstream electrical engineering has only existed for about 150 years. We have to perhaps realize we may not be able to measure every spec that exists and effects a signal. ENGRs know the how more than the why. 
 

But still, there's another problem with your reasoning. Science is perfectly exact to characterise the behaviour of the electrons *for our given purpose*.
 If you do not consider, that all we have to do is to transmit an electrical image of the pattern in which the microphone membrane was moved at the moment of the recording, and that you can easily match input and output of the cable you have obviously not understood the process we're talking about at all. 
 Either this, or maybe you're just trying to make a dollar from the gullibles.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 actually I said the difference wasn't subtle, it is actually quite drastic. 
 

If the difference isn't subtle and quite drastic, then why is this subject so heavily debated? Why can't a lot of people hear a difference? Why aren't double blind tests allowed here? Why haven't you contacted Randy to get a million dollars? Why aren't there any passing blind tests results on the web?


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


 Originally posted by *Febs* I don't think that anyone seriously argues that the characteristics of a 1m wire are the same as the characteristics of a 1km wire. What they may argue, however, is that the differences among wires are so small that they have no audible effect on audible frequencies when used in such relatively small lengths as we see in audio applications.

 Just out of curiosity, since you seem to have the background to answer this question, how much of a difference is there in the characteristics of a wire 1 km in length compared to a wire 1.001 km in length? 
 

I was making an exaggeration on the length. The point was that by varying even one thing, you can completely change the behavior of the overall system. As for the difference in the length, that would depend on the other characteristics of the wire. Frankly, I have done calculations on many things, some of which show a big difference just by rounding. For example, if I have to make 5 calculations with decimals, I can have different answers at the end of those calculations, depending on when and where I round. This can give very different answers for the same thing, although I am still trying to calculate the _same_ thing. Fortunately, science provides specific rules with rounding one's calculations called significant digits, if you are unfamiliar with this with all due respect. Even so, many scientists just wind up rounding "at a good place" that makes them feel comfortable. This could drastically change how a cable or wire behaves because of simple rounding error. So, depending on how you treat that decimal, it could mean that a wire of 1km could have the same characteristics as the wire or cable of 1.001km, or it could mean that the characteristics and behavior of that wire or cable are completely different.

  Quote:


 Originally written by *Chu* Why don't they make any of this information avaliable to us? I've never seen an audio whitepaper that wasn't just a marketing brochure. 
 

Actually, they do. Unless you are Bose, you do not hide your stats. As for the academic/scientific papers you are looking for, I would suggest that you look into the IEEE Spectrum. They have some papers on the effects of tubes and the like. If we say that tubes and solid-state make a world of difference, then why not cable? Quality matters everywhere else we look. Why not here? Also, another good place to look would be some scholarly websites. It would not surprise me if they have something there.

  Quote:


 Originally written by *Vul Kuonun* 
 Quote:
 actually I said the difference wasn't subtle, it is actually quite drastic. Second, there are white papers on the subject. by the way, is there scientific method to prove if an instrument is made better than another one? there is some science yes, but after it has passed all of those benchmarks it becomes somewhat subjective. but try telling a guitarist that a machine made guitar is just as good as a hand made one and they will tell you that you are crazy. food is another subjective field, can you scientifically prove gourmet food is better than McDonald's?
 I can proove, withouth the shadow of a doubt, that two instruments/meals are different. That's what it's about.
 You're seriously trying to make such an awkward attempt of changing the subject? My 14 Year old niece would see through your humbug.


 Quote:
 Now that being said there is a lot of science in cable theory, but the science is only a tool that has to correlate to a subjective experience that is based on several variables. the equipment involved, the room involved, and the listener, just to mention the basic ones.
 The fact that cables do not make a difference for the transmition of audiosignals within the usual dimensions (0,5 to 3m) does fit perfectly in the scientific world view. It's just that the explanation isn't completely physical. The explanation is of a (perceptional) psychological nature, which just doesn't seem to fit your bill. Your problem, not mine.

 Quote:
 I will post this again, analysis plus does have technical white papers with graphs and charts using square waves to measure performance. Nordost also has some technical papers on their cables as well.
 So they sure can show us the effects on the signal between 20Hz and 20 000Hz, in the range from 0 to 2 V. I'm not interested in square waves and heavy current.
 We're waiting.


 Quote:
 Now both companies have designed cables for NASA. These cables were not for use on the stereos in the space shuttle, but were chosen based on objective scientific tests by NASA based on the cable's resistance inductance, bandwidth, and slew rate. for the purpose of using conductors in the craft
 So they build "cables, that can handle a 120A, 80V pulse".

 Come on, you're a pro. Tell us how many A's are flowing through a speaker cable with an average speaker at upper level listening, and what measurable (NASA-style) benefits the customer should have by using the "NASA"-Cable.

 Quote:
 But still there is another problem with science. Unfortunately it isn't as exact as most people think. Just because you have a list of specs doesn't mean that all of the specs listed address every psychical aspect of signal transfer and the psycho-acoustic response therein. Electrons still are not completely understood by ENGRs because they truly operate on the quantum level and signal transfer theory hasn't really evolved that far. I mean mainstream electrical engineering has only existed for about 150 years. We have to perhaps realize we may not be able to measure every spec that exists and effects a signal. ENGRs know the how more than the why.
 But still, there's another problem with your reasoning. Science is perfectly exact to characterise the behaviour of the electrons for our given purpose.
 If you do not consider, that all we have to do is to transmit an electrical image of the pattern in which the microphone membrane was moved at the moment of the recording, and that you can easily match input and output of the cable you have obviously not understood the process we're talking about at all.
 Either this, or maybe you're just trying to make a dollar from the gullibles.
 Today 11:17 AM 
 

First of all, let me say that food and audio in terms of subjectivity are quite similar. What one person will consider to be the most foul tasting stuff in his/her life will be the best tasting gourmet food to another man. Likewise, I recently had an argument with a friend about some $25 Koss earphones. He thinks that they are the best for their price ever. While this may be true, I still think that there is still plenty of room for improvement. So, audio and food can be made completely similar in this respect. 

 Again, physics and psychology are both fields of science. Who is to say that one is more qualified than the other to explain how the world works? As for the physical characteristics of cable depending on materials and the like, if what you are saying is true, then you probably would not be sitting in front of such a nice computer right now. If the characteristics of the materials and the like did not matter on such a small scale, then why do they keep changing the process for creating processors? Cable uses materials that are quite similar. Why should they be any different?

 I mean no offense, but it probably be a good idea to care about these numbers and statistics just a little. While they are not the end all and be all of the world, they certainly do tell you much about a system. Actually, some companies are so generous as to almost give you enough information to run the calculations for reverse engineering parts of the system, which is really interesting. Also, it does matter what the signal is; that same signal traveling through your cables is the same signal that is coming to your ears to haunt you if you are not careful about how your system is set up. 

 Concerning the "NASA cable," all that I think HiFi FOR METAL is trying to say is that it meets the requirements for space travel. That is pretty heavy duty, especially given all of the electromagnetic interference up in space.

 Truthfully, science is not perfect. Anyone who really argues for this as a fact should be able recall how the average American diet changes like clothes going out of fashion. Because of science's supposed perfection, Americans are told on the news how the new ice cream diet or the Atkin's diet is the best for them. Obviously, the jury is still out on this one. Likewise, quantum physicists are still struggling to figure out how electrons work exactly. Their hypotheses and theories are constantly changing because they do not know what is the exact behavior. Look into some of the weird things that happen to electrons in certain conditions. Frankly, I would love to see quantum computers in action, but because science does not know all of the specifics concerning electron and particle behavior, they do not exist in practical application yet. Also, if science was so perfect, then I do not believe discussions and forums of this nature would exist because all things would be plotted out for us in life as to what is best for us. I am glad that this is not the case because I would be bored out of my skull!


----------



## IPodPJ

Very well put Forsaken.
 Quantum physicists have also observed that a single electron was two places at once. How is this possible? Well, it's the world that we don't quite understand and are a long way from knowing with any degree of certainty.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, they do. Unless you are Bose, you do not hide your stats. As for the academic/scientific papers you are looking for, I would suggest that you look into the IEEE Spectrum. They have some papers on the effects of tubes and the like._

 

Link me a few. A good example is the "hollow oval" cable design you linked further. That is very typical of whitepapers I see. Broad brush strokes, no details at all. What did they use for the simulation? What formulas? Why did they choose such drastic different cross-sectional areas for the different cables? How much current were they running? What was the length of the cables in the simulation? What waveform were they using in their simulation?

 Without the details it's marketing fluff. The details are critically important.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If we say that tubes and solid-state make a world of difference, then why not cable? Quality matters everywhere else we look. Why not here? Also, another good place to look would be some scholarly websites. It would not surprise me if they have something there._

 

Treading very carefully here, it's because tubes and op-amps are trivially shown to be different in blind tests. Once we show difference, then we can talk about better.

 Cables have been incredibly resistant to blind testing. That's why we're still talking different, not better.

 And really, if you think you can easily pass a double-blind test and you own an audio store (i.e. can provide a proper testing facility), why not perform the tests and end this debate once and for all? It takes one verifiable negative result to throw this entire debate out the window, and considering the national distribution of skeptics we have on head-fi finding a fair judge would be trivial.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, if science was so perfect, then I do not believe discussions and forums of this nature would exist because all things would be plotted out for us in life as to what is best for us. I am glad that this is not the case because I would be bored out of my skull!_

 

No one is claiming that science is perfect, only that science gives us a pretty darn good idea of the boundaries of reality and possibility. Anything else is mere superstition and hogwash.

 In other words, the benefit of the doubt goes to scientific principles, and until repeatable, empirical data shows otherwise, any two wires with the same inductance, capacitance, and resistance are just that: two wires. (And yes, I have been to high end stores to hear cable demonstrations and was never convinced. I used to believe in the difference myself until a psychologist friend blind tested me and I failed miserably.)

 (Proper insulation and build quality is important for other reasons, but those are trivial parts of the equation.)

 --Chris


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


 If we say that tubes and solid-state make a world of difference, then why not cable? 
 

If you, in all seriousness, are trying to make this point can only mean two things:

 -Either you think of us as a bunch of total retards

 or

 -You are not an EE. Probably, you even might have never seen one. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Come on. Don't hold back when going down the "retards"-road.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Link me a few. A good example is the "hollow oval" cable design you linked further. That is very typical of whitepapers I see. Broad brush strokes, no details at all. What did they use for the simulation? What formulas? Why did they choose such drastic different cross-sectional areas for the different cables? How much current were they running? What was the length of the cables in the simulation? What waveform were they using in their simulation?

 Without the details it's marketing fluff. The details are critically important.



 Treading very carefully here, it's because tubes and op-amps are trivially shown to be different in blind tests. Once we show difference, then we can talk about better.

 Cables have been incredibly resistant to blind testing. That's why we're still talking different, not better.

 And really, if you think you can easily pass a double-blind test and you own an audio store (i.e. can provide a proper testing facility), why not perform the tests and end this debate once and for all? It takes one verifiable negative result to throw this entire debate out the window, and considering the national distribution of skeptics we have on head-fi finding a fair judge would be trivial._

 

hey dude I am the one who owns the store not forsaken. Forsaken is the ENGR as he stated before.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the difference isn't subtle and quite drastic, then why is this subject so heavily debated? Why can't a lot of people hear a difference? Why aren't double blind tests allowed here? Why haven't you contacted Randy to get a million dollars? Why aren't there any passing blind tests results on the web?_

 

actually pear cable tried to debunk Randi and found out it was a hoax, Double Blind: Pear Cable CEO Calls James Randi's $1 Million Offer a Hoax

 and this shows there results on an oscilloscopes at the speaker terminal. Pear Cable Audio Cables - Cable Measurements - Frequency Response Plot

 also this article I think explains, scientifically and in good detail many of the scientific findings on why cables make a difference

 edit: it is actually this link: 
Loudspeakers: Effects of amplifiers and cables - Part 5 | Audio DesignLine

Are audio cables guilty of sonic differences? | Audio DesignLine


----------



## OverlordXenu

HiFi, are you serious?

 I suggest you go and read the lengthy thread on the Pear Cables/Randi situation so that you can find out how childish Pear has been and all the BS they spewed.


----------



## IPodPJ

I have to agree. Yahoo gave Pear Cable's Anjou one of year's 10 worst products. The reason was because they asked to test the cable to see if it really lived up to its said quality and price tag of $7,250 and Pear Cable refused to let them try one. Any company who sells a product like that, claims to have all these graphs and charts on how much better it is, claims their cables have been proven better in BT and DBT but won't let someone test them -- I would be extremely leery of purchasing one of their products.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_also this article I think explains, scientifically and in good detail many of the scientific findings on why cables make a difference

Are audio cables guilty of sonic differences? | Audio DesignLine_

 

This article doesn't explain science at all, and doesn't support the position you are taking either. Quite the contrary: it says pretty much what a few of us have been saying over the course of this whole thread. Are you sure you posted the correct link?

 --Chris


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This article doesn't explain science at all, and doesn't support the position you are taking either. Quite the contrary: it says pretty much what a few of us have been saying over the course of this whole thread. Are you sure you posted the correct link?

 --Chris_

 

well actually no I didn't post the correct link he quotes the one I meant to, but unfortunately my clipboard copied the wrong link. it was actually this one that he referenced in the first. Loudspeakers: Effects of amplifiers and cables - Part 5 | Audio DesignLine

 I am not trying to support pear in any way. However they have a graph that shows a clear difference in their product. They used an oscilloscope and actually mapped it out. they showed that their product did introduce an audible difference. that is all I want to demonstrate. Now they probably are comparing their cable to monster cable, which itself is horrible, so I definitely think there are probably better products out there.


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


 Originally written by *Chu* 
 Quote:
 Originally Posted by Forsaken Sound View Post
 Actually, they do. Unless you are Bose, you do not hide your stats. As for the academic/scientific papers you are looking for, I would suggest that you look into the IEEE Spectrum. They have some papers on the effects of tubes and the like.
 Link me a few. A good example is the "hollow oval" cable design you linked further. That is very typical of whitepapers I see. Broad brush strokes, no details at all. What did they use for the simulation? What formulas? Why did they choose such drastic different cross-sectional areas for the different cables? How much current were they running? What was the length of the cables in the simulation? What waveform were they using in their simulation?

 Without the details it's marketing fluff. The details are critically important.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted by Forsaken Sound View Post
 If we say that tubes and solid-state make a world of difference, then why not cable? Quality matters everywhere else we look. Why not here? Also, another good place to look would be some scholarly websites. It would not surprise me if they have something there.
 Treading very carefully here, it's because tubes and op-amps are trivially shown to be different in blind tests. Once we show difference, then we can talk about better.

 Cables have been incredibly resistant to blind testing. That's why we're still talking different, not better.

 And really, if you think you can easily pass a double-blind test and you own an audio store (i.e. can provide a proper testing facility), why not perform the tests and end this debate once and for all? It takes one verifiable negative result to throw this entire debate out the window, and considering the national distribution of skeptics we have on head-fi finding a fair judge would be trivial. 
 

Do you want the IEEE Spectrum links? I just want to make sure that I am posting the right thing. I cannot tell you the details of what the engineers at these companies go through because I do not work there. However, I can say that a little research into a few engineering textbooks will put you on the right track to finding the equations that they probably used. 

 Also, I do not own an audio store. I have been to them, but I do not own one. I am a poor college student, not a rich store owner. 

  Quote:


 Hempcamp wrote: 

 No one is claiming that science is perfect, only that science gives us a pretty darn good idea of the boundaries of reality and possibility. Anything else is mere superstition and hogwash.

 In other words, the benefit of the doubt goes to scientific principles, and until repeatable, empirical data shows otherwise, any two wires with the same inductance, capacitance, and resistance are just that: two wires. (And yes, I have been to high end stores to hear cable demonstrations and was never convinced. I used to believe in the difference myself until a psychologist friend blind tested me and I failed miserably.)

 (Proper insulation and build quality is important for other reasons, but those are trivial parts of the equation.)

 --Chris 
 

While it is generally a good idea to follow scientific principles and all, science is not always practical. I know that sounds like I am talking like a fool, but I would like you to consider it for a moment. People do things all the time that seem to defy scientific principles, and I am not talking about some idiot doing something that will win them a Darwin Award. A perfect example of what I am saying is how people thought that the world was flat during the Middle Ages until Columbus proved them wrong. It was considered science then that the world was flat. Now, people find this notion absurd. Now, this does not mean that Columbus was full of "mere superstition and hogwash" as you call it. It just means that something was unknown in the world that needed discovery. It is the same way will so much scientific fiction out there. While much of it cannot actually happen, some of it has almost been prophetic like much of what Jules Verne wrote. In their day, these men were considered crazy, but now they are considered pioneers. In both of these cases, practical science would have said that they needed to seek medical assistance. However, they just ended up proving that science was incomplete in its current state. Likewise, cable design has the potential to have things about it that are unknown to humans right now. That does not mean that those unknown factors are "mere superstition and hogwash" but that we do not know as much about them as we need to in order to create better sounding cables.

  Quote:


 *Vul Kuolun wrote:* 

 If you, in all seriousness, are trying to make this point can only mean two things:

 -Either you think of us as a bunch of total retards

 or

 -You are not an EE. Probably, you even might have never seen one.

 Come on. Don't hold back when going down the "retards"-road. 
 

Actually, it is the hidden choice letter C: you are wrong on both accounts. I do not think of anyone as a retard on this forum. It would be kind of hard to make that opinion for me immediately only after reading a few posts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? Plus, I am still learning about audio. I think I have a long way to go before I even know a fraction of the things that people know on this forum. And, no, I am not kissing up. I have no reason to and would never do it even with a weapon to my head. Another thing: I have worked for 5 @$%#%^# years to get my degree, and I do see EE's on a regular basis. I would prefer if you did not slam my hard work and my major unless you actually have something constructive to say. In both of your responses thus far, you have not said anything to prove me wrong, but instead have insulted me without any grounds. I would kindly request that you actually give me some facts to disprove me instead because I believe that we are both mature people here. Please do not disprove me on that account. Again, I have listened to cables like Valhalla and have heard the difference between them and other not-so-good cables. I also understand much of what is going on in terms of engineering.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A perfect example of what I am saying is how people thought that the world was flat during the Middle Ages until Columbus proved them wrong. It was considered science then that the world was flat. Now, people find this notion absurd. Now, this does not mean that Columbus was full of "mere superstition and hogwash" as you call it. It just means that something was unknown in the world that needed discovery..... Likewise, cable design has the potential to have things about it that are unknown to humans right now. That does not mean that those unknown factors are "mere superstition and hogwash" but that we do not know as much about them as we need to in order to create better sounding cables._

 

It seems twisted to me to use Columbus' "discovery" of a round earth to defend cable pseudo-science. The flat world was the superstition promulgated until repeatable, empirical observations proved the opposite. In the case of cables, what is all too often the case is that repeatable, empirical observations fail to support the claims.

 As has been said many times before, if any of these cable claims could be verified, some of these manufacturers would probably have won multiple Nobel prizes by now! This "unknown potential" of which you speak is utter nonsense -- or serious researchers and peer-reviewed journals would be all over the issue.

 --Chris


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 if any of these cable claims could be verified, some of these manufacturers would probably have won multiple Nobel prizes by now! 

 --Chris_

 

Why would they win a Nobel Prize? I don't understand the connection here. 

 Also, there are certainly textbooks, peer reviewed journals and "serious researchers" (seriously) studying and (seriously) testing transmission line theories, EM field theories... yada yada yada.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, it is the hidden choice letter C: you are wrong on both accounts. I do not think of anyone as a retard on this forum. It would be kind of hard to make that opinion for me immediately only after reading a few posts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? Plus, I am still learning about audio. I think I have a long way to go before I even know a fraction of the things that people know on this forum. And, no, I am not kissing up. I have no reason to and would never do it even with a weapon to my head. Another thing: I have worked for 5 @$%#%^# years to get my degree, and I do see EE's on a regular basis. I would prefer if you did not slam my hard work and my major unless you actually have something constructive to say. In both of your responses thus far, you have not said anything to prove me wrong, but instead have insulted me without any grounds. I would kindly request that you actually give me some facts to disprove me instead because I believe that we are both mature people here. Please do not disprove me on that account._

 

What i was trying to say was the following:

 If you do not know, that it's a triviality to proove the influences of tubes on the sonic spectrum (differences in distortion characteristics), i do not believe that you have any better technical education than me. And that's not much. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I'm not saying this to insult you, but based on the knowledge and faulty examples in your posts i just do not believe you. Please pardon me if i'm wrong.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why would they win a Nobel Prize? I don't understand the connection here. _

 

Because science has no explanation for a difference in sound for two "different" cables with comparable R/C/L-parameters in comparable conditions besides the explanations that incorporate the listener as a rather unreliable variable. You know, bias and such.
 Note, we're not talking about ultrasonics here. 20Hz to 20KHz is the keyword.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What i was trying to say was the following:

 If you do not know, that it's a triviality to proove the influences of tubes on the sonic spectrum (differences in distortion characteristics),_

 

If you think the sonic impact tubes have on the sonic spectrum are trivial, you straight up haven't actually studied the subject at all and have never extensively listened to tube or solid state gear on an audiophile level. There have been several white papers on this subject, but I doubt quouting them to you would do any good. But let me ask you to do this. next time you talk to John Petrucci, Steve Vai, Eddie Van Halen, Paul gilbert, Adam Ductkiewicz, Mikael Akerfeldt or any other descent guitarist ask them to switch to a solid state amp and see what they say. Come on I dare you.


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


 *Vul Kuonun wrote:*

 What i was trying to say was the following:

 If you do not know, that it's a triviality to proove the influences of tubes on the sonic spectrum (differences in distortion characteristics), i do not believe that you have any better technical education than me. And that's not much.
 I'm not saying this to insult you, but based on the knowledge and faulty examples in your posts i just do not believe you. Please pardon me if i'm wrong.

 Because science has no explanation for a difference in sound for two "different" cables with comparable R/C/L-parameters in comparable conditions besides the explanations that incorporate the listener as a rather unreliable variable. You know, bias and such.
 Note, we're not talking about ultrasonics here. 20Hz to 20KHz is the keyword.

 

So, please correct me if I misunderstood you, but are you arguing for the idea the difference between tubes and solid-state does not matter or exist? As for my examples, all I am trying to do is make some examples that are not too techno jargon filled with engineering speak because my professors emphasize that good communication with everyone at work is important to make your project stay alive. So, if you want me to use techno babble, then I will.

 The problem with leaving out the ultrasonics in terms of how anything sounds is that the product will suffer without those ultrasonics. Although the hearing range that a given person can hear will vary depending on who that person is, you are about right in what the supposed audible human hearing range is. Personally, I have been able to hear past 24kHz for that supposed range. Regardless, the ultrasonics are important for giving a fuller sound that is closer to listening to the instrument being played live. The harmonic series is responsible for this. So, if a cable's transfer function of the signal going into the cable is poor, this problem is only going to be compounded over distance. This is because the cable will have inherent imperfections in it from how the material has been treated. You may be able to get 99.999% purity in material, but that does not mean that the cable is perfect. Furthermore, if, for example, an electric guitarist plays a middle C on their guitar, that middle C will be composed of many other notes, which is the harmonic series. You can do a Fourier analysis of this on some of the more hi-tech oscilloscopes out there. If you have poor cable, some of those harmonics will get destroyed or distorted; this is especially true if you increase the length of the cable. So, if you have a cable that does not have the ability to carry the signal generated from that guitar, you will end up losing parts of the signal. I have done this with my own guitar. I kept everything the same and just switched out the cables only to hear a big difference in the sound. Again, if a wire is just a wire, then those ultrasonics would not matter in the least because people would have just accepted at some point that the wire was just a wire. They would never know what ultrasonics would do for their listening experience. In addition, a wire being a wire would also mean that the rusted over copper wire from the garage would be just as good to carry an audio signal as, say, Nordost cable or USB or the string on my electric guitar, in the extreme case. As absurd and unrelated as that may sound, each of these are essentially just wires of one kind or another on the most basic level. Each of them can carry a charge and move electrons. However, each of them has a distinct purpose. I would never use my guitar string to plug in my vacuum. Likewise, each cable serves its own purpose. The designer had a certain objective in mind and carried it out. Unfortunately, not everyone can understand a given designer's dream. I could never understand why someone would want to design lossy compression schemes. (I know the reason, but I still do not like it one bit (no pun intended).) If a designer wants to make their cables capable of transmitting ultrasonics, that is their right to do so. It is the consumer's right to pick whether or not they buy that designer's cable. Yet, if the designer chooses not to design a cable for ultrasonics, that is their right as well. It is also the consumer's right not to buy that cable.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Because science has no explanation for a difference in sound for two "different" cables with comparable R/C/L-parameters in comparable conditions besides the explanations that incorporate the listener as a rather unreliable variable. You know, bias and such.
 Note, we're not talking about ultrasonics here. 20Hz to 20KHz is the keyword._

 

So you're saying that R-C-L measurements are the only way to quantify cables?


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you think the sonic impact tubes have on the sonic spectrum are trivial, you straight up haven't actually studied the subject at all and have never extensively listened to tube or solid state gear on an audiophile level. There have been several white papers on this subject, but I doubt quouting them to you would do any good. But let me ask you to do this. next time you talk to John Petrucci, Steve Vai, Eddie Van Halen, Paul gilbert, Adam Ductkiewicz, Mikael Akerfeldt or any other descent guitarist ask them to switch to a solid state amp and see what they say. Come on I dare you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You tried to make a faulty analogy between tubes vs. solid state and different cables. I hope i succeed in making myself clear this time:
 You can easily proove the differences in sound when you play a tone through tube equipment. vs. solid state equip. You can do so with every oszilloscope or analyser, preconditioned you have a tube circuit that produces relevant quantities of distortion. Hell, i can do that with my PC and RMAA.
 You can not do this for 2 halfway reasonable constructed cables, which is why the analogy sucks.

 And no, beeing a good guitarist doesn't qualify at al for beeing an expert on how to produce a certain sound. If you want experts, ask Line 6.

 And yes, i'd like to see your famous "white papers". Worst thing that could happen would be my english and/or knowledge would be too bad to understand them. I could live with that.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So you're saying that R-C-L measurements are the only way to quantify cables?_

 

For every application discussed in these forums, yes.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, please correct me if I misunderstood you, but are you arguing for the idea the difference between tubes and solid-state does not matter or exist?_

 


 See my post above.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As for my examples, all I am trying to do is make some examples that are not too techno jargon filled with engineering speak because my professors emphasize that good communication with everyone at work is important to make your project stay alive. So, if you want me to use techno babble, then I will._

 

Very commendable aproach. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The problem with leaving out the ultrasonics in terms of how anything sounds is that the product will suffer without those ultrasonics. Although the hearing range that a given person can hear will vary depending on who that person is, you are about right in what the supposed audible human hearing range is. Personally, I have been able to hear past 24kHz for that supposed range. Regardless, the ultrasonics are important for giving a fuller sound that is closer to listening to the instrument being played live. The harmonic series is responsible for this. So, if a cable's transfer function of the signal going into the cable is poor, this problem is only going to be compounded over distance. This is because the cable will have inherent imperfections in it from how the material has been treated. You may be able to get 99.999% purity in material, but that does not mean that the cable is perfect. Furthermore, if, for example, an electric guitarist plays a middle C on their guitar, that middle C will be composed of many other notes, which is the harmonic series. You can do a Fourier analysis of this on some of the more hi-tech oscilloscopes out there. If you have poor cable, some of those harmonics will get destroyed or distorted; this is especially true if you increase the length of the cable. So, if you have a cable that does not have the ability to carry the signal generated from that guitar, you will end up losing parts of the signal. I have done this with my own guitar. I kept everything the same and just switched out the cables only to hear a big difference in the sound. Again, if a wire is just a wire, then those ultrasonics would not matter in the least because people would have just accepted at some point that the wire was just a wire. They would never know what ultrasonics would do for their listening experience. In addition, a wire being a wire would also mean that the rusted over copper wire from the garage would be just as good to carry an audio signal as, say, Nordost cable or USB or the string on my electric guitar, in the extreme case. As absurd and unrelated as that may sound, each of these are essentially just wires of one kind or another on the most basic level. Each of them can carry a charge and move electrons. However, each of them has a distinct purpose. I would never use my guitar string to plug in my vacuum. Likewise, each cable serves its own purpose. The designer had a certain objective in mind and carried it out. Unfortunately, not everyone can understand a given designer's dream. I could never understand why someone would want to design lossy compression schemes. (I know the reason, but I still do not like it one bit (no pun intended).) If a designer wants to make their cables capable of transmitting ultrasonics, that is their right to do so. It is the consumer's right to pick whether or not they buy that designer's cable. Yet, if the designer chooses not to design a cable for ultrasonics, that is their right as well. It is also the consumer's right not to buy that cable._

 

Regardless of what your ears may hear or may not, paying large attention to ultrasonics when the signal you try to transmit is strictly bandwidth-limited to 20Khz is nothing but plain stupid.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You tried to make a faulty analogy between tubes vs. solid state and different cables._

 

actually that wasn't me. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope i succeed in making myself clear this time:
 You can easily proove the differences in sound when you play a tone through tube equipment. vs. solid state equip._

 

you previously stated the difference was trivial and I wasn't the only one to think that you stated that.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can do so with every oszilloscope or analyser, preconditioned you have a tube circuit that produces relevant quantities of distortion_

 

Higher end tube circuits do not have as much distortion and many OTL designs have as little as most solid state designs

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_. Hell, i can do that with my PC and RMAA.
 You can not do this for 2 halfway reasonable constructed cables, which is why the analogy sucks._

 

Actually you can. I have posted several articles and white papers that show this with square waves and complex frequencies you have chosen to ignore them. 

Loudspeakers: Effects of amplifiers and cables - Part 5 | Audio DesignLine

Analysis Plus



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And no, beeing a good guitarist doesn't qualify at al for beeing an expert on how to produce a certain sound. If you want experts, ask Line 6_

 

Dude all of those guys have amazing tone for one reason or another, thanks to tube distortion and it is because tubes have even order harmonics, not increased distortion. one can create low distortion designs that even use low feedback. The reason I chose them is because I am a guitarist and look up to them tonally. If you really think that an amp modeler of any kind could take the place of real tube distortion you are nuts, and most likely have never seriously played the guitar. I mean try splitting harmonics on anything but a tube amp. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And yes, i'd like to see your famous "white papers". Worst thing that could happen would be my english and/or knowledge would be too bad to understand them. I could live with that._

 

well there are several about tubes and them being superior 

IEEE Spectrum: The Cool Sound of Tubes

Tube amps for cars by Milbert Amplifiers


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For every application discussed in these forums, yes._

 

So, should I assume that if a manufacturer were to publish these measurements for any specific cable, the resistance, capacitance and inductance would be the sole reason for determining whether a cable sounds "good" or "bad"?


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, should I assume that if a manufacturer were to publish these measurements for any specific cable, the resistance, capacitance and inductance would be the sole reason for determining whether a cable sounds "good" or "bad"?_

 

Yes. And you'd probably find that 99.9% of all cables will do the job (meaning "good"), and the remaining 0.1% beeing high priced misconstructions designed to alter the sound "preset-eq"-style ("bad").


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes. And you'd probably find that 99.9% of all cables will do the job (meaning "good"), and the remaining 0.1% beeing high priced misconstructions designed to alter the sound "preset-eq"-style ("bad")._

 

So when I'm listening to some music, how do "good" measurements make it sound better?


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So when I'm listening to some music, how do "good" measurements make it sound better?_

 

And we've come full circle all over again...






 --Chris


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_actually that wasn't me._

 

Sorry. You just seem so similiar. Just like siamese twins. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you previously stated the difference was trivial and I wasn't the only one to think that you stated that._

 

I didn't mean the difference is trivial.
 The verification is, oposed to the verification of cable differences.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Higher end tube circuits do not have as much distortion and many OTL designs have as little as most solid state designs_

 

I know. But they have different kind of distortion. Every "audiophile"-magazine reader knows that.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually you can. I have posted several articles and white papers that show this with square waves and complex frequencies you have chosen to ignore them. 
Loudspeakers: Effects of amplifiers and cables - Part 5 | Audio DesignLine
Analysis Plus_

 

Sorry, i don't listen to square waves. And sales pitch.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dude all of those guys have amazing tone for one reason or another, thanks to tube distortion and it is because tubes have even order harmonics, not increased distortion. one can create low distortion designs that even use low feedback. The reason I chose them is because I am a guitarist and look up to them tonally. If you really think that an amp modeler of any kind could take the place of real tube distortion you are nuts, and most likely have never seriously played the guitar. I mean try splitting harmonics on anything but a tube amp._

 

Every one of these guys will sound stellar on a POD or a kitchen radio.
 If you feel you're dependent on a specific piece of gear does not throw a good light on your abilities as a instrumentalist.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_well there are several about tubes and them being superior 

IEEE Spectrum: The Cool Sound of Tubes

Tube amps for cars by Milbert Amplifiers_

 

So tubes have, as a rule of thumb, the more "natural" and pleasing sounding behaviour when it comes to distortion. So what?


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So when I'm listening to some music, how do "good" measurements make it sound better?_

 

The "good" cable will not produce rolled off highs. The "bad" one might do, depending on the in- and output- impedances of the connected gear.


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Regardless of what your ears may hear or may not, paying large attention to ultrasonics when the signal you try to transmit is strictly bandwidth-limited to 20Khz is nothing but plain stupid._

 

Here is a wikipedia article that has some links to some interesting things on the importance of harmonics in music. 

Harmonic series (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 In reality, the signal that is being transmitted will go beyond the 20KHz range. Again, this is because of the harmonic series. If not for this phenomenon, then you probably would not be able to hear sounds, or it would just sound boring. Although I will say that the higher the harmonic is the less effect it will have on the overall sound, it still matters that it is there.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is a wikipedia article that has some links to some interesting things on the importance of harmonics in music. 

Harmonic series (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 In reality, the signal that is being transmitted will go beyond the 20KHz range. Again, this is because of the harmonic series. If not for this phenomenon, then you probably would not be able to hear sounds, or it would just sound boring. Although I will say that the higher the harmonic is the less effect it will have on the overall sound, it still matters that it is there._

 


 Jeez!
 Please read my lips: 
 THERE'S JUST NO ****IN' SIGNAL ABOVE 20KHZ ON THAT STUPID CD !!!

 What do you want the cable to transmit? The overtones produced by the electronics?

 Goodbye. What a badly informed salesman; I will not shop here. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Oh, and don't tell me you're an EE. You're the alter ego of that heavy metal dude.
 This is getting rather silly.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The "good" cable will not produce rolled off highs. The "bad" one might do, depending on the in- and output- impedances of the connected gear._

 

You're saying cables can only affect the high frequency content of a signal? And then it's only an attenuation of the high frequency content of the signal? Nothing else?

 In other words, if the highs don't get softer, I've got a good cable? What happens when it sounds like the highs get louder?


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Jeez!
 Please read my lips: 
 THERE'S JUST NO ****IN' SIGNAL ABOVE 20KHZ ON THAT STUPID CD !!!

 What do you want the cable to transmit? The overtones produced by the electronics? .... This is getting rather silly._

 

It always gets this silly. Search head-fi, and there are a zillion threads just like it over the years 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The best thing to hope for is that people who haven't yet taken a side on the issue (i.e. who haven't been psychologically influenced as to what they "hear") tread less quickly into cable purchases. The money is much better spent on cans (which have an easily identifiable degree of audible difference and really do have "subjective" factors which can be "objectively" shown) and amps (lesser degree of audible difference when properly built, but plenty of other factors to consider), two products for which the manufacturers and salesmen have much lower profit margins.

 --Chris


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're saying cables can only affect the high frequency content of a signal? And then it's only an attenuation of the high frequency content of the signal? Nothing else?

 In other words, if the highs don't get softer, I've got a good cable? What happens when it sounds like the highs get louder?_

 

Let me put it this way: Just because you probably didn't match levels and/or are imagining things doesn't mean it's adequate to declare basic physical knowledge invalid imho.
 But after all, that's a matter of your personal appraisement, too.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It always gets this silly. Search head-fi, and there are a zillion threads just like it over the years 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The best thing to hope for is that people who haven't yet taken a side on the issue (i.e. who haven't been psychologically influenced as to what they "hear") tread less quickly into cable purchases. The money is much better spent on cans (which have an easily identifiable degree of audible difference and really do have "subjective" factors which can be "objectively" shown) and amps (lesser degree of audible difference when properly built, but plenty of other factors to consider), two products for which the manufacturers and salesmen have much lower profit margins.

 --Chris_


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know. But they have different kind of distortion. Every "audiophile"-magazine reader knows that._

 


 Actually that isn't true, the typical type of distortion associated with tubes was due in part to EM hum from transformer core saturation, this is why OTL was invented. This type of distortion gave tubes a bloom which some like. however, in recent years tube gear has been on the rise in the audiophile market because they have been able to remove much of this problem from tubed gear. It no no longer sounds rolled off or fat. Advances like auto biasing and better transformer isolation have made tubes sound much better in comparison to solid state. so if you are implying that people who like tubes just like the way they distort. that really isn't the case. it has to do with even order harmonics not being removed from the signal. Ideally you never want a tube to clip in a stereo circuit, but it isn't nice to not have it sound like shattering glass when it does. many SS B stages loose their musicality and imaging and when they hit the rails. plus using high filtration networks to lower THD can wreak havoc on harmonic content. this is why SS usually doesn't sound as good. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry, i don't listen to square waves. And sales pitch._

 

the point isn't weather we listen to sqaure waves or not, the point is that there is a clear signal change with other types of cables and the square wave is demonstrative of that. you say that signals cannot change in a cable well these oscilloscopes beg to differ. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Every one of these guys will sound stellar on a POD or a kitchen radio. If you feel you're dependent on a specific piece of gear does not throw a good light on your abilities as a instrumentalist._

 

I read in the Feb 2007 issue of Guitar world that Eddie Van Halen spent about a year of R&D on developing his guitar amp the EVH 5150 III. He said that he couldn't find the right sustain at first and they had to mod the amp the get it, and that he needed good sustain to play the way he does. He also mentions that he advised them to change the transformer, and the speakers. so they had to develop separate speakers for the project. then he said that he did all of this because he didn't wan't to have an amp he couldn't play with. He said when you don't have the right combo it makes it about 3 times harder to play. if you look at most of these pros they have very esoteric taste in gear. overdrive pedals and certain types of speakers play a part in creating certain techniques like pinch harmonics, legao, stuccato, and tapping. since you obiously don't play guitar this probably makes no sense to you, but if you want to sound your best and play your best you need the right gear for you end of story. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So tubes have, as a rule of thumb, the more "natural" and pleasing sounding behaviour when it comes to distortion. So what?_

 

It is important if you like to practice a lot. Solid State's sound hitting the rails isn't pretty and makes you not want to play as long, plus it really doesn't have any harmonic interplay with chords which many guitarists use as part of melodies for songs, but I digress

 I am not forsaken I don't have a degree in EE nor have I ever claimed to. However, I do work in the industry. The funny thing is all you guys spout are DB tests, when you all haven't mentioned if you have actually gone to a store and done individual tests yourselves. In my business I cannot tell people how good something is or isn't until I actually listen to it. It is pretty easy to spout nonsense from a keyboard when some of you don't seem to have to courage to try it for free. This is exactly why I let my customers take cables home to demo. Usually I let them try two different brands of the same price, many have been able to nail how I perceive the sonic signature of that cable to be,( but the only explanation for that must be the collective unconscious right?) without even telling them which one I thought sounded better. I can honestly tell you I have tried cables that were 3 times the cost of another and sounded 3 times worse what kind of placebo effect is that?


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let me put it this way: Just because you probably didn't match levels and/or are imagining things doesn't mean it's adequate to declare basic physical knowledge invalid imho.
 But after all, that's a matter of your personal appraisement, too._

 

So if I hear the high frequency content in my music get louder, I'm imagining things?

 What levels should I be matching?


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Jeez!
 Please read my lips: 
 THERE'S JUST NO ****IN' SIGNAL ABOVE 20KHZ ON THAT STUPID CD !!!

 What do you want the cable to transmit? The overtones produced by the electronics?

 Goodbye. What a badly informed salesman; I will not shop here. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Oh, and don't tell me you're an EE. You're the alter ego of that heavy metal dude.
 This is getting rather silly._

 

Who said that I was listening to a CD? For all you know, I could be listening to DVD-A, which has a sampling frequency as high as 192kHz. So, if my cable does not cover those frequencies, some of the sound will be lost in the harmonics, which you do not apparently you do not believe in. This is NOT pyschobabble: harmonics do exist. Much of music is based on the harmonic series. How do you think chords exist? Why do you think some of those chords sound good and others sound like nails on a chalkboard? Going back to the sampling though, CD's are limited to 44.1kHz sampling at 16 bits. This means that the frequencies transmitted are 22.05kHz, if you do the math and use the Nyquist sampling theorem. It also means that it can have 2^16 values for its volume bandwidth. DVD-A can have upwards of 96kHz of frequencies transmitted in terms of the actual sound. So, if those frequencies can be transmitted, then there must be a reason for that. The answer would be that digital waveforms can only do a poor imitation of analog signals if left to themselves. If this was not true, then DACs and ADCs would be non-existent. No one in the their right mind would buy them nor attempt to develop them. If the point is for audio systems to come as close to the original sound produced as possible, then the signal must support what happens in reality. Reality dictates that sound does exist beyond the 20kHz point. How else do bats see?! Also, the human perception of frequencies beyond this point does exist. 

Hypersonic effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Although they are the same writers, the appeared in two non-audio related magazines. Here is another wiki article.

Ultrasonic hearing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Furthermore, the tones produced beyond the 20kHz are not generated by the electronics. If they are, it is called noise. A lot of other problems exist with electronics for sound (re)production, but electronics are only as smart as their designer. It is not as if the designer picks whatever for their product and how they design it. Doing that is death on a stick to an engineer.

 Also, although much of my class has tin ear, I do not. Most of my class could care less about audio. I do and wish to make it my career. Frankly, I feel bad for those who have tin ear because of what they are missing, especially those higher frequencies you seem to hate so much.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who said that I was listening to a CD? For all you know, I could be listening to DVD-A, which has a sampling frequency as high as 192kHz._

 

Would you concede then that there is no benefit in one quality cable over another for a person who only listens to CD audio or digital sources limited to 44.1khz? That a person using an iPod is certainly not going to gain some bizarre sort of extrasensory appreciation of music by using a dock cable costing hundreds of dollars? At least if we can agree to that we can save some poor college students on head-fi an entire semester's worth of beer.

 Secondly, I understand harmonics and have heard of ultrasonic perception. What I have not seen is any research linking the two. The timbre of an instrument and the reason we can tell a cello from a bassoon comes from harmonics within the audible range. What additional benefit ultrasonic perception has (read the studies carefully, you will see that they primarily don't use the term "ultrasonic hearing" but "ultrasonic perception") is a bit mysterious.

 --Chris


----------



## OverlordXenu

Hasn't it been concluded that anything above 44.1khz isn't distinguishable from 44.1khz? Remember that SACD vs. downsampled SACD double-blind? Where they concluded that the new mastering was the improvement, and not the extra bandwidth?


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Would you concede then that there is no benefit in one quality cable over another for a person who only listens to CD audio or digital sources limited to 44.1khz? That a person using an iPod is certainly not going to gain some bizarre sort of extrasensory appreciation of music by using a dock cable costing hundreds of dollars? At least if we can agree to that we can save some poor college students on head-fi an entire semester's worth of beer.

 Secondly, I understand harmonics and have heard of ultrasonic perception. What I have not seen is any research linking the two. The timbre of an instrument and the reason we can tell a cello from a bassoon comes from harmonics within the audible range. What additional benefit ultrasonic perception has (read the studies carefully, you will see that they primarily don't use the term "ultrasonic hearing" but "ultrasonic perception") is a bit mysterious.

 --Chris_

 

I would say that at that point it comes down to the system that they are using. If they have a system that allows them to upsample, then I would most definitely say that it matters. However, if they have a low-end system, I could care less because it would just magnify how crappy the sound is, even if the source was the greatest in the world. 

 I am sure that you are aware of the fact that power chords leave out the third within the chord. That gives a very hollow sound to the chord. Likewise, by rearranging the notes in a chord, you can obtain different sonorities. Think of it in terms of this, and you will find that this rule will apply to frequencies outside of the human hearing range. It will affect your listening experience of what you perceive as real or sounding full. Imagine every chord you listen to without that third for the entire range of sound. That idea sounds quite boring to me. It ignores the idea of the possibility for imaging.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hasn't it been concluded that anything above 44.1khz isn't distinguishable from 44.1khz? Remember that SACD vs. downsampled SACD double-blind? Where they concluded that the new mastering was the improvement, and not the extra bandwidth?_

 

Those conclusions are only good for some of us 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm sure the almighty golden ears of audiophilia will claim fraud or bad methodology!

 --Chris


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would say that at that point it comes down to the system that they are using. If they have a system that allows them to upsample, then I would most definitely say that it matters. However, if they have a low-end system, I could care less because it would just magnify how crappy the sound is, even if the source was the greatest in the world._

 

Good dodge. You should be a politician.

 Up-sampling will in no way get back any of that mysterious ultrasonic data that is lost when something is bandwidth-limited to 44.1khz and pressed to a CD. Not possible. Not under any kind of science or mathematics, voodoo or pseudoscience, in this universe or another. Something can not be created out of nothing.

 I ask you again: will you join with me in calling for poor college students on head-fi to use regular quality interconnects and quality 16AWG speaker cable, regular but well-constructed copper iPod docking cables, and normal nickel-plated ends if they are only going to listen to 44.1khz sound?

 --Chris

 PS -- Sorry for the two posts in a row. I couldn't wait to get in this new challenge!


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good dodge. You should be a politician.

 Up-sampling will in no way get back any of that mysterious ultrasonic data that is lost when something is bandwidth-limited to 44.1khz and pressed to a CD. Not possible. Not under any kind of science or mathematics, voodoo or pseudoscience, in this universe or another. Something can not be created out of nothing.

 I ask you again: will you join with me in calling for poor college students on head-fi to use regular quality interconnects and quality 16AWG speaker cable, regular but well-constructed copper iPod docking cables, and normal nickel-plated ends if they are only going to listen to 44.1khz sound?

 --Chris

 PS -- Sorry for the two posts in a row. I couldn't wait to get in this new challenge!_

 

Truthfully, I am a poor college student, and I do not like settling for sub-par standards in my audio. Unfortunately, because I am a poor college student, I cannot afford a $10000 system at the moment, cable included. So, I have to settle. Personally, I still would go for the better cable out there given the chance. One of the ways to improve your listening experience is to do it is gradually. I am gradually working on getting the money to build the system of my dream with cable included again. Another thing is that I do believe that the data could be seen as compressed instead of lost. If the data is compressed, then the sound theoretically should not be lost. However, I am not quite sure on this. I must ask you then: what is the point of up-sampling? Is it not to improve the signal and quality of the sound?


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good dodge. You should be a politician.

 Up-sampling will in no way get back any of that mysterious ultrasonic data that is lost when something is bandwidth-limited to 44.1khz and pressed to a CD. Not possible. Not under any kind of science or mathematics, voodoo or pseudoscience, in this universe or another. Something can not be created out of nothing.

 I ask you again: will you join with me in calling for poor college students on head-fi to use regular quality interconnects and quality 16AWG speaker cable, regular but well-constructed copper iPod docking cables, and normal nickel-plated ends if they are only going to listen to 44.1khz sound?

 --Chris

 PS -- Sorry for the two posts in a row. I couldn't wait to get in this new challenge!_

 

First of all bit rate does play a huge part on what the bandwidth is in PCM. sampling rate does play a part (and plays most of it in DSD), but affects more about how those frequencies attack, sound, and decay. if you have a camera that takes movies you will see this. Bit rate would be more akin to resolution, sampling closer to frames per second. Many feel that CD doesn't normally decay as well as analogue. much of this has to do with the 20k brick wall filter the initial protocols for red book call for and the fact the sampling rate is so low. Consequently though If you have heard of HDCD, XRCD, or the new K2 (formats that all exist within the red book standard) they have actually managed to remove the 20k brick wall filter and process higher sample rates into red book. Now when you upsample a cd you actually remove it as well, upsampling actually recreates missing information extrapolating from the original data what it should be. It isn't exactly Ex Nihlo Nihlo. This is extrapolated from the original data to better the signal. The protocol for this does state that it ads information and interpolates it to the original. Upsampling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Creating any sort of bottleneck will effect sound negatively, cables can also effect this as well. so just saying that "those of us with ipod's won't be effected" is kind of a ridiculous statement. first, Ipods use 24/192 DAC's and in most audiophile CD players upsampling as high as 384kHz is now available. There are now even programs like foobar that create 32 bit processing. and now there are even 32 bit DACs on the market. let us not also forget SACD, DVD-A and oh yeah the most prominent High resolution source, vinyl. Also I find it interesting that a person who doesn't have to use analogue interconnects in his rig due to having a USB DAC/AMP, has a headphone that comes standard with a 4ns High purity copper cable and a "flat wire" voice coil that has a frequency response that goes from 10hz to 39kHz is questioning the merits of the things the ENGR's of his cans thought were important to implement. Perhaps you do enjoy the improvements we are referring to ,but you don't want to believe in it.

 Plus Forsaken is right. Now that they down mix from 24/192 masters it is more like compressed vs. lost. Early CD recordings sound rather sterile in comparison.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...upsampling actually recreates missing information extrapolating from the original data what it should be. It isn't exactly Ex Nihlo Nihlo. This is extrapolated from the original data to better the signal. The protocol for this does state that it ads information and interpolates it to the original._

 

I think you misunderstand the purpose of sampling, which is primarily for interpolation not extrapolation. Upsampling increases the data rate but can only increase the frequency by about 5khz. These frequencies are far from the ultrasonics people are claiming add to the acoustic experience, and also still well within the tolerances of a quality cable. Extrapolated, you will NEVER regain ultrasonic frequencies that have been claimed in this thread to add to the harmonics. Ex nihlo nihlo is exactly what you are claiming.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also I find it interesting that a person who doesn't have to use analogue interconnects in his rig due to having a USB DAC/AMP, has a headphone that comes standard with a 4ns High purity copper cable and a "flat wire" voice coil that has a frequency response that goes from 10hz to 39kHz is questioning the merits of the things the ENGR's of his cans thought were important to implement. Perhaps you do enjoy the improvements we are referring to ,but you don't want to believe in it._

 

Flat-wire voice coils serve a mechanical purpose because they change the density of the voice coil and therefore increase the ability of the magnetic field to change rapidly without overheating. This is a completely different kind of physics than what's involved with interconnects or speaker wires.

 Although not absolutely necessary, I'm happy AKG uses high-purity copper cable, but it has nothing to do with the electronics of sound. Rather, it has to do with the potential longevity of the product.

 --Chris


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Although not absolutely necessary, I'm happy AKG uses high-purity copper cable, but it has nothing to do with the electronics of sound. Rather, it has to do with the potential longevity of the product.

 --Chris_

 

Actually, the material and the purity of the material change the quality of the signal. Electrons need to move as smoothly as possible to generate the correct signal. When this does not happen, distortion, noise, and other problems occur, causing a decrease in the quality of the signal. Electrons need a smooth road to travel on. If they do not have this due to impurities in the signal, the current does not conduct properly.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Electrons need to move as smoothly as possible to generate the correct signal._

 

Bingo! That's the first (almost) correct thing I've read on this thread all day. This movement of electrons across a circuit is conductivity and is *measurable*, and there exists no difference in the signal across two wires of the same measurable conductivity for audible frequencies. Most all copper wires out there meet or exceed conductivity standards within 1%.

 Pure copper was originally introduced in industrial electrical applications to prevent degradation of the physical wire (i.e. to keep it from breaking) over long periods of heavy use.

 Honestly, folks, where do you get the idea that free sub-atomic particles known as electrons traveling at 2/3 the speed of light have to stop to wage battle with nearly non-existant impurities (less than .1%) across a highly conductive metal like copper (or silver)? Nonsense.

 --Chris


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Honestly, folks, where do you get the idea that free sub-atomic particles known as electrons traveling at 2/3 the speed of light have to stop to wage battle with nearly non-existant impurities (less than .1%) across a highly conductive metal like copper (or silver)? Nonsense.

 --Chris_

 

It is not so much that electrons have the time to stop at the donut shop or something. Remember: we are talking about sub-atomic particles as you have stated. Electrons obey different laws than larger objects that follow Newtonian physics. Because it is on the quantum level, screwy things happen that do not make sense. Try quantum entanglement for example. Also, if impurities were not important for materials, then researchers and manufacturers would not put so much effort into correcting this problem. Also, a small change in one variable on the sub-atomic level can mean disaster on the macroscopic level. Transistor and processor technology proves this quite well.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, a small change in one variable on the sub-atomic level can mean disaster on the macroscopic level._

 

I just want to tell you that I appreciate the way you talk. It's really entertaining. This sentence alone is better than an hour and a half of Cloverfield.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Forsaken Sound

bigshot, I mean no offense when I say this, but was that actually supposed to be a compliment, or was that sarcasm? I seriously cannot tell because of the forum blocking out your tone of voice if it was meant to be sarcasm. Sorry about that!


----------



## bigshot

Not sarcastic at all... Your choice of words sounds like a lot of 1950s sci-fi movies that I love. I don't pretend to have a clue about what you're talking about, but it all sounds really exciting.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Well, fortunately and unfortunately, this is what five years of school in engineering will do to you. Fortunately, I can understand things now that I would have thought were complete nonsense a few years ago. Unfortunately, when I try to explain these things to people, it sounds like I am speaking in riddles and jargon. This makes it really difficult to communicate sometimes. If you want any clarification on anything I have said thus far or anytime in the future, please let me know. I will be happy to try to explain them further. I tend to say things in engineering jargon sometimes and not think twice if the other person can understand that jargon.


----------



## bigshot

I work in the entertainment business, and we always have to consider the audience in every thing we say. It's my experience that breaking down concepts and explaining them clearly in plain language isn't "dumbing down" at all. In fact, it can lead to insights that you might miss by just using the "accepted words" for things.

 That said, I really like your paragraph. It was very dramatic and dangerous sounding. In old movies, whenever the professor was explaining to the teenagers why tiny little spiders had suddenly grown to gargantuan size and were marching on the city, he would throw out scientific words like "Newtonian physics" and "quantum entanglement" and then mix in some "danger words" like "impurities" and "disaster on the macroscopic level". The "donut shop" reference and "screwy things that just don't make sense" add just the right amount of fun to the mix. You could get a job writing additional dialogue for science fiction movies!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Forsaken Sound

I wish I could, really. Most people who read my writing though say that it is dry and is not right for engineering. Blah blah blah! As for explanations on some of those terms you mentioned, I could probably explain them easily enough. Newtonian physics is the category of physics that explains things like motion, energy, force, momentum, etc. It does not include things on the microscopic level like atoms, which is covered by quantum physics (i.e., things that Einstein would have loved like E=mc^2). Quantum entanglement is one of those weird things in life that scientists are still scratching their heads over. If you have ever seen the movie "The Butterfly Effect," you could get a general sense of what I am talking about. Basically, if a butterfly flaps its wings on one side of the planet, it could cause a tidal wave on the other side of the planet. However, this occurs at the atomic level. So, if I were to use a laser to chain two electrons together, I could change how one of those electrons behaves, right? Well, the twist is that no matter how far apart those two electrons are from each while they are chained, I can make the other electron to do the same thing! I can break this chain and that other electron will keep the same behavior that I put on it. It is kind of like a "spooky magic" as Einstein called it. Although these two concepts might sound messed up and straight from a sci-fi movie as you have pointed out, they really are real things that might be complex, but they are quite fascinating to think about. Of course, there is a slew of math behind all of this, but I will not get into that because of the complexity involved. Plus, it is very dry and boring by itself. Unfortunately, much of that math is needed to understand how some things work in fine detail.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If I were to use a laser to chain two electrons together, I could change how one of those electrons behaves, right? Well, the twist is that no matter how far apart those two electrons are from each while they are chained, I can make the other electron to do the same thing! I can break this chain and that other electron will keep the same behavior that I put on it. It is kind of like a "spooky magic" as Einstein called it. Although these two concepts might sound messed up and straight from a sci-fi movie as you have pointed out, they really are real things that might be complex, but they are quite fascinating to think about._

 

I agree, there are many fascinating observations and unexplainable phenomena that exist in our world. But can you provide any evidence that these unexplainable phenomena are at all relevant or connected to audio cables?

 --Chris


----------



## fordgtlover

Not to add anything here - I just wanted to say that this thread has been a great read; excellent tone, informative and entertaining. Headfi would do well to have these type of debates more often rather than the all-too-common slanging matches.

 I'm not trying to be condescending; just observing behaviour that should be supported and encouraged on this forum, and felt compelled to add a positive comment.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...If you have ever seen the movie "The Butterfly Effect," you could get a general sense of what I am talking about. Basically, if a butterfly flaps its wings on one side of the planet, it could cause a tidal wave on the other side of the planet. However, this occurs at the atomic level. So, if I were to use a laser to chain two electrons together, I could change how one of those electrons behaves, right? Well, the twist is that no matter how far apart those two electrons are from each while they are chained, I can make the other electron to do the same thing! I can break this chain and that other electron will keep the same behavior that I put on it. It is kind of like a "spooky magic" as Einstein called it. Although these two concepts might sound messed up and straight from a sci-fi movie as you have pointed out, they really are real things that might be complex, but they are quite fascinating to think about. Of course, there is a slew of math behind all of this, but I will not get into that because of the complexity involved. Plus, it is very dry and boring by itself. Unfortunately, much of that math is needed to understand how some things work in fine detail._

 

I don't doubt you.

 However, if a butterfly flapping its wings triggers a tsunami, you can damn well measure the tsunami. It's not like an argument breaks out about whether the 60 foot wave is there or not.

 Maybe there is a subtle, counterintuitive subatomic reaction going on within 2' of an interconnect.

 If that causes a larger reaction, then you should be able to measure it. If it is so slight that even the most sensitive instruments, instruments much more sensitive than the human ear, cannot detect it, then maybe it is completely meaningless when it comes to transmitting the audio signal. If a tsunami-like effect is happening in a $5 cable, and some $7,000 cable does not produce it, the matter should be absolutely, convincingly and inarguably settled within a few minutes with a signal generator, oscilloscope and a simple A/B test.

 And while these effects are documented and do exist, the issue is linking them to audio performance. Sure, the sunspot count went up. But how does that make a record sound different, let alone "better"? It's one thing to describe a phenomenon, it is entirely something else to conclusively link it to performance of a cable. Otherwise, you end up with a "water causes cancer" type of argument. After all, everyone who has cancer has had a glass of water at one time. That's 100%. But is there a causal connection?


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't doubt you.

 However, if a butterfly flapping its wings triggers a tsunami, you can damn well measure the tsunami. It's not like an argument breaks out about whether the 60 foot wave is there or not.

 Maybe there is a subtle, counterintuitive subatomic reaction going on within 2' of an interconnect.

 If that causes a larger reaction, then you should be able to measure it. If it is so slight that even the most sensitive instruments, instruments much more sensitive than the human ear, cannot detect it, then maybe it is completely meaningless when it comes to transmitting the audio signal. If a tsunami-like effect is happening in a $5 cable, and some $7,000 cable does not produce it, the matter should be absolutely, convincingly and inarguably settled within a few minutes with a signal generator, oscilloscope and a simple A/B test.

 And while these effects are documented and do exist, the issue is linking them to audio performance. Sure, the sunspot count went up. But how does that make a record sound different, let alone "better"? It's one thing to describe a phenomenon, it is entirely something else to conclusively link it to performance of a cable. Otherwise, you end up with a "water causes cancer" type of argument. After all, everyone who has cancer has had a glass of water at one time. That's 100%. But is there a causal connection?_

 

This would be easier to do if it was not for the fact that scientists still have not fully explained how quantum physics work. Therefore, we may just be seeing the effects of the behavior of the electrons on the larger scale and not know the causes for that behavior on the smaller scale. In other words, we may be measuring the effects of the quantum behavior and not realizing it. Also, unfortunately, equipment like an oscilloscope, signal generator, and the like are meant for measurement on the larger scale, perhaps an even larger degree of magnitude than both the quantum level and a group of electrons traveling through a wire. At this level, we are looking more into a system and not just the individual parts of the system, which is more of what I was referring to before. While you can use these tools for the different parts of a system, these tools are best suited for circuits. For example, you probably would not use an oscilloscope for measuring what is happening inside of a resistor or capacitor, right? However, you are more likely to use it to measure what is going on inside of a differential amplifier or a voltage regulator or something of that sort. As for correlating the two, I do not think that anything conclusive to that end exists to date. However, I look forward to the day when we can correlate quantum physics and audio equipment because of the greater understanding it will allow us of the universe around us.


----------



## bigshot

The most important part of analyzing specifications is a sense of scale. A scientist may want to know everything from the macro all the way down to the micro. But a person putting together a stereo system only wants to deal with what he can hear.

 This is one of the main problems with discussions of audio technology today. People worry about time errors that are so small, they're totally imperceptible. They spend tons of money on equipment that can resolve super-sonic frequencies that only bats can hear. They can't sleep for fear that their system might not have a dynamic range that can accurately reproduce sound at a level that would make them deaf in fifteen minutes. And they buy wires made from melted down fancy silverware hoping that the unmeasurable difference between that and a regular old wire from Radio Shack might somehow "lift a veil" on their sound.

 An understanding of scale is vital if you want to apply the science to the application... which is in this case simply playing a cd of Abbey Road. It ain't rocket science. Theorizing into the aether is a lot of fun though. Feel free to daydream. That's where new ideas come from.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As for correlating the two, I do not think that anything conclusive to that end exists to date. However, I look forward to the day when we can correlate quantum physics and audio equipment because of the greater understanding it will allow us of the universe around us._

 

Neither does anything exist correlating chicken sacrifice and healing. Do you blindly subscribe to those tenets as well?

 --Chris


----------



## patalp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_a recent article in Hi-Fi magazine argues that your system in terms of money spent per components should resemble an equilateral triangle. in general, to get a balanced system, equal attention should be given to each part of the set up - with one part being the items that reproduce the sound and the other the ones that deliver or influence it. this means that 50 percent of your expenditures should be spent on source, amp, speakers (headphones) and the other 50 on power, support, and cables. any other division is going to be either top heavy or bottom heavy and out of sync. you are either not going to get the most from your audio components or your audio components won't be good enough to give you the best music for your money.

 basically, you want this







 and not this






 not a new concept but the article takes you through a setup of good quality but with all entry level associated gear or "tweaks" and upgrades each one, which in order of importance it lists as power and then support/isolation and then cables (which ideally should be of matching brands), noting the improvements as the system becomes more balanced heard along the way.

 he notes how he has heard many expensive systems which sounded bad because all effort/money was spent on the electronics and little attention was paid to power, support, cables, and other less expensive systems which sounded far better because of symmetry. he also sees a common fault of people who are not entirely happy with their system to upgrade the "main" components instead of addressing the other factors and of course the result - further disappointment - is the same.

 of course, this article assumes that there is a difference among power units/conditioners, support racks and isolation devices, and cables and that going up the chain if smartly done translates to real and tangible improvements in sound quality. a good article overall._

 

Are you sure he's not just getting paid by all the companies that sell 200 dollar per feet cables?


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *patalp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you sure he's not just getting paid by all the companies that sell 200 dollar per feet cables? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Shhh! I think you're on to something. But don't let that get out or they will send their goons after you.

 And I'd be scared. The quantum field of the OFC bullets used in their 9mm pistols (whose triggers have been clipped, because that improves accuracy) is apparently more deadly than other bullets. And their knives have been demagnetized and passed through golden loops, which apparently makes them more sharp.

 --Chris


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The most important part of analyzing specifications is a sense of scale. A scientist may want to know everything from the macro all the way down to the micro. But a person putting together a stereo system only wants to deal with what he can hear.

 This is one of the main problems with discussions of audio technology today. People worry about time errors that are so small, they're totally imperceptible. They spend tons of money on equipment that can resolve super-sonic frequencies that only bats can hear. They can't sleep for fear that their system might not have a dynamic range that can accurately reproduce sound at a level that would make them deaf in fifteen minutes. And they buy wires made from melted down fancy silverware hoping that the unmeasurable difference between that and a regular old wire from Radio Shack might somehow "lift a veil" on their sound.

 An understanding of scale is vital if you want to apply the science to the application... which is in this case simply playing a cd of Abbey Road. It ain't rocket science. Theorizing into the aether is a lot of fun though. Feel free to daydream. That's where new ideas come from.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Just some food for thought: a sense scale is a good thing to have, yes. Yet, I must wonder if a sense of scale can limit our thoughts to processes that are "linear" in nature. For example, for all we know, a sense of scale has prevented us from curing cancer or walking on the sun. I know these are absurd examples, but, as an engineer, part of my job is to dream of these possibilities. Another part of being an engineer is to worry about how much money it will cost of make something, given, of course, the right sense of scale. What if that sense of scale is preventing scientists and engineers from looking into possibilities? For instance, if the possibility of you having the chance to buy the best audio system in the world from Best Buy for $100, would you do it? The system has nothing wrong with it, and it is brand new with every audiophile reviewer and magazine raving about it. So, how would this be possible? What if research into things like quantum physics made these things possible? This would be wonderful I would think. I know that this may not sound realistic, but realism often prevents people from living fulfilling lives. Instead, realism tells us that much of the things in life are impossible. I am glad that not all people are complete realists though because you could kiss off all of your fancy electronics and the like. It is from such dreams and advances as these that things like the effects quantum physics have on cables that may make it possible for the data and the measurements to come forth.

  Quote:


 Originally posted by *Hempcamp*
 Neither does anything exist correlating chicken sacrifice and healing. Do you blindly subscribe to those tenets as well? 
 

No, I do not, but your sarcasm is doily noted. Actually, I just like to think about possibilities. Many of these exist in quantum physics and engineering among many other fields of study. Plato once said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." I simply believe that thinking about possibilities like those between quantum theory and cable theory is one way of doing so. Besides, not entertaining such thoughts is just boring to me. I have never been a fan of the so-called day-in day-out thing. 

  Quote:


 Originally posted by *patalp*

 Quote:
 Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
 a recent article in Hi-Fi magazine argues that your system in terms of money spent per components should resemble an equilateral triangle. in general, to get a balanced system, equal attention should be given to each part of the set up - with one part being the items that reproduce the sound and the other the ones that deliver or influence it. this means that 50 percent of your expenditures should be spent on source, amp, speakers (headphones) and the other 50 on power, support, and cables. any other division is going to be either top heavy or bottom heavy and out of sync. you are either not going to get the most from your audio components or your audio components won't be good enough to give you the best music for your money.

 basically, you want this



 and not this



 not a new concept but the article takes you through a setup of good quality but with all entry level associated gear or "tweaks" and upgrades each one, which in order of importance it lists as power and then support/isolation and then cables (which ideally should be of matching brands), noting the improvements as the system becomes more balanced heard along the way.

 he notes how he has heard many expensive systems which sounded bad because all effort/money was spent on the electronics and little attention was paid to power, support, cables, and other less expensive systems which sounded far better because of symmetry. he also sees a common fault of people who are not entirely happy with their system to upgrade the "main" components instead of addressing the other factors and of course the result - further disappointment - is the same.

 of course, this article assumes that there is a difference among power units/conditioners, support racks and isolation devices, and cables and that going up the chain if smartly done translates to real and tangible improvements in sound quality. a good article overall.
 Are you sure he's not just getting paid by all the companies that sell 200 dollar per feet cables? 
 

I think that this article has some merit, actually. It reminds me of what my many band directors would say: "A band is like a pyramid. If there is too much top (referring to the high woodwinds), then it will have no base. If there is too much bottom (referring to the low brass), how will the melody and the beauty of the piece shine out? If there are no mids or too much mid, it will either sound too thin or fat." An audio system should be like this, too. If the system is unbalanced in any way, the proper sound will not come out. I mean this for any part of the system, including the speakers, amps, DAC, phono stage, etc. Using the band as a model, I would try to make my system sound as even as possible. I would want to make it sound as if I were actually listening to the group live in concert (minus all of the EQ'ing problems). If one of the ways to do this was through the purchase of cable, then I would go full steam ahead. I do not think that it makes sense that I would want to cheat myself out of a good listening experience on purpose, especially if I know better. As for the remark about selling the $200/ft. of cable, are you referring to the article? If so, I would like to read the original article.


----------



## bigshot

Balancing EQ is a totally different thing than balancing how much you spend on individual parts of your stereo system. The article quoted above is absurd sales pitch designed to sell overpriced cables. It takes some real mental gymnastics to avoid realizing that.

 see ya
 Steve


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The article quoted above is absurd sales pitch designed to sell overpriced cables. It takes some real mental gymnastics to avoid realizing that._

 

or some real stubbornness to avoid seeing that there may be a real and very valid point there.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_or some real stubbornness to avoid seeing that there may be a real and very valid point there._

 

What valid point?

 Price is an arbitrary and ever-changing valuation of a product that usually derives from supply and demand. How can something that is abstract and always changing have an effect on tangible equipment made of solid materials? To suggest a link is to admit an ulterior motive.

 In general, quality-made things cost more. But that doesn't mean cost causes quality (fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc). Therefore, it's ridiculous to have an equation such as that proposed by the article.

 --Chris


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What valid point?

 Price is an arbitrary and ever-changing valuation of a product that usually derives from supply and demand. How can something that is abstract and always changing have an effect on tangible equipment made of solid materials? To suggest a link is to admit an ulterior motive.

 In general, quality-made things cost more. But that doesn't mean cost causes quality (fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc). Therefore, it's ridiculous to have an equation such as that proposed by the article.

 --Chris_

 

Economics are a smoke screen here. Normal economics do not apply since this is a niche industry. The same is true for adaptive tech in education for the disabled since R&D is limited and so are sales. That being said the intrinsic value of certain types of insulations against EM and RFI is undisputed in the industry, and by engineering in general. I suggest you actually read an EE textbook about skin effect instead of quoting your pedantic Bill Nye the Science guy understanding of science. Quality solid core conductor material is also used by the military and industrial applications because they effect performance in objective and measureable ways. Not only have I provided links to this infomation, but shown an industry study that showed the effects of EM fields and RFI effects. I have personally have used unshielded cables that picked up mexican radio even though everything was grounded. When I touched them the volume of the mariachi band intensified. If you would like to do an A/B test of your own I suggest you go to your local high end audio shop (gasp), get some quality cables and actually investigate yourself, instead of criticizing that which you have never even tried for free. 

Skin effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faraday's law of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What valid point?

 Price is an arbitrary and ever-changing valuation of a product that usually derives from supply and demand. How can something that is abstract and always changing have an effect on tangible equipment made of solid materials? To suggest a link is to admit an ulterior motive.

 In general, quality-made things cost more. But that doesn't mean cost causes quality (fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc). Therefore, it's ridiculous to have an equation such as that proposed by the article.

 --Chris_

 

Often times, there is a formula to something that many would perceive as abstract because the formula is not derivable by intuition. If someone has found something that works, there should not come a big surprise if it follows a formula or a pattern. It is just that some patterns are not easy to discover. For example, my professor was telling us how Fourier discovered what is now known as Fourier Analysis. He heated a piece of metal on one end to find the effects of the blasting of a cannon on the cannon and the balls. He found that the metal stay at a temperature on the one end and cooled off over time. The rest of the heat transferred over to the the other side as it averaged out. He found that the rate that the heat changed looked similar to a sine wave. So, he thought that by adding a series of sine waves together he could reconstruct the original non-linear wave. He was correct. This is how much of the sound engineering that is designed happens, with Fourier Analysis. Now, I frankly do not think that this is a thing that would come naturally to someone who had not put a lot of thought into it. The concept is fairly abstract. However, it has one of the biggest impacts on audio today in terms of its application. Fourier did not really have anything to gain except a little food in his mouth from Napoleon. After Napoleon's defeat, however, he was pretty much given a crappy end of the stick in life. Fortunately, in this case, supply and demand was not the real determining factor. It is not always so that supply and demand dictate the advances in science and mathematics. Just because someone comes up with a good way to circumvent people's perceptions of what should make a good sound system does not mean that they are trying to sell something. So, linking something that may seem to be or may actually be abstract does not mean that it is a sales pitch. Rather, experience has told me that I just need to learn more about what the subject-matter is and why it works the way it does. In the article mentioned, I saw no mention of money whatsoever. Rather, I just saw a suggestion saying that looking into the quality of your cables would not kill. Actually, Robert Harley wrote a book called "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio," which has a whole entire chapter devoted to cables and interconnects. I highly suggest that anyone who is interested read it.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Economics are a smoke screen here. ... I suggest you actually read an EE textbook about skin effect instead of quoting your pedantic Bill Nye the Science guy understanding of science._

 

I studied computer engineering and materials science for three years. I've read an EE book or two, thanks. (I switched majors not because I didn't love the field but because I wanted to work more with language/people.) Shallow attack on your part.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quality solid core conductor material is also used by the military and industrial applications because they effect performance in objective and measureable ways. Not only have I provided links to this infomation, but shown an industry study that showed the effects of EM fields and RFI effects. I have personally have used unshielded cables that picked up mexican radio even though everything was grounded._

 

No one doubts the importance of properly shielded cable. But proper shielding does not cost $150/foot. Pro sound engineers use well-made cables with PVC shielding and the very same nickel-plated connectors and copper wire that have been industry standard for decades. PVC is good enough insulation to keep RF and EMI out of data communications cables that require much higher tolerances than audio.

 The skin effect is real, but at lower frequencies (below 20khz), the ratio of skin depth to the depth of most audio cable is impossibly small, even more impossibly small with stranded wire. Military/industrial applications are concerned with skin effects because they are transmitting data at megahertz and above and often with lengths and thicknesses well outside the range of cables used for audio applications. At the very most, with solid cable, you'd have a small skin effect on cable impedance at 20khz and above, which even if audible would be the equivalent of having one of your loudspeakers several microns closer to you than the other. This is more than offset by the fact that most people toe-in their speakers, which has a much more profound effect on higher frequency performance.

 You were saying something about a smoke screen? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --Chris


----------



## jim040558

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He actually runs a hi-fi business..._

 

Not even close to being possible. In the industry, maybe, but not high end.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_PVC is good enough insulation to keep RF and EMI out of data communications cables that require much higher tolerances than audio._

 

PVC alone won't act as a shield - it's a dielectric. Unless it's a lossy dielectric, where the PVC is mixed with conductive particles or an embedded conductive layer.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Economics are a smoke screen here. Normal economics do not apply since this is a niche industry. The same is true for adaptive tech in education for the disabled since R&D is limited and so are sales. That being said the intrinsic value of certain types of insulations against EM and RFI is undisputed in the industry, and by engineering in general. I suggest you actually read an EE textbook about skin effect instead of quoting your pedantic Bill Nye the Science guy understanding of science._

 

Just out of curiosity, what is your degree in? (Clearly, it's not in economics.)


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What valid point?_

 

that a system is not just a source, amp and headphones (or speakers) and some legitimate attention and appropriate funding needs to be given to power, stabalization, and cables (ICs and power cords) if you want to get the most from your setup.

 also, why everyone is focusing soley on cables - namely ICs - is beyond me. the article listed in order of importance power, stability, and then cables.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 also, why everyone is focusing soley on cables - namely ICs - is beyond me. the article listed in order of importance power, stability, and then cables. 
 

Because that is the problem some have with the triangle. A lot of people do not believe you should spend the same amount on cables that you do on your source.

 Some believe that you should not spend your money based on percentages.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Because that is the problem some have with the triangle. A lot of people do not believe you should spend the same amount on cables that you do on your source.

 Some believe that you should not spend your money based on percentages._

 

what about power and isolation components/devices. are those things to you worth spending money on or not.


----------



## meat01

umm no. I feel that CD players have a nice damping and isolation mechanism built in to the platter already. CD players even play fine in cars without errors.

 I also have not seen any improvements with upgraded power cords. Unless the power supply is really crappy, I feel that spikes and dirty power is filtered through the power supply.

 Others feel differently and that is fine. I just don't buy into the "if I spend $3000 on my CD player, I have to spend $300 on my cables."


----------



## vcoheda

fine. then this article is not for you (or the others who blather on in this thread). the article assumes you believe that power (i mean power units), isolataion, and cables are different and that some sound better than others and yield noticeable improvements to the overall setup. this article and its ideas are for that audience.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_PVC alone won't act as a shield - it's a dielectric. Unless it's a lossy dielectric, where the PVC is mixed with conductive particles or an embedded conductive layer._

 

I misspoke on that point by confusing the insulator with the shielding. Still, copper braid or aluminum -- industry standard shielding -- are all it takes to reject any RF or EMI within the limits of audio frequencies in most applications (unless for some reason you have specific problems with EMI and RF).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_fine. then this article is not for you (or the others who blather on in this thread). the article assumes you believe that power (i mean power units), isolataion, and cables are different and that some sound better than others and yield noticeable improvements to the overall setup. this article and its ideas are for that audience._

 

Wait, so if you don't believe the assumptions upon which an argument is made, you have no legitimate criticism of that argument and are therefore a blatherer?

 Really, the lengths people go to... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 --Chris


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 fine. then this article is not for you (or the others who blather on in this thread). 
 

I was not blathering. You didn't understand why people were talking about cables and I gave you a reason. You then asked me a question and I answered it.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wait, so if you don't believe the assumptions upon which an argument is made, you have no legitimate criticism of that argument and are therefore a blatherer?_

 

if starting principles or first assumptions are different and not compatible (cables make a difference v. cables do not, for example) then discussion is pointless.


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_umm no. I feel that CD players have a nice damping and isolation mechanism built in to the platter already. CD players even play fine in cars without errors.

 I also have not seen any improvements with upgraded power cords. Unless the power supply is really crappy, I feel that spikes and dirty power is filtered through the power supply.

 Others feel differently and that is fine. I just don't buy into the "if I spend $3000 on my CD player, I have to spend $300 on my cables."_

 

False. CD players do make errors all the time. It is just that most of the errors made are "corrected" before a human can notice. Skipping is the result of a CD player not being able to read a CD due to errors in the reading process. Also, quantization error, dithering, and other kinds of errors occur within a CD player, but with skip protection algorithms, most of this is unnoticeable to the human conscious. However, such errors are what cause ear fatigue and wear on the sub-conscious mind. Nobody likes listening to a skipping CD. Plus, the signal on a CD is digital while the waveform that people listen to is analog. If the conversion is incorrect, a lot of weird things happen to say the least. 

 Also, false. A dirty power supply is inevitable coming from the power plant. Although the signal coming immediately from the power plant is cleaner than a sanitized room, the power going into your house is dirtier than a college dorm full of pigs. If you power your system with dirty power and poor cabling, then you are immediately introducing noise to your system because the system cannot filter out all of the odd harmonics and imaginary components created from the many transformers it takes to reach your home. It would be akin to dumping dirty oil or fuel into your car's engine. The engine will not like that and will run poorly because of it. Circuits are much the same way. You cannot put poor fuel into them and expect them to run well.

 I am not saying that people should follow a formula. However, I think the point that investing into your cables a bit more than your average wire is important. I think that the article is merely pointing out that this is just a way of getting the most out of your system.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if starting principles or first assumptions are different and not compatible (cables make a difference v. cables do not, for example) then discussion is pointless._

 

Discussion is pointless if someone has already closed his mind to other points of view. You can't define a discussion by its conclusion and silence any disagreement. That isn't a discussion. That's a bunch of people standing around smiling and nodding their heads knowingly.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_False. CD players do make errors all the time. It is just that most of the errors made are "corrected" before a human can notice. Skipping is the result of a CD player not being able to read a CD due to errors in the reading process. Also, quantization error, dithering, and other kinds of errors occur within a CD player, but with skip protection algorithms, most of this is unnoticeable to the human conscious. However, such errors are what cause ear fatigue and wear on the sub-conscious mind._

 

This is interesting. You're saying that what we can't hear affects us subconsciously? Can you be more specific? For example, how is a potential skip that was prevented by error correction different than the same passage without the potential skip? I'm interested in finding out exactly what kind of inaudible error in this process leads to ear fatigue. I can think of a dozen audible causes of ear fatigue, but other than ultra high frequency content at a volume near the threshold of pain, I can't think of any inaudible ones.

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_by the industry do you mean you work at best buy?_

 

I'm sorry I missed your request for my credentials.

 I've been a producer in the entertainment business for over 20 years. I've produced television series, prime time specials, rock videos, commercials, internet programming and one feature film. I've supervised recording sessions tracking both music and dialogue, post production sound editing, final mixes and print/tape distribution. I've also edited music, dialogue and sound effects myself and worked as a sound transfer engineer. I have my own business restoring and releasing historic recordings on CD. Currently, I'm working on building a digital database of various types of media files... video, audio and images... for an archive and library.

 Hope this helps
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A dirty power supply is inevitable coming from the power plant. (snip) However, I think the point that investing into your cables a bit more than your average wire is important._

 

I might be reading your post incorrectly, but are you saying that better quality cables will improve the "dirty power supply" coming from the power line drop to your house?

 It's been my experience that for noise and level fluctuation in the power line, you need a power conditioner to act as a buffer. And that is something you either clearly need for your particular house or you don't need it at all.

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_False. CD players do make errors all the time. It is just that most of the errors made are "corrected" before a human can notice. .... .... However, such errors are what cause ear fatigue and wear on the sub-conscious mind. Nobody likes listening to a skipping CD. Plus, the signal on a CD is digital while the waveform that people listen to is analog. If the conversion is incorrect, a lot of weird things happen to say the least._

 

We've been through this before. There is a huge difference between common C1 errors (which are actually corrected, and therefore are no different on output than the actual data on the CD), the rare (~1 per hour) C2 errors that are interpolated (and whose "graceful correction" values are more often than not spot-on and consequently inaudible to anyone but the paranormal), and skipping which is often quite audible, can indeed degrade sound even when not obviously audible, and usually occurs due to flaws/scratches in the CD.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, false. A dirty power supply is inevitable coming from the power plant. Although the signal coming immediately from the power plant is cleaner than a sanitized room, the power going into your house is dirtier than a college dorm full of pigs. If you power your system with dirty power and poor cabling, then you are immediately introducing noise to your system because the system cannot filter out all of the odd harmonics and imaginary components created from the many transformers it takes to reach your home._

 

Would you as an EE authority please explain to we misinformed mortals how a power cable designed to reject any further degradation of current filters *out* the "dirt" from the power plant? How does a $1000 garden-hose sized power cable slathered in teflon and made of ultra-pure OFC *remove* noise that is already in the current? I'm no expert on power conditioning, so please help me out. Power conditioning and proper AC/DC conversion is important, but I don't see how a passive instrument such as a mains cable does this any better (or does anything at all) compared to a properly designed power transformer.

 How does that 6' of cable from your wall to your amplifier know the difference between a "clean" and a "dirty" current?

 --Chris


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is a huge difference between common C1 errors (which are actually corrected, and therefore are no different on output than the actual data on the CD), the rare (~1 per hour) C2 errors that are interpolated_

 

I think he is saying that C1 errors aren't really corrected exactly the same as the actual data on the CD. I'd like to hear where he got that info from. I've always heard that "corrected" means "corrected".

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is interesting. You're saying that what we can't hear affects us subconsciously? Can you be more specific? For example, how is a potential skip that was prevented by error correction different than the same passage without the potential skip? I'm interested in finding out exactly what kind of inaudible error in this process leads to ear fatigue. I can think of a dozen audible causes of ear fatigue, but other than ultra high frequency content at a volume near the threshold of pain, I can't think of any inaudible ones.

 Thanks
 Steve_

 

Sorry. I should have been a bit more specific. Part of the problem with digital processing is that it takes the voltage levels created from the transducer in the microphone. The input into the microphone is (or at least should be) analog. When the signal is processed, it is processed via an ADC. The most basic ADC uses what is known as a sample and hold method, which basically chops up the analog signal to assign it values in terms of binary code. At this stage, quantization error is a possibility because the voltage from the analog signal must fit within certain parameters to fit the digital signal's criteria. So, for example, if I have a voltage of 2.5V and a binary one is equal to 5V and a binary zero is equal to 0V, there is a high chance I will have quantization error because the ADC will not know what to do with this voltage value. Therefore, I can mistakingly assign it a wrong value, making the ADC not produce the digital signal correctly. The ADC can attempt to reconstruct the signal; this is usually done with good accuracy. However, in the case that the error is not caught with error correction, the error is carried onto the CD, assuming further errors are not created in the CD creation process. When the consumer buys the CD and plays it, that digital signal must be converted back to analog again. This is even more difficult to do because it is similar to trying to iron out all of the bumps in a road, potholes and all, and trying not to leave any traces that any work was done to the road. Remember that a CD is read using a square wave; we want a sine wave though. Sine wave are supposed to be smooth by nature in and of themselves. The signal created from an instrument playing is not though. On top of this, if you add distortion or error from the digital signal, you will find that this signal becomes even less smooth. When the DAC (if you have one) converts the signal back to analog, it must reconstruct the original signal. Yet, this is not a perfect process. The DAC must assume that the digital signal's values are correct, unless it is programmed to do otherwise. If these values are not correct, it must try to read convert them or leave that for later parts in the system. Even here things such as jitter are possible; this is how a CD skips. When jitter occurs, the processor in the CD player must try to go back and reconstruct the signal because of the error. The problem is that if the CD has more than one consecutive place where the error occurred, it has a problem reading, thus making the CD unreadable. However, this depends on the method of error correction. If the correction is using what is known as parity, then you can only correct one error at a time and detect two errors at most. So, let us say that you scratch a CD accidentally. You have heard this CD so many times that you cannot count, and this particular CD is your favorite and has many memories embedded in it. Well, you pop it into your CD player and hear the skips on the first track. This destroys your perception of the beauty of the song being played. So, you skip to the next track annoyed. You cannot hear any errors on this song. It sounds pretty good, except for one spot where it feels like something is off. You take the CD out and inspect it to find that there is a scratch there as well. Upon researching, you find that the way the CD is read is that the reader takes the information on the CD in sectors or chunks. The CD reader reads these chunks and stores them to a temporary memory if there is any error correction code. If an error occurs, it tries to then reconstruct the signal as previously stated. However, if a piece of data is missing, it can only use algorithms to try to do so. It does not know what the original data was. This is a bump in the road. The data in that place could be right or wrong. From an engineering standpoint, this is bad--very, very bad. These things do not always happen outside of the human hearing range. Some of the errors are inside the human hearing range but are not caught by the conscious mind. Instead, we usually do not perceive them because we are busy with some other task or do not care if we do. Nonetheless, once we have a pre-established notion of how something should sound, we cannot erase that notion easily. If you try playing a song that you have never heard before, you will accept that as the standard. Any changes in how that song sounds will result in a subconscious perception that something is wrong or off. Because it sounds wrong or off, you can start to have ear fatigue.


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We've been through this before. There is a huge difference between common C1 errors (which are actually corrected, and therefore are no different on output than the actual data on the CD), the rare (~1 per hour) C2 errors that are interpolated (and whose "graceful correction" values are more often than not spot-on and consequently inaudible to anyone but the paranormal), and skipping which is often quite audible, can indeed degrade sound even when not obviously audible, and usually occurs due to flaws/scratches in the CD.



 Would you as an EE authority please explain to we misinformed mortals how a power cable designed to reject any further degradation of current filters *out* the "dirt" from the power plant? How does a $1000 garden-hose sized power cable slathered in teflon and made of ultra-pure OFC *remove* noise that is already in the current? I'm no expert on power conditioning, so please help me out. Power conditioning and proper AC/DC conversion is important, but I don't see how a passive instrument such as a mains cable does this any better (or does anything at all) compared to a properly designed power transformer.

 How does that 6' of cable from your wall to your amplifier know the difference between a "clean" and a "dirty" current?

 --Chris_

 

Sorry about the double post here, but here goes. I am referring more to power conditioning than to cables here. If you do not have the power conditioning, that 6' of cable will transmit the dirtiness of the signal. Also, the way the cable handles the signal is simply not just in terms of current and voltage I am afraid. Since the signal is indeed an AC signal, it is a sine wave, right? That sine wave can be decomposed into further parts using Fourier Analysis. The analysis will show for the record that you can divide the signal even further into different harmonics, even and odd. The odd harmonics are part of what is generally defined as the dirty components of the signal. If a cable is carrying those components alone, you will be getting a lot of garbage out of your system. Furthermore, one of the laws of nature is that what goes into a system has to come out in one way or another. So, if I put trash for a signal into my system because of poor cabling, I will have to do a lot of correction to make sure that is not what comes out. Also, it is quite amazing how quickly a signal can lose power efficiency. The less efficient a signal is the more imaginary components are in the signal. These components also help contribute to a poor signal. Furthermore, passive elements in a system all have their own properties, which can contribute or take away from the quality of the signal. A resistor is not just a resistor. If that were true, then why do you suppose that each resistor has a tolerance rating on the side? It is the same for almost every electronic device. Because the values on the device vary slightly from device to device, you will have slight variances that multiply through the product's construction until the product is completed. 

 As per the CD thing, I am really referring to the C2 types of errors.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I misspoke on that point by confusing the insulator with the shielding. Still, copper braid or aluminum -- industry standard shielding -- are all it takes to reject any RF or EMI within the limits of audio frequencies in most applications (unless for some reason you have specific problems with EMI and RF)._

 

Not to beat a dead cat, but there are some potentially misleading ideas here. RFI/EMI mitigation isn't like an on/off switch. There are varying degrees to which external noise may be shielded from a signal. So, yes, copper braid or aluminum braid/drain wires are a typical solution and generally effective, but that is not to say that there are other, potentially more expensive and/or effective solutions. Carbon impregnated thermoplastic insulators, and systems like Audioquest's DBS claim to have greater S/N ratios that the typical copper braided shield. The geometry of the cable itself may also have positive effects on the rejection of RFI/EMI, e.g., coaxial versus braided versus twisted pairs.


----------



## hempcamp

Forsaken, I can't say that I disagree with you in a sentence-by-sentence evaluation of what you have written. However, it's not clear to me how you are jumping from one sentence to the next in any sort of logical progression.

 Any digital errors created in the recording process are not correctable in the playback process: not by amps, not by DACs, and certainly not by cables or line conditioners. It is my understanding that we're taking about music reproduction, not music production.

 As for C2 errors, they are few and far between (1 per hour is a very liberal estimation, even on decades-old transports). Certainly they are not anything avoidable by means of voodoo procedures like edge marking or shaving, nor do cables or DACs have anything to do with correcting those errors either. 

 Jitter is not what you have characterized it to be. Jitter is a timing error caused when data doesn't arrive precisely at the same clock frequency as the converter. Even if you believe that the ultra low amounts of jitter found in many of today's DACs is audible, jitter is easily reduced even further by re-clocking or dual-PLL configurations common in many high-end DACs including those by Grace, Benchmark, and Apogee. The money you would save buying cables from a scientifically sound, no-nonsense, voodoo-free vendor like Bluejeans would be much more wisely invested in such a DAC.

 --Chris


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not to beat a dead cat, but there are some potentially misleading ideas here. RFI/EMI mitigation isn't like an on/off switch. ...hat is not to say that there are other, potentially more expensive and/or effective solutions._

 

And not to flog a dead horse but that is precisely what I meant: it's not an on/off switch. Yet within the audible range and in most listening environments, anything beyond foil or braided copper is probably completely unnecessary. If you are having identifiable problems with RF/EMI, then by all means use something more substantially shielded. Even then, however, there are more cost effective yet equally efficient means of shielding (e.g. using a cable designed for video/data use) than purchasing a length of pseudo-science for multiple hundreds of times the price per foot.

 --Chris


----------



## bigshot

Forgive me, Forsaken, but you rambled all around the point and answered questions I didn't ask, but never got to the one I did ask. I'm not asking about digital recording in general. That's a different discussion. I'm asking, how can a C1 error that has been corrected cause ear fatigue? Are you saying that the correction is not the same as the original data in the recording?

 Thanks
 Steve

 P.S. Jitter at the levels it occurs in home cd players does not trigger error correction. It isn't even audible.


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Forsaken, I can't say that I disagree with you in a sentence-by-sentence evaluation of what you have written. However, it's not clear to me how you are jumping from one sentence to the next in any sort of logical progression.

 Any digital errors created in the recording process are not correctable in the playback process: not by amps, not by DACs, and certainly not by cables or line conditioners. It is my understanding that we're taking about music reproduction, not music production.

 As for C2 errors, they are few and far between (1 per hour is a very liberal estimation, even on decades-old transports). Certainly they are not anything avoidable by means of voodoo procedures like edge marking or shaving, nor do cables or DACs have anything to do with correcting those errors either. 

 Jitter is not what you have characterized it to be. Jitter is a timing error caused when data doesn't arrive precisely at the same clock frequency as the converter. Even if you believe that the ultra low amounts of jitter found in many of today's DACs is audible, jitter is easily reduced even further by re-clocking or dual-PLL configurations common in many high-end DACs including those by Grace, Benchmark, and Apogee. The money you would save buying cables from a scientifically sound, no-nonsense, voodoo-free vendor like Bluejeans would be much more wisely invested in such a DAC.

 --Chris_

 

I realize that you cannot correct the errors in the playback process, but in the mastering process, you can "correct" some of the errors. Most mastering is done by computer today with the computer being a digital device, mostly. If the errors are carried to the next stage of the recording process, they can eventually wind up in the playback process. Musical production and reproduction are heavily linked so; really, after the artist is done doing their takes in the studio, it is music reproduction. Everything I have mentioned except for the microphone remarks are a part of music reproduction. All of the digital errors will occur in the music reproduction process, not in the original production unless the equipment used for recording is faulty. However, even at this point, we are aiming for music reproduction.

 All I am saying is that C2 errors and things of the sort where signal needs to be reconstructed is a bad thing, no matter how you look at it. 

 I am just using jitter as an example here just to make a point. It was not meant to be an in-depth study of jitter or anything.


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All I am saying is that C2 errors and things of the sort where signal needs to be reconstructed is a bad thing, no matter how you look at it._

 

So why would allocating your investment in audio equipment equally between speaker/headphone, source/amp, and tweaks do anything to fix this?

 Perhaps you are confusing this thread with the other thread on CD shaving.

 --Chris


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Forsaken, I can't say that I disagree with you in a sentence-by-sentence evaluation of what you have written. However, it's not clear to me how you are jumping from one sentence to the next in any sort of logical progression.

 Any digital errors created in the recording process are not correctable in the playback process: not by amps, not by DACs, and certainly not by cables or line conditioners. It is my understanding that we're taking about music reproduction, not music production.

 As for C2 errors, they are few and far between (1 per hour is a very liberal estimation, even on decades-old transports). Certainly they are not anything avoidable by means of voodoo procedures like edge marking or shaving, nor do cables or DACs have anything to do with correcting those errors either. 

 Jitter is not what you have characterized it to be. Jitter is a timing error caused when data doesn't arrive precisely at the same clock frequency as the converter. Even if you believe that the ultra low amounts of jitter found in many of today's DACs is audible, jitter is easily reduced even further by re-clocking or dual-PLL configurations common in many high-end DACs including those by Grace, Benchmark, and Apogee. The money you would save buying cables from a scientifically sound, no-nonsense, voodoo-free vendor like Bluejeans would be much more wisely invested in such a DAC.

 --Chris_

 

I realize that you cannot correct the errors in the playback process, but in the mastering process, you can "correct" some of the errors. Most mastering is done by computer today with the computer being a digital device, mostly. If the errors are carried to the next stage of the recording process, they can eventually wind up in the playback process. Musical production and reproduction are heavily linked so; really, after the artist is done doing their takes in the studio, it is music reproduction. Everything I have mentioned except for the microphone remarks are a part of music reproduction. All of the digital errors will occur in the music reproduction process, not in the original production unless the equipment used for recording is faulty. However, even at this point, we are aiming for music reproduction.

 All I am saying is that C2 errors and things of the sort where signal needs to be reconstructed is a bad thing, no matter how you look at it. 

 I am just using jitter as an example here just to make a point. It was not meant to be an in-depth study of jitter or anything.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So why would allocating your investment in audio equipment equally between speaker/headphone, source/amp, and tweaks do anything to fix this?

 Perhaps you are confusing this thread with the other thread on CD shaving.

 --Chris_

 

The dampening quality of a transport can effect the jitter from being introduced in the form of non perfect read error, yes the music still sounds like music yet not every aspect of it is resolved, there are artifacts usually manifesting themselves as a lack of decay, the lack of a sense of air, it is easier for the individual space around the stereo image to loose it's position in stereo imaging. Less harmonic complexity dimension and depth of images. Don't forget that CD playback is actually analogue initially because reading a CD is done by a motor and that many of the issues with CD happen because of improper isolation and dampening. Since the pits are nano meters in length it actually follows the same physical effects of an electron microscope. keep in mind that most electron microscopes are in basements because there is more vibrational energy on higher floors, so to increase resolution and typically save money, most facilities put electron microscopes in the basement. a good CD platter actually dampens quite a bit of vibration based jitter, also isolation racks or even the fairly cost effective, vibrapods also help. unfortunately there are really only a few companies that make transports like this and Phillips and Sony are not them. Only really Teac, and Denon make ones that are descent, although Teacs are considered the best in the industry, many of your 10,000$ and up transports and players use this type of transport OEM, really re-clocking and clock slaving can only fix so much after the transport is done reading, also the type of master clock used is important, really it is best if ECC when used the least, the less the DAC has to work to correct the better it will sound, it can only resolve so much jitter at a time depending on the system. Bit perfection is a very elusive beast indeed. Really it would be better if we started using hard drive copies directly from the master, then all we would have to worry about is the read quality of the hard disk, which is less prone to these types of effects.


----------



## bigshot

This conversation is wandering all over the place. It's like trying to tie a bow on a wriggling squid!

 My question was "how is a potential skip that was prevented by error correction different than the same passage without the potential skip?" I'm not talking about C2 errors here. I'm talking about C1 errors.

 I'll restate the question more clearly... Do corrected C1 errors create "subconscious ear fatigue"? If the answer is yes, why?

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry. I should have been a bit more specific. ........At this stage, quantization error is a possibility because the voltage from the analog signal must fit within certain parameters to fit the digital signal's criteria. So, for example, if I have a voltage of 2.5V and a binary one is equal to 5V and a binary zero is equal to 0V, there is a high chance I will have quantization error because the ADC will not know what to do with this voltage value. Therefore, I can mistakingly assign it a wrong value, making the ADC not produce the digital signal correctly._

 

Sorry for being so blunt, but you should be a bit more realistic, not simply more specific. You imply that the quantization is horrifically less precise than it is in reality, to the point I wonder if you don't really understand the process.

 A typical pro-audio 24-bit ADC (Apogee Rosetta, for instance) has an input sensitivity of 6 dBv. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but means the actual absolute analog voltage peaks that can be handled are +2V and -2V, so the total signal voltage range is 4 volts. That means each bit only represents a change in input voltage of 4 V / (2^24) or about 0.0000002 volts. Recording at 24-bit, as is typical now, means that each incremental bit in the quantization is only one part in 16,777,216 of the maximum input signal. Sure, not all tracks are put down such that they reach that maximum level, but still--your suggested voltage levels far overstate the granularity of the ADC process with respect to typical analog signal voltages.

 It seems odd that you used the 0 and 5 V levels to illustrate your point. Indeed, those might be the levels used in data interfaces to represent a binary zero and a binary one......but they are completely irrelevant to conversion of audio in a 24 or 16 bit ADC.


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The dampening quality of a transport can effect the jitter from being introduced in the form of non perfect read error......_

 

Are you claiming that vibration can cause, or often causes, the data to be misread (the number being sent forward to the DAC is incorrect) or that vibration causes errors in timing (the right number is sent, but not at the correct time).....or both? "Read error" is typically taken to mean that the value being read is incorrect, and "jitter" should mean only timing errors.


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_......but in the mastering process, you can "correct" some of the errors._

 

What errors, and how?


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry for being so blunt, but you should be a bit more realistic, not simply more specific. You imply that the quantization is horrifically less precise than it is in reality, to the point I wonder if you don't really understand the process.

 A typical pro-audio 24-bit ADC (Apogee Rosetta, for instance) has an input sensitivity of 6 dBv. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but means the actual absolute analog voltage peaks that can be handled are +2V and -2V, so the total signal voltage range is 4 volts. That means each bit only represents a change in input voltage of 4 V / (2^24) or about 0.0000002 volts. Recording at 24-bit, as is typical now, means that each incremental bit in the quantization is only one part in 16,777,216 of the maximum input signal. Sure, not all tracks are put down such that they reach that maximum level, but still--your suggested voltage levels far overstate the granularity of the ADC process with respect to typical analog signal voltages.

 It seems odd that you used the 0 and 5 V levels to illustrate your point. Indeed, those might be the levels used in data interfaces to represent a binary zero and a binary one......but they are completely irrelevant to conversion of audio in a 24 or 16 bit ADC._

 

First, bigshot, I am not talking about C1 errors. However, for those kinds of errors where the information does exist and are corrected, I do not believe them to be the source of ear fatigue, unless the time it takes to correct the error is actually noticeable on one level of consciousness or another. 

 Next, sejarzo, I do understand the problem, but I was trying to simplify the matter to more of a textbook approach for those who are unfamiliar with it. I do realize that practical ADC's are much more precise and accurate. I also realize that it was an overstatement, but it was made for the sake of simplicity. The only point I was trying to make was that because of the fact that digital must divide the voltage up to an approximation of the analog signal, it loses some of its smoothness in terms of the output. You have to go through at least two types of processing with CD's, which are analog to digital and digital to analog. A black box can really go in between the two, depending on the equipment used. So, from going from the original signal in the recording studio to the end user, you can lose information or have the information skewed if you are not carefully due to the digital processing. 

 On another note, sejarzo, I looked at your profile and saw "engineer" written there. So, if you do not mind me asking, what concentration of engineer are you? I would guess electrical, given that you know some of the math to say the least, but I do not know for sure.


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry for being so blunt, but you should be a bit more realistic, not simply more specific. You imply that the quantization is horrifically less precise than it is in reality, to the point I wonder if you don't really understand the process.

 A typical pro-audio 24-bit ADC (Apogee Rosetta, for instance) has an input sensitivity of 6 dBv. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but means the actual absolute analog voltage peaks that can be handled are +2V and -2V, so the total signal voltage range is 4 volts. That means each bit only represents a change in input voltage of 4 V / (2^24) or about 0.0000002 volts. Recording at 24-bit, as is typical now, means that each incremental bit in the quantization is only one part in 16,777,216 of the maximum input signal. Sure, not all tracks are put down such that they reach that maximum level, but still--your suggested voltage levels far overstate the granularity of the ADC process with respect to typical analog signal voltages.

 It seems odd that you used the 0 and 5 V levels to illustrate your point. Indeed, those might be the levels used in data interfaces to represent a binary zero and a binary one......but they are completely irrelevant to conversion of audio in a 24 or 16 bit ADC._

 

First, bigshot, I am not talking about C1 errors. However, for those kinds of errors where the information does exist and are corrected, I do not believe them to be the source of ear fatigue, unless the time it takes to correct the error is actually noticeable on one level of consciousness or another. 

 Next, sejarzo, I do understand the problem, but I was trying to simplify the matter to more of a textbook approach for those who are unfamiliar with it. I do realize that practical ADC's are much more precise and accurate. I also realize that it was an overstatement, but it was made for the sake of simplicity. The only point I was trying to make was that because of the fact that digital must divide the voltage up to an approximation of the analog signal, it loses some of its smoothness in terms of the output. You have to go through at least two types of processing with CD's, which are analog to digital and digital to analog. A black box can really go in between the two, depending on the equipment used. So, from going from the original signal in the recording studio to the end user, you can lose information or have the information skewed if you are not carefully due to the digital processing. As for the errors, I refer to things such as quantization error, jitter, and things of the sort, which can be "corrected" through ECC and oversampling.

 On another note, sejarzo, I looked at your profile and saw "engineer" written there. So, if you do not mind me asking, what concentration of engineer are you? I would guess electrical, given that you know some of the math to say the least, but I do not know for sure.


----------



## sejarzo

Chemical.


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_......As for the errors, I refer to things such as quantization error, jitter, and things of the sort, which can be "corrected" through ECC and oversampling._

 

Then, please explain how quantization error can be "corrected". 

 Oversampling, per se, doesn't function in the realm of error correction. All it does is allow the filters to be designed such that they have less impact on the audible range (higher cutoff frequency, less steep slopes).


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First, bigshot, I am not talking about C1 errors._

 

Thanks. That helps me pin down what you're talking about.

 OK... Do you think that C2 errors the source of ear fatigue?

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then, please explain how quantization error can be "corrected". 

 Oversampling, per se, doesn't function in the realm of error correction. All it does is allow the filters to be designed such that they have less impact on the audible range (higher cutoff frequency, less steep slopes)._

 

Not quite. Oversampling does allow for a higher correction rating because it can extract missing pieces of information all that much easier. It could be considered a form of ECC, but it is a slightly better alternative than a feedback loop that is used in ECC. It takes those samples and puts them in on the original input, thereby making it unnecessary to sample further and correct further because more than enough information is there already. Oversampling can also increase the resolution, which is directly related to quantization error. Frankly, with one of the current methods of correcting quantization error being dithering, I would like to think of another solution to the quantization error problem. Dithering introduces noise into the signal to correct for the distortion created from the error and is after the anti-aliasing process. One suggestion would be to increase the quality of the materials that the ADC is made out of. However, this is almost asking for the impossible in most applications because people like their ADC to be as small and invisible as possible. I have a hard enough time explaining to the average Joe what analog and digital are, let alone explain the problems with ADC's. In truth, we should probably looking for devices that have a higher quality of performance instead of smaller devices with poor quality.

 Bigshot, yes, I do think that C2 errors can be a source of ear fatigue.


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not quite. Oversampling does allow for a higher correction rating because it can extract missing pieces of information all that much easier._

 

I guess I was correct in the first place--you really don't understand it.

 Oversampling on the playback end can't re-create something that is "missing". That's simply, utterly impossible.

 Read up on what oversampling actually is, and then get back to us.


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess I was correct in the first place--you really don't understand it.

 Oversampling on the playback end can't re-create something that is "missing". That's simply, utterly impossible.

 Read up on what oversampling actually is, and then get back to us._

 

This is from the Wikipedia article on the ADC: "Usually, signals are sampled at the minimum rate required, for economy, with the result that the quantization noise introduced is white noise spread over the whole pass band of the converter. If a signal is sampled at a rate much higher than the Nyquist frequency and then digitally filtered to limit it to the signal bandwidth, the signal-to-noise ratio due to quantization noise will be higher than if the whole available band had been used. With this technique, it is possible to obtain an effective resolution larger than that provided by the converter alone." By increasing the resolution and number of samples, you do not have to re-create that missing something in a sense. Rather, the oversampling will make sure that the gaps that would be there from a lower sampling rate are not. If any interpolation must occur, because of the higher resolution and smaller gaps in the time between samples, the amount of interpolation is decreased. Because of this, we see less quantization error, and the signal becomes that much smoother. I am not saying that oversampling can create something out of nothing, but, rather, it can extract what _does_ exist all that much better.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bigshot, yes, I do think that C2 errors can be a source of ear fatigue._

 

What do you think the threshold level is? How many C2 errors per minute does it take to induce ear fatigue?

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you think the threshold level is? How many C2 errors per minute does it take to induce ear fatigue?_

 

Ooohh, I await the response, with squid-baited breath! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Forsaken........Bigshot and I are asking questions about errors in *playback *, as I reiterated in my previous post. Why do you persist in going back to the ADC side of the process?

 Does anybody out there know of a realistic and proven study as to how a variety transports perform with respect to C1 and C2 errors?


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you think the threshold level is? How many C2 errors per minute does it take to induce ear fatigue?

 Thanks
 Steve_

 

Honestly, I do not know what the threshold is, and I will not pretend to know because I am not a psychologist. If anyone has seen a study on this topic, I would be interested to know. Frankly, it is just my opinion that any interruptions to the continuity and constant flow of the music is considered a disruption by the brain. I am sorry that I cannot give you a more exact answer at the time, but if it comes up in the future, I will be happy to present any conclusive results that I have found. 

  Quote:


 Originally Posted by *sejarzo*

 Ooohh, I await the response, with squid-baited breath!

 Forsaken........Bigshot and I are asking questions about errors in playback , as I reiterated in my previous post. Why do you persist in going back to the ADC side of the process?

 Does anybody out there know of a realistic and proven study as to how a variety transports perform with respect to C1 and C2 errors? 
 

As I have been trying to explain for sometime, I believe that a part of the playback process is going back to the recording studio. A recording can only be as good as the techniques and equipment used to record the music, right? You have pointed out that a recording cannot create something out of nothing, correct? If these are true, then the playback process has already begun. Just because it has not reached your ears yet, does not mean that the playback process is not going on. All of the people in the industry who work hard to record, master, and edit every song and note you listen to are a part of the playback process, no matter how little you may think of their jobs. If you take them out of the equation, you will not even be able to listen to music on your stereo, CD player, iPod, etc. Therefore, I keep insisting on going back to the recording process with the ADC because this is where many potential errors can occur. This is where quantization error begins! It is only when you hit "play" on your system that you hear the music. Your system may be the best thing in the world, but the worst recording in the world could make that system sound like the worst system in the world as well! So, if you do not consider the process to be like a flow diagram in the big picture, then you will inevitably come to the conclusion that the process is divided into so many fractured pieces that it is like Humpty Dumpty. A continuity in the recording process must exist, meaning that oversampling, dithering, quantization error, errors contained on the media, etc. are all present before you even have the chance to find out if they exist. If these errors exist beforehand, how can anyone expect them to be fixed when there is nothing available to fix them with? This is when the final steps of the playback process begin. This is when the music hits your ears; this only occurs though given that your system can handle it. If your system has the tools to fix some of those errors, that is great. However, if you are poor like I am, you often have to "settle" for less than good sound. This does not mean that I have not heard good sound; it just means that I do not have the opportunity to do it as often as I would like. In my case, this means that the errors must be corrected all the way back in the mastering and recording stages. This does not settle well with me!


----------



## dvw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 As I have been trying to explain for sometime, I believe that a part of the playback process is going back to the recording studio. A recording can only be as good as the techniques and equipment used to record the music, right? You have pointed out that a recording cannot create something out of nothing, correct? If these are true, then the playback process has already begun. Just because it has not reached your ears yet, does not mean that the playback process is not going on. All of the people in the industry who work hard to record, master, and edit every song and note you listen to are a part of the playback process, no matter how little you may think of their jobs. If you take them out of the equation, you will not even be able to listen to music on your stereo, CD player, iPod, etc. Therefore, I keep insisting on going back to the recording process with the ADC because this is where many potential errors can occur. This is where quantization error begins! It is only when you hit "play" on your system that you hear the music. Your system may be the best thing in the world, but the worst recording in the world could make that system sound like the worst system in the world as well! So, if you do not consider the process to be like a flow diagram in the big picture, then you will inevitably come to the conclusion that the process is divided into so many fractured pieces that it is like Humpty Dumpty. A continuity in the recording process must exist, meaning that oversampling, dithering, quantization error, errors contained on the media, etc. are all present before you even have the chance to find out if they exist. If these errors exist beforehand, how can anyone expect them to be fixed when there is nothing available to fix them with? This is when the final steps of the playback process begin. This is when the music hits your ears; this only occurs though given that your system can handle it. If your system has the tools to fix some of those errors, that is great. However, if you are poor like I am, you often have to "settle" for less than good sound. This does not mean that I have not heard good sound; it just means that I do not have the opportunity to do it as often as I would like. In my case, this means that the errors must be corrected all the way back in the mastering and recording stages. This does not settle well with me!_

 

There is no system that is error free. The engineers anticipated the error and build in error margin in their design. That is why all parameter has a tolerance number.
 Error correction is built into every system. That includes your computer, your networking and yes your CD player. I am not going to go into detail on how they do correction. You can google "reed soloman" and "interpolation". "Oversampling" is misleading because it is really not sampling anything and has nothing to do with ADC. The material is already recorded there fore it can not be "sampled" again. The Cirrus Logic (Crystal semiconductor) has a wealth of white papers on digital playback. I think you should start from there.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Frankly, it is just my opinion that any interruptions to the continuity and constant flow of the music is considered a disruption by the brain._

 

I'll agree that disruptions to the music aren't a good thing. But a single instantaneous gap that has been filled with pink noise is not even perceptible, much less a cause of ear fatigue.

 Perhaps the problem is the term "ear fatigue". It implies that there is a continuous interruption to the sound that is causing repeated annoyances. C2 errors don't even come close to qualifying for that because they're as rare as hens teeth in normal playback using even the most basic CD player.

 I manage a digital archive where we burn redundant DVD-R backups on a daily basis. We depend on these for critical backups, so each and every burn is verified. I would imagine that data errors are much more likely to occur in a high speed burn of a 4gb DVD than in real time playback of a simple audio CD. But our error rate is less than 1 in 120. That's an error every 480gb. I don't need to tell you what that equates to in 640mb CDs. You can do the math.

 C2 error correction in CD playback is not the cause of ear fatigue. If you'd like me to speculate about what I think causes ear fatigue, I'd be happy to.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dvw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is no system that is error free. The engineers anticipated the error and build in error margin in their design. That is why all parameter has a tolerance number.
 Error correction is built into every system. That includes your computer, your networking and yes your CD player. I am not going to go into detail on how they do correction. You can google "reed soloman" and "interpolation". "Oversampling" is misleading because it is really not sampling anything and has nothing to do with ADC. The material is already recorded there fore it can not be "sampled" again. The Cirrus Logic (Crystal semiconductor) has a wealth of white papers on digital playback. I think you should start from there._

 

 The best systems reduce error as much as possible. This is actually why so many people object to even listening to digital in the first place. They use terms like digititis, Sterile, unresolved, inorganic, ECC is a band-aid. Actually reducing jitter in the recording process and transport playback process is ideal, and I can't think of any audiophile designer who wouldn't agree with me. Trust me they all actually try to reduce jitter and quantization error as much as possible even through chassis isolation transport to master clock slaving. they try to reduce error as much as possible then account for their error margin given the specs of the given system. You don't really see them saying well this is error prone so let's just use a DSP to fix it. They say let's fix it as much as possible and let the DSP do what we cannot solve given the limitations of the system. To be honest 16/44.1 is considered an error, so to speak. I remember reading one review of some of the first upsampling players in 200d4 that mentioned that '04 was the year CD actually started to sound good. The fact is it doesn't sound good if you don't oversample then upsample, or resample it. The goal of many designers is actually for their players to sound like top shelf reel to reel tape. this is why so many recording standards have been adopted to better redbook, starting with Gold foil cd's, 20 bit masters, HDCD, 24 bit masters, DSD masters, XRCD, XRCD24, and now K2. All of these formats and the processing have to work in tandem with precise transport readability. In fact Teac/ Esoteric wanted to prove that their clocking technology was superlative so they have released recordings that were mastered using one of their rubidium clocks to reduce jitter in the digital master. basically you can boil it down to this with digital. Garbage in Garbage out. minimising garbage is important in every aspect of recording and playback. oh yeah, IMO digital only sounds good through tubes so I think actually that is important to mention as well minimising a lack of linearity in any digital playback system.


----------



## bigshot

Jitter is inaudible at the levels it occurs in home stereo equipment. It isn't why CDs sound bad. Sample rates aren't the problem either. High bitrate formats just increase resolution in the lowest volume sections, or add frequencies above the range of human hearing. Neither of these features have any application in a home playback environment. (Although they might in a recording/mixing one...)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_.......The fact is it doesn't sound good if you don't oversample then upsample, or resample it. ......oh yeah, IMO digital only sounds good through tubes so I think actually that is important to mention as well minimising a lack of linearity in any digital playback system._

 

Interesting comments.....

 Do you have any reason, then, as to why a lot of people think that NOS DAC's sound better than the latest technology? (I must be clear, I would not be caught dead listening to a NOS DAC.....they might sound "good" but they certainly don't sound "correct".)

 And if minimizing a lack of linearity is important, then how does the asymmetrical clipping behavior of tubes, and the fact that tubes inject significantly more harmonic distortion into the signal, help that situation?


----------



## dvw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The best systems reduce error as much as possible. This is actually why so many people object to even listening to digital in the first place. They use terms like digititis, Sterile, unresolved, inorganic, ECC is a band-aid. Actually reducing jitter in the recording process and transport playback process is ideal, and I can't think of any audiophile designer who wouldn't agree with me. Trust me they all actually try to reduce jitter and quantization error as much as possible even through chassis isolation transport to master clock slaving. they try to reduce error as much as possible then account for their error margin given the specs of the given system. You don't really see them saying well this is error prone so let's just use a DSP to fix it. They say let's fix it as much as possible and let the DSP do what we cannot solve given the limitations of the system. To be honest 16/44.1 is considered an error, so to speak. I remember reading one review of some of the first upsampling players in 200d4 that mentioned that '04 was the year CD actually started to sound good. The fact is it doesn't sound good if you don't oversample then upsample, or resample it. The goal of many designers is actually for their players to sound like top shelf reel to reel tape. this is why so many recording standards have been adopted to better redbook, starting with Gold foil cd's, 20 bit masters, HDCD, 24 bit masters, DSD masters, XRCD, XRCD24, and now K2. All of these formats and the processing have to work in tandem with precise transport readability. In fact Teac/ Esoteric wanted to prove that their clocking technology was superlative so they have released recordings that were mastered using one of their rubidium clocks to reduce jitter in the digital master. basically you can boil it down to this with digital. Garbage in Garbage out. minimising garbage is important in every aspect of recording and playback. oh yeah, IMO digital only sounds good through tubes so I think actually that is important to mention as well minimising a lack of linearity in any digital playback system._

 

Unfortunately, error is part of the manufacturing tolerance. CD are pressed in clean room. But no matter how clean, there will still be dust and particle. Even analog system will have manufacturing tolernace. Error correction is correction so there wll be no error not a band aid. Hard diskdrives have even more errors. If not for error correction, the computers will not be functional.

 Most people don't know what a bit error is and don't even know what they sound like. What you described are not bit error. Let assume a 8 bit word 10101010. If bit error is at MSB it becomes 00101010. This will sound like a big pop not cold or sterile. But if it happens at LSB most people can't even hear it.

 Increasing resolution or sampling rate is not going to change error condition. Just as there is no LP that have a perfect center that match your player. So if you use the same logic, every LP will have an error. And I do hope you know what an off center LP sounds like. 

 As far as jitter is concerned please check some of the DAC chip website for information. Maybe you know this already, no CD player or DAC manufacturer actually makes their own chips. It all comes from a handful of semiconductor companies. And they sell millions of these both to high end and low end.

 Also for your information, a very low jitter clock and accurate clock can be obtained through your friendly satellite, the GPS clock. It is so accurate; guided missiles use them. And the cost of a GPS receiver chip set is $2.30.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Jitter is inaudible at the levels it occurs in home stereo equipment. It isn't why CDs sound bad. Sample rates aren't the problem either. High bitrate formats just increase resolution in the lowest volume sections, or add frequencies above the range of human hearing. Neither of these features have any application in a home playback environment. (Although they might in a recording/mixing one...)

 See ya
 Steve_

 

define inaudible? many have described the sound of PCM as congested. I actually agree with this, It wasn't until I started hearing some of the more modern CD players that CD seemed to actually sound atmospheric, have decay and delicacy, If you have a 50,000$ stereo that can reveal said flaws, would you define that as inaudible? I guess my problem is that compared to live music CD doesn't sound real even compared to superior vinyl playback. I think music when reproduced should try to sound like either, they are here, or you are there. Unfortunately digital hasn't really gotten to the point where it can sample even at the level that vinyl can, the minimum for this would be 24/384kHZ because the cutting stylus records at the molecular level. Personally I will be ecstatic when resolutions like 64/10mHz on low jitter direct from the master hard disk recordings exist. I think then the bit stream should be able to address and encode every particle of sound literally. I guess when you are accustomed to your music not sounding like the actual event it might be inaudible, which for most people, on a conscious level is fine. However, it would be great to pop in a recording of my favorite dead recording artist and have it sound exactly like he is standing in the room.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_define inaudible?_

 

In a peer reviewed test conducted among audiophiles and sound engineers, it was found that in order for the subjects to identify jitter in a music sample, it had to be 100 times the rate of jitter in the average home CD player.

 Jitter isn't the cause of bad sound on CDs. The digital format has nothing to do with it. A good way to prove this to yourself is to use a really good audio capture card to make a digital copy of an LP. Set up a blind test to do level balanced direct A/B comparisons between the digital copy and the original LP. Try it. You'll be surprised when you can't hear the difference.

 I agree with you that a lot of CDs sound really bad compared with the original LP release of the same material. That has more to do with the way the material is mastered and restored for CD release than it does the way binary numbers affect the sound. Mastering is *everything*.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_.....However, it would be great to pop in a recording of my favorite dead recording artist and have it sound exactly like he is standing in the room._

 

Sure it would, but it's not the source that's the weak link. It's the transducers and the listening room.


----------



## bigshot

And the recording itself. Most recordings nowadays aren't designed to create realistic soundstages. They're multi-miked, overdubbed, layered montages of sound.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In a peer reviewed test conducted among audiophiles and sound engineers, it was found that in order for the subjects to identify jitter in a music sample, it had to be 100 times the rate of jitter in the average home CD player.

 Jitter isn't the cause of bad sound on CDs. The digital format has nothing to do with it. A good way to prove this to yourself is to use a really good audio capture card to make a digital copy of an LP. Set up a blind test to do level balanced direct A/B comparisons between the digital copy and the original LP. Try it. You'll be surprised when you can't hear the difference.

 I agree with you that a lot of CDs sound really bad compared with the original LP release of the same material. That has more to do with the way the material is mastered and restored for CD release than it does the way binary numbers affect the sound. Mastering is *everything*.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Steve could you provide more information, or a link, to the "peer reviewed test", I seem to remember reading an article about this but can't place it.
 Thanks


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And the recording itself. Most recordings nowadays aren't designed to create realistic soundstages. They're multi-miked, overdubbed, layered montages of sound._

 

Last year, I traded some PM's with a member here who played the violin, who more or less wanted to build his system so all violin recordings would have the immediacy of sound that he experiences while playing himself. I finally got his thinking turned around to the point he realized that it wasn't possible, because the recording perspective varied so much.

 Likewise, there is the argument of whether playback should be expected to sound as if the listener is in the original venue, or if the performer is in the listener's room. And that's only in stereo......it has seemed to me that every producer of pop/rock surround DVD-A's and SACD's has a different idea of what the end product should be (putting the listener "on stage", using the rear channels for "natural ambience" only, or some bizarre mix between the two, perhaps?)

 I think we need to appreciate recordings for what they are.....back to an analogy I've expressed before, that recordings are more like paintings than photographs or videos. As you mention, what is a multi-tracked/mixed down soundstage "supposed to sound like"? There is no objective reference.....so the recording must be appreciated for what it is without strict comparison to "live performance sound" (especially when electronic instruments are involved, using direct boxes and effects, and no acoustic sound was ever recorded)!!!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Steve could you provide more information, or a link, to the "peer reviewed test", I seem to remember reading an article about this but can't place it._

 

I don't have the link handy here at the office, but you should be able to google it. It was a paper presented to AES Japan (Audio Engineering Society) and was hosted on a site that had pdfs of white papers from various journals. Try searching "AES jitter threshold".

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't have the link handy here at the office, but you should be able to google it. It was a paper presented to AES Japan (Audio Engineering Society) and was hosted on a site that had pdfs of white papers from various journals. Try searching "AES jitter threshold".

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I found the paper on the "AES Japan", however it was 5.00 so I did not buy it, I did find this paper http://www.nanophon.com/audio/jitter92.pdf. Will read it later and search more

 Thanks


----------



## Pars

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Jitter is inaudible at the levels it occurs in home stereo equipment. It isn't why CDs sound bad. Sample rates aren't the problem either. High bitrate formats just increase resolution in the lowest volume sections, or add frequencies above the range of human hearing. Neither of these features have any application in a home playback environment. (Although they might in a recording/mixing one...)

 See ya
 Steve_

 

*In your opinion.* You seem to forget this thread.

 Another link, appropriate to most DAC users:

Hawksford Paper presented at the 1992 AES SF


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think we need to appreciate recordings for what they are.....back to an analogy I've expressed before, that recordings are more like paintings than photographs or videos._

 

Not to be a stickler, but I'd posit that the analogy be reversed - that recordings are much like photographs of a painting... we're talking about the approximation of an art work with a recording, and not the actual physical experience of an art work as would be the actual live performance or the musician in the studio.

 I don't EVER get the same sensory experience listening to a CD of the music I've heard live at the BSO. It's close, but not the same. Same goes for seeing a photo of Paul Klee's work (or any other work!), the depth of the color just ain't there in the photos. nor is the smell, yada yada... what some might call the full sensory exploration of an art work.


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not to be a stickler, but I'd posit that the analogy be reversed - that recordings are much like photographs of a painting... we're talking about the approximation of an art work with a recording, and not the actual physical experience of an art work as would be the actual live performance or the musician in the studio.

 I don't EVER get the same sensory experience listening to a CD of the music I've heard live at the BSO. It's close, but not the same. Same goes for seeing a photo of Paul Klee's work (or any other work!), the depth of the color just ain't there in the photos. nor is the smell, yada yada... what some might call the full sensory exploration of an art work._

 

We're actually more on the same page than you realize......what I meant was that a painting requires the artist to interpret and convey some impression, more so than a literal recreation (in most cases). There are so many considerations going into a recording re mic placement, panning, etc. etc. that the end product can't be expected to be strictly comparable to the "live performance", if indeed there ever was one!

 When was the last time you heard drum kit in a jazz combo as wide as a stage, for instance....the high-hat in your right ear, the toms in your left? Should the recording of the live orchestra sound like Row F on the main floor, or the middle of the lower balcony?

 Regardless of where I've sat at Orchestra Hall in Chicago, I've never heard pinpoint placement of all instruments or sections with my eyes closed in a way that many recordings sound on a good system. On the other hand, seeing all the bows move in unison seems to heighten the clarity of the strings....do you have the same experience?


----------



## bigshot

Pars;3710797 said:
			
		

> *In your opinion.*
> 
> No. According to a peer reviewed study. (that doesn't say NOT reviewed or endorsed by the AES at the top of it!)
> 
> ...


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We're actually more on the same page than you realize......what I meant was that a painting requires the artist to interpret and convey some impression, more so than a literal recreation (in most cases). There are so many considerations going into a recording re mic placement, panning, etc. etc. that the end product can't be expected to be strictly comparable to the "live performance", if indeed there ever was one!_

 

I understand where you're coming from with this, but I also think you're making some generalizations about both the art work and the representation of that art work - treading on thin ice, so to speak. I'm reminded of Chuck Closes' work with regards to "literal recreation" as you said. His portraiture functions as both "literal recreation" at one scale, and as emotional interpretation at another scale. So where would that put the photograph of his original work? Take a picture of one of his portraits from 30 feet away, and you get exactly what Close used to create the work - a picture of someone's face. But move in, and inspect the work from a foot or two away, and you're left with a very abstract representation of textures and tones.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When was the last time you heard drum kit in a jazz combo as wide as a stage, for instance....the high-hat in your right ear, the toms in your left? Should the recording of the live orchestra sound like Row F on the main floor, or the middle of the lower balcony?_

 

I (generally) get to live with whatever the recording engineer and the artist agreed upon as being "good" or "good enough", right?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Regardless of where I've sat at Orchestra Hall in Chicago, I've never heard pinpoint placement of all instruments or sections with my eyes closed in a way that many recordings sound on a good system. On the other hand, seeing all the bows move in unison seems to heighten the clarity of the strings....do you have the same experience?_

 

Absoluetly agreed. Pin point imaging is not something I've ever heard in a hall, even with concerto's or solo instruments. This is something that I've wondered about a good bit... is it that the further you move "up" the audiophile hierarchy, the closer you get to a "pure" Hyper-realism? I've heard some expensive systems, and all have had a level of illusory hyper-realism and amazing detail, including very precise localization and spatial representation that I've never heard in real life (an exquisite MBL system). I think I could tell that the trumpet player was wearing a wool suit, and not a cotton blend... But it did sound really, really good, even if not "true". I've also heard a system (one that REALLY stuck with me) a full $70k Audio Note rig... boy oh boy, it flunks the hyper-realism/über detail test, and the frequency extension test - didn't sound like a live event either - but it made absolutely beautiful music. Which type of system is more correct? Which one measures more correctly? Dunno, and frankly I couldn't care less...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Pin point imaging is not something I've ever heard in a hall, even with concerto's or solo instruments. This is something that I've wondered about a good bit... is it that the further you move "up" the audiophile hierarchy, the closer you get to a "pure" Hyper-realism?_

 

Soundstage is created in mixing and miking. It has nothing to do with the cost of the playback equipment. If your speakers are placed to mesh properly and your room acoustics are good, you should be able to have pinpoint imaging with lower range systems as well... as long as it was recorded and mixed that way.

 The difference that high end speakers provide is a flatter frequency response and lower distortion levels.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Soundstage is created in mixing and miking. It has nothing to do with the cost of the playback equipment. If your speakers are placed to mesh properly and your room acoustics are good, you should be able to have pinpoint imaging with lower range systems as well... as long as it was recorded and mixed that way.

 The difference that high end speakers provide is a flatter frequency response and lower distortion levels.

 See ya
 Steve_

 


 As usual, steve, you've missed the point... but just for fun, which is a more correct system in your skeptical opinion:

 a) very expensive but not really real sounding, but measures ruler-flat, sounds pretty good.

 b) very expensive but not really real sounding, but doesn't measure ruler flat, sounds better.

 Good luck! is it live? or is it memorex??


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_a) very expensive but not really real sounding, but measures ruler-flat, sounds pretty good.

 b) very expensive but not really real sounding, but doesn't measure ruler flat, sounds better._

 

This is neither here nor there. It's a subjective determination. The point that many of us are making in this whole thread is that in most cases two things that measure the same (such as two cables with equivalent RCL) won't sound different.

 If you prefer something other than ruler-flat, by all means go out and buy something that "warms up" the sound. Cables, unless made specifically to mess things up, won't do this. Buying your equipment in some sort of "price ratio" is nothing other than a dishonest scheme.

 --Chris


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Even if you cannot everything on stage (trust me: I have been up there many, many times) or in the audience, I think that the general goal is to be able to hear everything. When I say everything, I mean everything distinctly so that it blends and separates itself at the same time. In other words, I want to hear the group as a whole, and I want to hear each individual instrument in what it is doing. I also want this to be as clear and crisp as possible. I think that part of the reason why audio system can afford to do this while many concert halls cannot is because of not just the electronics involved, but moreover the acoustics of the concert hall. Many concert venues I have been to have really poor acoustics despite the fact that they were supposed to be designed for the specific act of playing music. If my audio system can take the actual music out of a poor concert hall and make it sound better, then all the better.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is neither here nor there. It's a subjective determination. The point that many of us are making in this whole thread is that in most cases two things that measure the same (such as two cables with equivalent RCL) won't sound different._

 

Everything in this silly little hobby requires us to make both objectively- and subjectively-informed decisions. You could nit-pick each and every piece of gear you own, and meticulously measure it, deduce with some ration that there is a value system that prefers flat frequency response, with the hopes that you're finding a "better" piece of equipment. BUT WHAT IF YOU DON'T ENJOY IT? What's the point? Again, to what end? What if you get tired of listening to music? What can you infer about your value system? your belief system? Your knowledge?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you prefer something other than ruler-flat, by all means go out and buy something that "warms up" the sound. Cables, unless made specifically to mess things up, won't do this. Buying your equipment in some sort of "price ratio" is nothing other than a dishonest scheme._

 

So you're conceding that cables can be made to "mess things up," and thereby sound different AND measure different? So what if you actually want some treble lift because of a hearing disability, but your amp doesn't have any tone controls?

 Seriously, there's times when I wonder how skeptical rationalists can even leave their house... "but, are my feet ACTUALLY touching the ground when I walk???? That's it, I can't walk until I get some empirical proof! Someone might want to sell me shoes that are incongruous, or make false claims - therefore forcing me to make conclusions beyond my current belief system!!! How could I buy shoes if my feet don't touch the ground??? Egad, and Yipes!"


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So what if you actually want some treble lift because of a hearing disability, but your amp doesn't have any tone controls?_

 

Then I would either buy an equalizer or an amp with tone controls. I certainly would *not* try to use a cable to give me "treble lift," particularly if the cable manufacturer cannot even explain why the cable might make a difference short of resorting to a hypothetical, highly speculative and unproven assertion that quantum physics _might_ be involved.

  Quote:


 Seriously, there's times when I wonder how skeptical rationalists can even leave their house... "but, are my feet ACTUALLY touching the ground when I walk???? That's it, I can't walk until I get some empirical proof! 
 

As usual, you resort to insults. Do you not realize how weak this makes your position look?


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So you're conceding that cables can be made to "mess things up," and thereby sound different AND measure different? So what if you actually want some treble lift because of a hearing disability, but your amp doesn't have any tone controls?_

 

Problem is, manufacturers don't advertise voodoo cables for that purpose, and seldom would a cable be "messed up" enough to alter the frequency response -- you'd have to drastically increase the resistance of a speaker cable or the capacitance of interconnects, for which you might get a slight rolloff on the highs that is still probably above the range of hearing for most of us.

 The truth of the matter is that if cables had such an immense affect on frequency response, it would be a moot point on the listening end anyway. I have never met a pro that doesn't use plain old copper, nickel, and PVC.

 Sorry you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. It doesn't at all advance your position or make your claims stronger, and it surely doesn't provide the kind of reasoned explanation I (or any sensible person) would need before making a major investment on wires.

 --Chris


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_which is a more correct system in your skeptical opinion:

 a) very expensive but not really real sounding, but measures ruler-flat, sounds pretty good.

 b) very expensive but not really real sounding, but doesn't measure ruler flat, sounds better._

 

c) Reasonably priced ruler flat system that can be adjusted through EQ to sound any way you choose.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_c) Reasonably priced ruler flat system that can be adjusted through EQ to sound any way you choose.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Why would you want to use EQ'ing? Is that not like taking a piece of plastic and bending it while hoping that it will go back to its original shape? I read an article on the IEEE Spectrum website that talked about pitch shifting. The general impression that I got was that it is a bad idea usually. Is EQ'ing not similar to this idea?


----------



## bigshot

Pitching is nothing like EQing. It's totally possible to change an EQ and then adjust it back to balanced. The RIAA did it for many years with LPs.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Pitching is nothing like EQing. It's totally possible to change an EQ and then adjust it back to balanced. The RIAA did it for many years with LPs.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Both can modulate frequencies so they sound abnormal, this is actually why the reversal process for phonostages is rated in db of RIAA accuracy, since frequencies are complex you cannot fully accentuate one over the other one with even a parabolic eq and not have problems. This is why the reversal process is so important and why the best phonostages, used for archival purposes, are extremely accurate, have immense bandwidth, high current, in order to sound amazing. In fact some use an active system to achieve this. Some phonostages even have switching to go back and forth between different eq standards like Decca, 78, etc., but the point is they try to undo as much of the eq process as possible. It sounds horrible when it isn't accurately reversed and some of the eq is still in effect.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Both can modulate frequencies so they sound abnormal, this is actually why the reversal process for phonostages is rated in db of RIAA accuracy_

 

"db of RIAA accuracy"?! What does that mean? Are you trying to say that the degree of accuracy of the reversal of the RIAA equalization curve is measured in decibels? Or simply that the RIAA provides a specification for the EQ uses a decibel scale? Either way, what does the fact that the RIAA curve have to do with "modulating" frequencies?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some phonostages even have switching to go back and forth between different eq standards like Decca, 78, etc., but the point is they try to undo as much of the eq process as possible. It sounds horrible when it isn't accurately reversed and some of the eq is still in effect._

 

It seems as if you are trying to construct the following argument:

 1. Phonostages undo the EQ that is applied pursuant to the RIAA EQ curve.

 2. Records sound bad when the RIAA EQ curve is not fully reversed.

 3. Therefore, all EQ is bad.

 Is this your argument? If so, it is a fallacious argument. The RIAA EQ curve is applied for specific purposes (such as reducing the bass to prevent the cutter from making large excursions when cutting the record) and with the specific intention that those changes will be corrected during playback. The RIAA EQ curve was not meant to be listened to during playback, so it is not surprising if records sound bad if that correction is not made. But you cannot extrapolate from that process that using EQ for other purposes, such as to correct for room characteristics or to adjust for listener preference, is bad.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"db of RIAA accuracy"?! What does that mean? Are you trying to say that the degree of accuracy of the reversal of the RIAA equalization curve is measured in decibels? Or simply that the RIAA provides a specification for the EQ uses a decibel scale? Either way, what does the fact that the RIAA curve have to do with "modulating" frequencies?



 It seems as if you are trying to construct the following argument:

 1. Phonostages undo the EQ that is applied pursuant to the RIAA EQ curve.

 2. Records sound bad when the RIAA EQ curve is not fully reversed.

 3. Therefore, all EQ is bad.

 Is this your argument? If so, it is a fallacious argument. The RIAA EQ curve is applied for specific purposes (such as reducing the bass to prevent the cutter from making large excursions when cutting the record) and with the specific intention that those changes will be corrected during playback. The RIAA EQ curve was not meant to be listened to during playback, so it is not surprising if records sound bad if that correction is not made. But you cannot extrapolate from that process that using EQ for other purposes, such as to correct for room characteristics or to adjust for listener preference, is bad._

 

Yes it is measured in +/- db of accuracy. I always stray away from using EQ. I have heard probably the best implementation of room correction in the world, on Lyngdorf demonstrations It was ok but not great, EQ is based on the presumption that we only hear fundamental frequencies, which isn't the case, when you use it you tend to attenuate certain harmonics. This is why getting right on vinyl is so critical. Vinyl can sound amazing with the right phonostage, bass and all. Some of the most articulate bass I have heard has been on vinyl. The reason the RIAA curve rolls it off is because bass waves require higher amplitude in db to be audible, this manefests itself in having a groove that is too large to fit within the confines of a disc. The phonostage has to be very accurate in order to get aspects of the music back that can make vinyl sound better than CD! This is why it is critical and why eq can be destructive. Now I have to deal with room acoustics every day, I can honestly tell you better positioning of speakers, room treatments, and non reflective speakers do a much better job at solving this problem than EQ. many speakers have a bass attenuation switch that allow you to minimize back waves that room acoustics cannot support, This is a far better method than EQ and I don't know many designers who would disagree.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The reason the RIAA curve rolls it off is because bass waves require higher amplitude in db to be audible, this manefests itself in having a groove that is too large to fit within the confines of a disc._

 

Yes, I said the same thing in my last post.

  Quote:


 The phonostage has to be very accurate in order to get aspects of the music back that can make vinyl sound better than CD! This is why it is critical and why eq can be destructive. 
 

Your conclusion that "this is why ... eq can be destructive" does not follow from the discussion that precedes it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_many speakers have a bass attenuation switch that allow you to minimize back waves that room acoustics cannot support, This is a far better method than EQ and I don't know many designers who would disagree._

 

You realize that _*is*_ a form of EQ, right?


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Yes it is measured in +/- db of accuracy. I always stray away from using EQ._

 

Unless it is the RIAA EQ necessary to restore the amplitude of the bass to the proper level, I presume? In the analog domain, that involves filters, same as EQ in any other part of the audible band, and has the same potential for phase anomalies, etc. etc. That's why some methods for ripping vinyl to digital don't involve an analog filter, but simply do it digitally.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ .... EQ is based on the presumption that we only hear fundamental frequencies, which isn't the case, when you use it you tend to attenuate certain harmonics._

 

Please explain this part a bit more......why does EQ presume that we hear only the fundamentals? All EQ ensures is that the system has proper amplitude response versus frequency, regardless of whether the input signal contains fundamentals or harmonics.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ ..... many speakers have a bass attenuation switch that allow you to minimize back waves that room acoustics cannot support, This is a far better method than EQ and I don't know many designers who would disagree._

 

And that switch changes the filter configuration......so it invokes some form of EQ.

 If one wants to hear accurate low bass in any typical home listening room--without a lot of nodes and lumps in the response--it is physically impossible to achieve that without EQ. There is simply no way around it, even with traps and absorbers, because the room dimensions are the critical variable that cannot be taken out of the response.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Both can modulate frequencies so they sound abnormal, this is actually why the reversal process for phonostages is rated in db of RIAA accuracy, since frequencies are complex you cannot fully accentuate one over the other one with even a parabolic eq and not have problems. This is why the reversal process is so important and why the best phonostages, used for archival purposes, are extremely accurate, have immense bandwidth, high current, in order to sound amazing. In fact some use an active system to achieve this. Some phonostages even have switching to go back and forth between different eq standards like Decca, 78, etc., but the point is they try to undo as much of the eq process as possible. It sounds horrible when it isn't accurately reversed and some of the eq is still in effect._

 

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. You're wandering all over the topic. An equalization curve can be applied and subtracted again with no damage to the signal. Repitching involves significant resampling, and can't be reversed without artifacting. Pitching and EQing are two different things.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_EQ is based on the presumption that we only hear fundamental frequencies_

 

You don't know what you're talking about. The whole purpose of achieving a flat frequency response is so the harmonics are in proper proportion to the fundamentals. This eliminates masking of the harmonics that you frequently run across in unbalanced systems.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## uraflit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_of course, this article assumes that there is a difference among power units/conditioners, support racks and isolation devices, and cables and that going up the chain if smartly done translates to real and tangible improvements in sound quality. a good article overall._

 

the only ASSumption i'll ever need to hear 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 i'm not demoting the significance of a quality cable/power supply/etc, but i'm also not promoting it either =D


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 You realize that *is* a form of EQ, right?_

 

actually what I am talking about is a manipulation built into a speaker's design parameters for it's crossover. Arguably EQ is a form of filtration, but not all filtration is EQ, while crossovers have some similarities, they are different in function and design and also usually speaker specific. They also must have wide band functionality. However, in frequencies above 1200Hz crossovers and any filtration can still be heard and present inherent problems. Psycho-acoustically speaking humans can detect subtle harmonic and amplitude changes caused by any form of filtration. This is exactly why many designers have started using a completely crossover-less designs, or have a very low crossover point, you can see this being used in numerous loudspeakers especially planars, electrostats, and those speakers using super tweeters. In bass regions it is far harder to detect such changes, but still I would argue it is better to use a sub with a superlative crossover, than using any from of EQ in a system to correct bass wave problems, which are the typical problems plaguing most systems. EQ cannot balance a system that is already inferior to begin with, most likely it will just emphasize other frequencies, because the design of the system cannot support a balanced playback. Also, I think the reason many of us like headphones is because they are also a crossover-less, and filter-less design and don't have as many frequency gaps and crossover based distortion. Just a thought.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_actually what I am talking about is a manipulation built into a speaker's design parameters for it's crossover. Arguably EQ is a form of filtration, but not all filtration is EQ,_

 

But the specific filter application that you are referring to IS a form of EQ.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

No, the switches on most speakers that just control bass, usually are tied to the crossover, typically on active pro monitors there is a form of line level EQ. Typically on passive speakers the types of switches I am referring to only operate +/- 1-3 db in the below 100Hz or less region. It is via a crossover, not a form of parametric, graphic, parabolic, or any other types of line level EQ. That is a difference and it is a pretty crucial one. If you want to define crossover manipulation in the general category of EQ, you have that right. However, most of us in the industry see them as two different things.


----------



## bigshot

Just sitting and whistling until we come back around to which is more destructive, pitch resampling or simple EQ adjustments- and how equalizing doesn't involve harmonics...

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

and how equalizing doesn't involve harmonics...

 Spoken like a true pro. Both destroy harmonic complexity, this is how they are linked, by the way ever wonder why guitar though an eventide can start to sound like a key board if you over use it? That is because it destroys the key harmonic characteristics that make it sound like a guitar. EQ has similar effects, and when overused can make things sound very hollow. The reason is both accentuate certain fundamental. frequencies to the point of attenuating harmonics. in the case of pitch shifting it has to do with a limitation of the technology as it exists today. Perhaps if it used higher sampling rates and didn't just try to shift the fundamentals it wouldn't be prone to as many problems as it is. Any filtration you do in certain frequency ranges negatively effects how it is going to sound. This is true, for EQ, crossovers, and pitch shifters. next you are going to tell me it is better to use a compressor to deal with headroom issues in mic pres, then just buying a mic pre with more headroom. using EQ to fix a problem is much like using a band-aid for a stab wound, or better yet CPR for a bullet wound to the head. It would also seem that perhaps you don't believe that a recording should be faithful to the original event or sound of an instrument, or if you will pertaining to fidelus in Latin, fidelity in English, and Fi in Head-Fi and HiFi. If you really think we shouldn't be faithful to music as it should sound, then perhaps this isn't the right thread for you. If some of us would like to legitimately discuss tweaks, cables, jitter treatments, let us do so in peace so we can actually dialog with people who care about it, instead of you guys bombarding us to try to tell us it doesn't matter, or implying we are delusional, and wasting our money without even trying it yourself first. None of you have actually said "I debunked the voodoo because I have conducted a personal listening test myself." So please leave those of us that care alone so we can have a constructive conversation about these topics.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Typically on passive speakers the types of switches I am referring to only operate +/- 1-3 db in the below 100Hz or less region._

 

So it's a high-pass filter.


----------



## sejarzo

HiFi, please try to take a breath and understand that you are missing our point.........we are discussing EQ in *playback*, not during recording, and that's a totally different issue!!!!

 Let's say a listening room has a severe node at 2.5 kHz. Any musical sound, regardless of whether it's the fundamental, harmonic, or subharmonic, that is present in the recording at 2.5 kHz is going be attenuated as a result. EQ during playback simply ensures that whatever was present in the source is back in the proper proportion as in the source, that's all. Whether a divergence from flat response at the ear is due to the electronics or the room is irrelevant.

 You really cannot fix the room entirely in most residential situations with treatments--I know, I have tried repeatedly. I had to return a TacT unit to the seller due to a problem.....but during the few minutes that it worked, the stereo image and depth were improved immensely.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_HiFi, please try to take a breath and understand that you are missing our point.........we are discussing EQ in *playback*, not during recording, and that's a totally different issue!!!!

 Let's say a listening room has a severe node at 2.5 kHz. Any musical sound, regardless of whether it's the fundamental, harmonic, or subharmonic, that is present in the recording at 2.5 kHz is going be attenuated as a result. EQ during playback simply ensures that whatever was present in the source is back in the proper proportion as in the source, that's all. Whether a divergence from flat response at the ear is due to the electronics or the room is irrelevant.

 You really cannot fix the room entirely in most residential situations with treatments--I know, I have tried repeatedly. I had to return a TacT unit to the seller due to a problem.....but during the few minutes that it worked, the stereo image and depth were improved immensely._

 

I understand that, however EQ will take away much of the information, it isn't ideal by any standard for recording or playback, I did mention before that I stray away from using it, I don't completely rule it out, but it is far from ideal. chances are if you have a node like that you have a very reflective room, and perhaps the EQ cures the problem on a surface level, some rooms are just horrible for playback, especially if there are a lot of smooth hard surfaces. There are other options in terms of speakers that actually address room reflection, but I can tell when you do not add any filtration especially above 1200Hz it can make a world of difference in imaging, decay, musicality, fluidity, harmonic complexity. It is as many of the designers of the products I sell say, the best cross over is no crossover, but basically designers have to make a choice that involves a compromise between the more ideal, and driver distortion. If the industry could create a single driver that reproduces .5hz to 100kHz at 140db in SPL they probably would, but current materials design and structure prevent us from doing such a thing. Eventually I think this will happen. Again this is why many on this forum love headphones, because they can reproduce a full spectrum of sound without using a crossover and aren't really effected by room acoustics. I have heard probably one of the best room treatments on the market, the Lyngdorf system. It incorporates room EQ and adjustment inside components, but while it was good, and had a dramatic effect. It still didn't sound as good as an ideal system without room distortions.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_EQ has similar effects, and when overused can make things sound very hollow. The reason is both accentuate certain fundamental. frequencies to the point of attenuating harmonics._

 

Every frequency in a recording contains both fundamentals AND harmonics from frequencies lower in the spectrum. If you boost the fundamental, you boost the harmonic along with it. The goal of equalization is to achieve a flat response, which eliminates frequency masking of the harmonics. This REVEALS harmonics, it doesn't attentuate them. (Google "frequency masking" if you don't know what this means.)

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_in the case of pitch shifting it has to do with a limitation of the technology as it exists today. Perhaps if it used higher sampling rates and didn't just try to shift the fundamentals it wouldn't be prone to as many problems as it is._

 

Where did you get the idea that shifting fundamentals doesn't involve shifting the harmonics? They're all in there together. The reason that pitch shifting can sound bad is because you are taking a finite amount of samples in a 44.1/16 recording and stretching them out to a different length. The audio program needs to interpolate between the samples to extend it. That is entirely different than simply adjusting the levels of various frequencies through EQing.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It would also seem that perhaps you don't believe that a recording should be faithful to the original event or sound of an instrument_

 

OK... now you're setting up straw men. If you want to continue this conversation, get honest.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ It still didn't sound as good as an ideal system without room distortions._

 

There is no ideal room without distortions......that's a physical impossibility. You *cannot* get around the fact that the dimensions of a typical home room prevent flat bass response, regardless of the amount/shape/location of trapping. All rooms have tons of nodes, and they exist at different frequencies depending on location. All it takes is listening to a slow frequency sweep at different spots in the room. If you "fix" things at one location, you accentuate the problem at another. This is an inescapable fact.

 The reason I like headphones isn't the lack of a crossover--it's because they remove the room from the response.


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Unless it is the RIAA EQ necessary to restore the amplitude of the bass to the proper level, I presume? In the analog domain, that involves filters, same as EQ in any other part of the audible band, and has the same potential for phase anomalies, etc. etc. That's why some methods for ripping vinyl to digital don't involve an analog filter, but simply do it digitally.



 Please explain this part a bit more......why does EQ presume that we hear only the fundamentals? All EQ ensures is that the system has proper amplitude response versus frequency, regardless of whether the input signal contains fundamentals or harmonics.



 And that switch changes the filter configuration......so it invokes some form of EQ.

 If one wants to hear accurate low bass in any typical home listening room--without a lot of nodes and lumps in the response--it is physically impossible to achieve that without EQ. There is simply no way around it, even with traps and absorbers, because the room dimensions are the critical variable that cannot be taken out of the response._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Every frequency in a recording contains both fundamentals AND harmonics from frequencies lower in the spectrum. If you boost the fundamental, you boost the harmonic along with it. The goal of equalization is to achieve a flat response, which eliminates frequency masking of the harmonics. This REVEALS harmonics, it doesn't attentuate them. (Google "frequency masking" if you don't know what this means.)



 Where did you get the idea that shifting fundamentals doesn't involve shifting the harmonics? They're all in there together. The reason that pitch shifting can sound bad is because you are taking a finite amount of samples in a 44.1/16 recording and stretching them out to a different length. The audio program needs to interpolate between the samples to extend it. That is entirely different than simply adjusting the levels of various frequencies through EQing.



 OK... now you're setting up straw men. If you want to continue this conversation, get honest.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

When you say fundamentals and harmonics, are you saying that the harmonics ring out lower than the fundamental frequency? If that is the case, that is wrong. The harmonic series builds up upon itself. Also, in doing EQ'ing and frequency shifting, you would generally use a filter. Given that EQ'ing filters out certain frequencies to alter that specific frequency, it would more than likely use a series of notch filters. Now, to make the signal clean, you would probably have many poles and zeroes in the design of that notch filter or a filter of similar design. Doing so allows for greater control of the frequency being modified, but it comes at a price. That is, because you are filtering that frequency for the sake of amplification or attenuation, you are choking out other frequencies from the point of view of that frequency. So, if I was to change the basic characteristics of your tuning A or 440Hz, normally you would think that I would change the other higher harmonics. However, since I am filtering out all of those other frequencies just so that I can isolate the one frequency, those frequencies are choked off and pretty much die. Now, I can add more filters in to allow for those frequencies, but there are several problems here as well. For example, tempering causes some interesting problems for the harmonic series. Normally, I would say that as I go up the octaves, the octaves are actually octaves, right? This is not the case though. The octaves, like those on a piano, are slightly detuned to give that "perfect" tempering sound that the human ear likes. This means that I would have to take this into consideration with every design that I have on all twelve notes in the chromatic scale for just a single octave. This is harder than you would think. In addition, you would have to allow for chords and other complexities that are played in most music. So, you essentially will wind up with a choked sound that sounds muffled and crowded, which I have heard from playing with EQ'ing on my computer. Either that, or the sound just sounds too bright and tinny. 

 Concerning the samples on the CD, you should still get the same translation of the sound. What you are proposing would essentially change the frequency and the tone along with many other characteristics of the sound. It should all be time dependent regardless of the domain (i.e., Laplace, frequency, time) you are in. These are all translatable.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When you say fundamentals and harmonics, are you saying that the harmonics ring out lower than the fundamental frequency?_

 

No. You aren't listening. If you'd like me to explain the basic theories behind equalization, I'd be happy to. But you have to try to follow what I'm saying and not wander off into tangents.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Actually Big Shot, Forsaken Sound just did, and he is an ENGR so... yeah, I think he might understand it a little bit better than you or I do. What he just explained wasn't a tangent at all but actually an in depth look at how it works in circuit design principle. Plus you still haven't answered how EQ could possible balance out imbalanced equipment, if a component cannot support a certain frequency range why would boosting the frequencies it cannot support actually help it, all it would do would cause more types of distortion. how many EQ's could actually boost 9th order harmonics on something that cannot play them back with fundamental frequencies?


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually Big Shot, Forsaken Sound just did, and he is an ENGR so..._

 

Really? Has he graduated and received his professional certification since this thread began?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The octaves, like those on a piano, are slightly detuned to give that "perfect" tempering sound that the human ear likes._

 

On a piano tuned to equal temperament, each successive octave is in fact a 2:1 ratio compared the lower octave. For example, on an equal-tempered piano, A has a frequency of 27.5 Hz, 55 Hz, 110 Hz, 220 Hz, 440 Hz, 880 Hz, etc. It is the ratio between other intervals that is adjusted in equal temperament, not the octave ratio. For example, a just-tempered minor third has a ratio of 6:5 (i.e., 1.200). In equal temperament, that interval is 1.89207, so on a piano, the pitch of a minor third is adjusted somewhat compared to what it would be in just temperament.

 (Unless you are talking about stretched octaves, which is a different issue from temperament. Regardless, this has little to do with equalization.)


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually Big Shot, Forsaken Sound just did, and he is an ENGR so... yeah, I think he might understand it a little bit better than you or I do._

 

I didn't intend to comment on what he might know or not know. It was a friendly suggestion to try organizing his thoughts a bit better. When you're trying to get a thought across to someone, it helps to be on point and not wander off into tangents.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Plus you still haven't answered how EQ could possible balance out imbalanced equipment, if a component cannot support a certain frequency range why would boosting the frequencies it cannot support actually help it, all it would do would cause more types of distortion. how many EQ's could actually boost 9th order harmonics on something that cannot play them back with fundamental frequencies?_

 

Your question here isn't about equalization. It's about the ability of full range frequency response (20Hz-20kHz) to reproduce music. I'll answer that first, then I'll answer how equalization affects harmonics...

 The obvious answer to the first part of the question is that human hearing doesn't extend beyond 20Hz to 20kHz. Studies indicate that although some people might be able to perceive sound pressure above 20kHz, it doesn't add at all to their appreciation of music. In fact, there have been studies that show that the range between 10kHz and 20kHz can be filtered out entirely and the majority of people will not perceive that as being a problem with the sound.

 Now for the more scientific answer to the first question... The core fundamental frequencies of musical instruments lie between 30Hz and a little under 10kHz. That allows a full octave headroom above (and half an octave below) the range of fundamental frequencies. If I've done my math correctly, I believe a octave equates to five levels of harmonics. Ninth order harmonics would be covered on all but the very highest instruments.

 But not having nine levels of harmonics on a piccolo isn't serious at all. The higher order of the harmonics, the lower the volume of it, so a first level harmonic is much more important to the sound than a ninth. After a full octave, you aren't going to be hearing very much. A cymbal crash may have harmonics above 20kHz, but it's buried under the clash of MUCH louder fundamental and a bunch of other louder harmonics. The 20-20 response of redbook is plenty to reproduce everything needed for reproducing music in the home.

 As for the question "How can an equalizer boost frequencies that aren't there?" the obvious answer is, it won't. But it will balance the ones that *are* there. And if you balance the fundamentals, the harmonics in the audible spectrum will fall in line along right along with them. When you balance your response, the harmonics will become clearer, because frequency masking won't be blocking them. Flatter is better.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really? Has he graduated and received his professional certification since this thread began?



 On a piano tuned to equal temperament, each successive octave is in fact a 2:1 ratio compared the lower octave. For example, on an equal-tempered piano, A has a frequency of 27.5 Hz, 55 Hz, 110 Hz, 220 Hz, 440 Hz, 880 Hz, etc. It is the ratio between other intervals that is adjusted in equal temperament, not the octave ratio. For example, a just-tempered minor third has a ratio of 6:5 (i.e., 1.200). In equal temperament, that interval is 1.89207, so on a piano, the pitch of a minor third is adjusted somewhat compared to what it would be in just temperament.

 (Unless you are talking about stretched octaves, which is a different issue from temperament. Regardless, this has little to do with equalization.)_

 

No, I have not graduated yet, but that is beside the point because I am studying circuit design and things of the sort given that my concentration is in electrical. 

 When I speak of temperament, I am talking about well temperament, not equal temperament. Well temperament allows for key changes without sounding out of tune. Equal temperament does not. Pianos are generally tuned with well temperament, not equal temperament.

 Bigshot, I was reading and paying attention to what you said. I needed clarification on the idea of whether or not you thought that the fundamental rang down or up. For example, if the fundamental was 256Hz, is the next harmonic at 512Hz or 128Hz? If you believe the latter, I must say that that is incorrect. Also, I do understand how EQ'ing works. I was trying to give a more technical explanation of how it would be done from an engineering perspective. There is a lot of complex math involved here. Without those calculations and graphs, sometimes it can be difficult to show how things work.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well temperament allows for key changes without sounding out of tune. Equal temperament does not._

 

You are wrong. Equal temperament is a form of well temperament. You are mistakenly using the term "equal temperament" to mean "just intonation." Equal temperament allows for modulation without sounding out of tune. For example:

  Quote:


 The advantage of this equal tempered scale over a just toned scale may not be apparent at first. In fact, harmonies played on a just tone scale may sound purer because of the total absence of any beats produced by the natural intervals. But it becomes clear when harmonies are shifted to other keys. The intervals between the notes of a just toned scale are not constant. When the patterns of intervals making up a chord are shifted in key in a just toned scale, the intervals within the chord are shifted very slightly, resulting in some chords with beats that can clash quite badly. *In an equal tempered scale, chords can be shifted at will without harmful effect.*


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I needed clarification on the idea of whether or not you thought that the fundamental rang down or up. For example, if the fundamental was 256Hz, is the next harmonic at 512Hz or 128Hz?_

 

The first octave harmonic is at double the frequency. But when people around here talk about "9th level of harmonics" they aren't talking about octave harmonics, they're talking approximately five levels per octave.

 I didn't follow the rest of your previous post, but if you were trying to say that it isn't possible to design a clean sounding equalizer, I have one in my system that proves that isn't correct.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Forsaken Sound

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are wrong. Equal temperament is a form of well temperament. You are mistakenly using the term "equal temperament" to mean "just intonation." Equal temperament allows for modulation without sounding out of tune. For example:_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The first octave harmonic is at double the frequency. But when people around here talk about "9th level of harmonics" they aren't talking about octave harmonics, they're talking approximately five levels per octave.

 I didn't follow the rest of your previous post, but if you were trying to say that it isn't possible to design a clean sounding equalizer, I have one in my system that proves that isn't correct.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

When I refer to equal temperament, I refer to the idea of ratios. Ideally, those ratios are mathematically perfect. However, we do not perceive them as so. As you parse up the harmonic series as you ascend, you will find that you need to detune the notes. For example, in a major C chord, you will need to flatten the third in the chord for it to sound correct. This is the result of well temperament. The human ear and mind will perceive this as being in tune despite the fact that the note, when played by itself, is out of tune. Mathematically speaking, this is incorrect. However, the human mind says that it is correct. It is kind of similar to playing a tune in a different scale, an exotic one, that has a tonic that sounds different. For example, French pieces of music tend to finish on the 7th of the piece, not the octave, which sounds in poor taste to those of us who are not used to it. Well tempering will allow for that modulation to take place without having to re-tune an instrument. With well temperament, it is possible to modulate within the same piece and not have 24 instruments to do it for every key. This is why J.S. Bach's piece "A Well-Tempered Clavier" is considered to be so important because it utilized this concept. 

 I was not saying that it does not sound clean, but rather that it sounds like the overall sound is missing something. At least with solid state, creating a system that can find all of the harmonics correctly does not seem possible. Plus, I prefer not dealing with DSPs to perform such tasks because that is probably what would be necessary to do it "correctly."


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When I refer to equal temperament, I refer to the idea of ratios._

 

As I said earlier, you are using this term incorrectly, or, at least, you are not articulating your point accurately. I had typed a longer response, but we're getting so far away from the point of the discussion that I'll just summarize it as follows:

 1. Just intonation builds the major scale on the following intervals: Root 1:1, Second 9:8, Third 6:5, Fourth 4:3, Fifth 3:2, Sixth 8:5, Seventh 9:5, Octave 2:1. 

 2. This can result in certain notes having different pitches in different keys. For example, the frequency of D# in an B major scale is not the same as the Eb in an Eb scale, though Western music considers these notes to be enharmonically equivalent. 

 3. Well temperament adjusts the frequencies of certain intervals to allow all 12 keys to be played without having any particular note or interval be unacceptably out of tune, at the expense of having certain notes be slightly out of tune.

 4. Equal temperament is a subset of well temperament in which the notes of an octave are divided into exactly 12 equal intervals.

  Quote:


 For example, in a major C chord, you will need to flatten the third in the chord for it to sound correct. This is the result of well temperament. The human ear and mind will perceive this as being in tune despite the fact that the note, when played by itself, is out of tune. Mathematically speaking, this is incorrect. However, the human mind says that it is correct. 
 

The difficulty that I have with this statement is that you are not defining your tuning system. In a tuning system using just intonation, the third in a C major chord will in fact be a 5:4 ratio (_ie_, exactly 1.25) and will be perceived by the human ear as in tune. In the equal temperament system, however, that same interval has a ratio of 1.25991, which is slightly sharp compared to the "pure" interval of 5:4.

 Probably most significant for this discussion (to the extent that any of this is significant at all) are two facts: (a) in an equal temperament system, the octaves are an exact 2:1 ratio apart (with the example of stretched tuning at the extreme ends of the piano keyboard, which has to do with the mechanics of piano strings and not temperament) and (b) modern pianos are tuned to equal temperament. So, your initial assertion, that octaves on a piano "are slightly detuned to give that 'perfect' tempering sound that the human ear likes" is not accurate.

 Again, however, tuning systems and the relative benefits of equal temperament and well temperament have little to do with the implementation of equalization. They may be relevant if you are designing a pitch-shifting program or a harmonizer. However, let's say you are simply using an equalizer to correct a node in your listening room that emphasizes, for example, 440 Hz. Why would it matter to the design of that equalizer that the C sharp above that node has a frequency of 554.36524 Hz in a 20th Century tuning system but only 550 Hz in a 17th Century tuning system?

  Quote:


 For example, French pieces of music tend to finish on the 7th of the piece, not the octave, which sounds in poor taste to those of us who are not used to it. Well tempering will allow for that modulation to take place without having to re-tune an instrument. 
 

Ending a song on the seventh degree of a scale is not a modulation. But this is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Likewise, while I do not dispute the historical importance of Bach's Well-Tempered Klavier to Western music, I do not see that it has any relevance to the design of an equalizer.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Forsaken Sound* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was not saying that it does not sound clean, but rather that it sounds like the overall sound is missing something. At least with solid state, creating a system that can find all of the harmonics correctly does not seem possible._

 

Again, I have a nice pro grade Rane EQ that says you are wrong about that. The harmonics are right there in the recording along with the fundamentals. If you balance the fundamentals, you are balancing the harmonics as well.

 Equalizers are standard equipment in recording studios. They're an important tool for recording engineers, and they can be an important tool for playback as well. The clear and obvious improvements of balancing frequency response outweighs your theoretical reservations by many orders of magnitude.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

Bigshot you are just wrong, the best playback equipment in the world doesn't have EQ whatsoever, I should know I sell it. The only application for it is in room correction, which doesn't really sound very good. I actually have used Rane EQs and they are crap, not to mention the fact that any solid state equipment actually filters out even order harmonics. This is widely known. If you actually think that CD with its 20kHz brick wall filter actually sounds anything like real life, and think that anything above 10kHz indiscernible, you clearly are either deaf or have a mental disorder. I have read numerous studies that suggest that humans hear sub harmonics of ultrasonic frequencies. SACD can go up to 100kHZ and sound superlative, when not filtered and in a wide bandwidth system. There are also microphones made by MKH that go up to 50kHz, most loudspeaker manufacturers are now using super tweeters that go above 20kHz because they understand that we can hear a difference, wide bandwidth is a good thing, I get pretty angry when I hear pros spouting off information that has cumulatively made the vast majority of recordings sound like they are choking for air, between all of the compression, EQ, sonic maximizing, it all sounds like crap. It has forced many audiophiles to seek out other recordings and formats which have been mastered by people who don't commoditize music but still try to reproduce it as a discernible art, and a live event. Between the loudness wars, radio edits, and idiot producers using triggers for toms, and harmonizing the crap out of vocals with an eventide then compressing the hell out of it, your profession has raped the soul and emotion out of music. Do you know how much money I have spent on re-mastered recordings because of this? The pedantic views that you and the vast majority of your peers share have made me hate the squeaks and pops you guys try to pass off as music and ruin the recordings of some of my favorite bands. This has also made people like Walter Sear a legend and a hero to audiophiles because he refuses to compromise, and actually knows what he is talking about. I recommend you crawl out of the cave you call your studio space go to a high end audio store and actually listen to music as it was meant to be listened to.


----------



## meat01

HiFi, you really should learn about paragraphs.

 It is all about enjoying the music. If that includes using an EQ, then so be it. If someone enjoys the bass turned all the way to the right, then so be it. I would rather have an EQ in my system and hear the music the way I like it, then listen to recording flat, because that is the way the high end folks or audiophiles do it.

 Everyday, I hear someone saying that you should let your own ears decide what sounds good and if it sounds good to you, then it doesn't matter what others think. Now Bigshot is wrong, because he prefers an EQ and doesn't listen to music the way the audiophiles listen. In case you didn't know, music is subjective and there is no right or wrong way to listen to music. You can buy your expensive cables and expensive recordings with your expensive equipment and Bigshot can buy his EQ and listen to his music on his budget system.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_HiFi, you really should learn about paragraphs.

 It is all about enjoying the music. If that includes using an EQ, then so be it. If someone enjoys the bass turned all the way to the right, then so be it. I would rather have an EQ in my system and hear the music the way I like it, then listen to recording flat, because that is the way the high end folks or audiophiles do it.

 Everyday, I hear someone saying that you should let your own ears decide what sounds good and if it sounds good to you, then it doesn't matter what others think. Now Bigshot is wrong, because he prefers an EQ and doesn't listen to music the way the audiophiles listen. In case you didn't know, music is subjective and there is no right or wrong way to listen to music. You can buy your expensive cables and expensive recordings with your expensive equipment and Bigshot can buy his EQ and listen to his music on his budget system._

 

You know, I don't think I've _ever_ seen a hobby where people just flat-out _ignore_ proof/science/measurements, and where they just _listen to their ears_.

 It's almost mind boggling.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I should know I sell it._

 

You don't appear to know much about audio beyond the sales pitch. Since you feel free to comment on my profession, I'm happy to say that just about every single high end stereo salesman I have ever met is misinformed at best, and downright deceitful at worst. That's a nice way of saying they are all either dumb or crooked. The dumb ones are that way because they refuse to think, not because they aren't capable of thinking. They are easily ignored. I would classify the crooked ones as three notches below lawyers, two below used car salesmen and one below TV evangelists. They make the most noise and are hardest to tune out.

 Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I'll move on to the topic...

 No system at any price point has flat response. Audiophile systems are just as imbalanced and colored as midpriced ones. A speaker can have perfectly flat response in the store, and the second you put it in your house, it gets wonky. If you aren't correcting, you aren't flat, regardless of how much money you waste on reproducing frequencies you can't hear. In addition to that, most music nowadays isn't calibrated for a proper response curve. You HAVE to be able to adjust it if you want good sound. A good equalizer is just about as transparent a piece of audio equipment and has the highest bang for the buck improvement ratio as you can get. I know about my Rane, because I've done A/B testing to check if flat on the dial really sounds the same as no equalizer in the chain at all. (it does.)

 A stereo system without equalization or tone controls (yow!) is like a car without a steering wheel. It's just plain stupid.

 See ya
 Steve

 By the way, I agree with you about hot mastering and over processing. They are the reason that music sounds bad, not because of the lack of frequencies so high only bats can hear them or the use of equalization to properly calibrate frequency response.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bigshot can buy his EQ and listen to his music on his budget system._

 

I wish all of my system was budget priced! I've spent a lot on some areas of my system. I just don't waste money on things that don't make a difference.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You know, I don't think I've ever seen a hobby where people just flat-out ignore proof/science/measurements, and where they just listen to their ears._

 

Listening is important. But you need to know why you hear what you hear, and you have to realize what you can't hear. Until you do that, you just flail about and bleed money.

 Understanding what you hear means no one needs to say sorry about your wallet to you.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## jpelg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_most music nowadays isn't calibrated for a proper response curve._

 

What exactly does that mean, Steve?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What exactly does that mean, Steve?_

 

In the era before digital audio, every studio had basically the same type of studio monitor speakers, which were carefully calibrated through equalization to put out a balanced response in that particular room. This meant that a recording that was recorded on the East coast sounded pretty much the same to the engineer when it was mixed and mastered on the West coast. If you listen to LPs from the 50s and 60s, there is remarkable consistency. Once you balance the output of your playback system, you rarely need to make much of an adjustment at all to the bass and treble. Flat sounds great.

 Today, with the proliferation of home studios and engineers who mix on consumer grade bookshelf speakers, the response is all over the map. They argue that they are listening to the speakers that the average consumer will be listening on, but that isn't true, unless the average consumer is using the exact same model of bookshelf speakers in an acoustically identical room. Not too likely.

 When there's no baseline response curve, that means that you have to adjust the calibration of your own system from recording to recording. I can't imagine owning a system with no tone controls. It would sound like crap most of the time.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can't imagine owning a system with no tone controls. It would sound like crap most of the time._

 


 wow... just, wow.


----------



## royalcrown

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would classify the crooked ones as three notches below lawyers, two below used car salesmen and one below TV evangelists. They make the most noise and are hardest to tune out._

 







 Way to dash my hopes and dreams about majoring in law. I already sent out my applications to college too...

 Just kidding. Sort of an on-topic question though, to balance out my offtopicness: can an EQ be used with headphones, or does it apply to speakers mainly?


----------



## hempcamp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_wow... just, wow._

 

Why the shock? Assuming you can actually hear the difference between quality amps, quality DACs, and cables, you are essentially using a "tone control" -- albeit a very clumsy and in most cases overpriced one.

 No recording engineer in his right mind would fail to use tone controls in producing music (either electronically or digitally), so why would it be shocking for someone to use tone controls on the user end?

 (In full disclosure, I don't use tone controls. I'm happy going flat with most of the recordings I regularly listen to.)

 --Chris


----------



## Pars

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 No recording engineer in his right mind would fail to use tone controls in producing music (either electronically or digitally), so why would it be shocking for someone to use tone controls on the user end?
 --Chris_

 

I would be pretty shocked if I heard of any tone control / EQ use for a classical recording....


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hempcamp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why the shock? Assuming you can actually hear the difference between quality amps, quality DACs, and cables, you are essentially using a "tone control" -- albeit a very clumsy and in most cases overpriced one.

 No recording engineer in his right mind would fail to use tone controls in producing music (either electronically or digitally), so why would it be shocking for someone to use tone controls on the user end?

 (In full disclosure, I don't use tone controls. I'm happy going flat with most of the recordings I regularly listen to.)

 --Chris_

 

Shock at the notion that "it would sound like crap most of the time".

 That one word, 'would,' says a lot, too.

 Steve, I hope you enjoy your system that sounds like crap most of the time! Go ahead and twiddle the knobs - I'm going to listen to some music...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *royalcrown* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_can an EQ be used with headphones, or does it apply to speakers mainly?_

 

EQ corrects for three things... the lack of balance in the equipment, the lack of balance in the recording itself, and the affect that the room has on the sound. With speakers, you are correcting for all three at once. With headphones, (good ones are normally pretty flat and there's no room to correct for) it isn't as important to EQ as it is for speakers... only needed if the recording itself is imbalanced.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *yotacowboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shock at the notion that "it would sound like crap most of the time"._

 

No system is balanced out of the box. If you want to be able to hear subtle harmonics clearly, the best way to do that is to balance your frequency response. If you've never heard a balanced response, you don't know what I'm talking about I guess.

 I'll temper that word "crap" though. Colored sound can sound OK to some folks, I suppose. Change the line to "It would never sound really great." or "You'd never get the full quality of sound possible out of your system."

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Pars* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would be pretty shocked if I heard of any tone control / EQ use for a classical recording._

 

That depends on the type of recording. A two mike setup would only require a basic correction for the curve of the mike, or a gentle tweak for the acoustics of the hall. Multi-miked setups would require correcting for different kinds of mikes and acoustics at different points in the hall. Most classical music would have far less equalization than close/multi miked popular music, but from what I've heard, Herbert VonKarajan did extensive multi miking and mixing on his later recordings. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he used equalization extensively to create those lush, hyper-produced later recordings with the BPO.

 Signal processing like equalization or compression isn't necessarily bad, even in classical recordings. It just has to be used judiciously, and with the intent of restoring a natural sounding presentation that may have been compromised by the limitations of the response of the recording equipment, or the ability of the conductor and engineers to keep the levels within safe zones.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In the era before digital audio, every studio had basically the same type of studio monitor speakers, which were carefully calibrated through equalization to put out a balanced response in that particular room. This meant that a recording that was recorded on the East coast sounded pretty much the same to the engineer when it was mixed and mastered on the West coast. If you listen to LPs from the 50s and 60s, there is remarkable consistency. Once you balance the output of your playback system, you rarely need to make much of an adjustment at all to the bass and treble. Flat sounds great.

 Today, with the proliferation of home studios and engineers who mix on consumer grade bookshelf speakers, the response is all over the map. They argue that they are listening to the speakers that the average consumer will be listening on, but that isn't true, unless the average consumer is using the exact same model of bookshelf speakers in an acoustically identical room. Not too likely.

 When there's no baseline response curve, that means that you have to adjust the calibration of your own system from recording to recording. I can't imagine owning a system with no tone controls. It would sound like crap most of the time.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Just wondering, how would one go about correctly tuning an EQ? I'm somewhat interested in experiencing it.


----------



## bigshot

That's a huge topic, but in short, the most accurate way is to get a tone generator and run sweeps, looking for peaks and dips. But that isn't practical for most folks.

 However, if you listen for a month or two to well recorded acoustic music and make small adjustments as you go, you'll be able hit the sweet spot eventually. (Pentatone's Stavinsky chamber collection by Jaarvi would be a good disk to use for this.) The thing about masking is, as soon as you hit the right balance, upper frequencies suddenly become clearer. It just takes patience and careful listening.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No system is balanced out of the box. If you want to be able to hear subtle harmonics clearly, the best way to do that is to balance your frequency response. If you've never heard a balanced response, you don't know what I'm talking about I guess._

 

I was formerly of the opinion that all EQ was bad, that it probably fixed some problems at the expense of introducing other (and probably worse!) problems, all the old audiophile lore about "bad EQ". But it's actually headphone listening that has convinced me that the *only *way to get speaker rigs sounding right in typically dimensioned home listening rooms is via some form of EQ.

 My CD-based headphone rig is now Marantz SA8001>CK2III>HD600's; my speaker rig is Marantz SA8001>DIY clone of a well-rated passive preamp>ICEpower monoblocks>Paradigm Studio 40v3's. Not ultra-high-end, probably mid-fi by snobbish audiophile standards, but not terribly shabby by anyone's standards whom I know. My room is acoustically treated, too.






 However, I can almost not stand to listen to the speaker rig now because I now know how accurately timbre and intonation can be reproduced on headphones, and it just ain't happening for me any more with the speaker rig!

 After being limited to headphone listening last year when I was on the road for 7 months, it seems that I have now become extraordinarily aware of comb filtering and other anomalies that persist, regardless of adjustments to speaker positioning (within the limits of the room), moving around the absorbers, adding soft surfaces closer to my ears, etc. etc.....things that are not a consideration when listening on cans.

 It's too bad that the TacT unit that I had for a while last year turned out to be defective and went back to the seller, I guess, because I never was able to hear a proper correction with it for long....but when it did "work" I was impressed with the improvement. The new ones are just too dang expensive!

 OverlordXenu......because I have the 0404 USB, measuring the room is easy and relatively cheap. The Behringer ECM8000 is available for ~$45 and while not ruler flat, it's been proven consistent enough to work well for measuring room sweeps. There's a freeware app called "RoomEQ Wizard" that many folks use to adjust the Behringer Feedback Destroyer and other inexpensive Behringer digital EQ's on only their subwoofers, but it's simple to configure it to measure full 20 Hz to 20 kHz sweeps.

 What you soon discover is that the raw response of a room is ridiculously far from flat, regardless of the quality of the speaker or what its FR curve from the manufacturer looks like. On top of that, in my case, the response of the left and right, which cannot be positioned symmetrically with respect to the side walls due to the configuration of the room, is markedly different in several ranges--not only in the bass and mid-bass as I'd mistakenly presumed. My first realization when facing 5 to 7 dB differences between the channels: "No wonder that solo violin parts that seem well centered in my HD600's wander left-to-right on the speaker rig!!!"

 You even hear the problems in real time if you run a slow sweep--the volume varies quite obviously and at times in a wild, irregular fashion (meaning, it's not just the Fletcher-Munson effect that one detects.) It is also interesting to measure the response at your normal listening position, and again just several feet away......the difference can be huge.


----------



## bigshot

The trick to tuning a room is to get the main listening area balanced. The rest of the room doesn't matter, because it will fall within the normal acoustics of the room and sound the same as if there was a live band where the speakers are. I don't know if I'm stating that clearly, but I don't know exactly how to describe it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## FallenAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ZarakiSan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let's say you purchase a pair of speakers at 400 total (Low-end), a 400 dollar amp, and you use a 400 CD player as well.

 Would those components need interconnects of 600 dollars, speaker cable worth another 400 (That's the same as the speakers) and a $200 power brick?

 NO. WAY. I call bull here as well, this just doesn't make any sense. It's simple that the margins on cables and such are so extraordinarily high (It could cost mroe to make $200 cables than $2000, who'd know the difference? Certainly not the audiophiles!) that he claims this is right. He's trying to make money, just like us all. Lying is a small thing to do._

 

I'd have to agree with this. You would seriously need to use your head and consider the diminishing returns idea. I wouldn't recommend using RadioShack or Monster interconnects and a $8 power cable in a $600 audio system, a nicer pair of BlueJeansCables pair of interconnects and a Quail or Iron Lung power cord would make more sense, but I wouldn't spend another $300 on a power conditioner.

 I think everybody should have one of these and skip the fancy power conditions until you want to start wasting money. Let the religious war begin!


----------



## sejarzo

Complete description right here:

PI 14 Pseudoacoustic Infector

 The perfect component for everyone here.......someone at Rane must have been reading this thread.

 This thing would be a great fifth leg for anyone's golden listening triangle, as long as it had a stout enough power cord attached! Which of course would require a third-party modification as, unfortunately, it doesn't come with an IEC socket.


----------



## bigshot

Ha! That's funny!

 Too bad it's out of stock. I bet there are some folks here on the waiting list.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sejarzo

I heard that it doesn't do a system justice unless you use silver cables, too.


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you've never heard a balanced response, you don't know what I'm talking about I guess._

 

Steve, you got me... I concede. By your own explanation, I cannot possibly hear a balanced response. My personal biases, my propensity for placebo effect, and the fact that my hearing (physiologically, at best, and by the design of the media e.g. the compact disc) is limited in both bandwidth and level specificity, I cannot "hear" the difference between a "balanced" response and an "unbalanced" response.

 so, if the difference between a balanced response and an unbalanced response is potentially beyond my sensory experience, I guess I INDEED have no idea what you're talking about.

 Keep twiddling those knobs!


----------



## bigshot

I should let you know that I'm not patiently replying to your flippant posts, and putting up with your straw men and snide remarks for your benefit... it's clear that you don't listen to what anyone else says. I'm speaking for the benefit of the lurkers who do listen.

 All I'm really curious about is which manufacturers you represent here on Head Fi. You already admitted that you are in the high end audio business.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## yotacowboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I should let you know that I'm not patiently replying to your flippant posts, and putting up with your straw men and snide remarks for your benefit... it's clear that you don't listen to what anyone else says. I'm speaking for the benefit of the lurkers who do listen.

 All I'm really curious about is which manufacturers you represent here on Head Fi. You already admitted that you are in the high end audio business.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Me? Are you serious?

 I don't recall admitting that I have any association with any company, other than being a customer. Rarely, however, do I buy new equipment. If you want I can list all the audio stuff I've bought or built, but I've never gotten anything for free (i did get a REALLY good deal on a used rega P2... but that was a fluke...). Nor do I make and sell anything audio related. I've sold a used DIY cable in the classifieds here once, but not at all for a profit. I've been given an opportunity to beta test an amp for AV123, but that's still in the works. I have not received any product. My input will largely be constructive critique of the industrial design of the product and the subjective sound quality. I have no test equipment other than a Fluke DMM. My opinions of the amp will be shared with the manufacturer ONLY, since it is a pre-production unit.

 Relax, take off the tin-foil hat, and go back to twiddling your knobs.


----------

