Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
I have seen a couple of threads lately that refer to types and sorts of
equipment that near-as-make-no-difference when it comes to the actual sound produced. In my opinion, they include, but are not limited to: Speaker Cables: Within the broad universe of typical home use, speaker cables have no impact whatsoever on sound produced, roughly along these lines: 6 feet (2 meters) or less per run: 16 gauge Zip is fine. 10 feet (3 meters) or less per run: 14ga 10-20 feet (3-7 meters): 12ga And so forth. 20 feet of 12-2 stranded line-cord will run less than $0.75/foot. Add $5 for fancy spade-lugs or banana plugs. Two 20-foot runs: $40. Interconnects (AKA Patch Cords): a decent set of $5/meter patch-cords is as good as anything else available excepting _very_ specific conditions such as may require special shielding or capacitance or impedance matching. Assume the worst case: Power-amp, Pre-amp, CD, Tuner, TT, Tape = five (5) sets of cords. Assume 2 meters per cord: $50. Hospital-Grade Receptacle: $5 Line Cords: Included with equipment Total peripherals cost (that actually carry power or signal): $95. Speaker Stands: Furniture items. Chosen 100% for aesthetics. Speaker Cord Towers: No value CD Players: Any unit with a decent transport and up-to-date DAC Chips will have playback capacities in excess of the quality of what is recorded on the CD. There is no need for any signal-processing elements beyond these very-basics. There is certainly no need for outboard DAC units (excepting needs for additional/other purposes than CD playback), belt-drive transports or anything along those lines. Analog Tuners: A moderate tuner will do more with an excellent antenna than an excellent tuner will do with a moderate antenna. Excellent antennas cost far less than excellent tuners. Turntables: a) first value: Protect the vinyl b1) second value: Protect the cartridge and stylus b2) third value: Accurate speed c) excellent isolation d) ease of operation e) ease of care The above can be had new for less than $400 these days. And when coupled with a decent cartridge/stylus are as good as what they are playing, or better. Pre-amps: After a certain point, improvements are inaudible. That point is pretty quickly reached. So, pick a pre-amp for features and convenience once its basic quality is established. Power Amps: NOW there is meat to chew on an choices to be made. But again, after a certain point, basic quality is established. After that point, one is buying headroom. And headroom IS critical. Speakers: THIS is the critical item and that single item that will have the most and longest lasting impact on the listening experience. If money is to be spent, it is to be spent here. A few myths for discussion: I will state my opinions (and they are only that): Single-driver, full range speakers aren't. That is unless one re-defines "full range" and/or allows as much as a 10dB drop at the limits of that range. Good Bass is a function of moving air, as is good Treble. Moving enough air to make a 30Hz organ note is on a different order of magnitude than moving enough air to make a 4200Hz piccolo note (and all their respective overtones). Asking a single driver to do both, simultaneously, is simply silly. However, it does take a certain amount of power to do either competently. And to make near-live classical-music concert volume levels takes a good deal of power... just to move the air. Getting to: Small Drivers, however long the voice-coil excursion are inherently limited at bass frequencies. "Large" drivers are similarly limited at treble frequencies due to their mass. In part the physics of all this explain the wretched (and very seldom published) response curves of most so-called 'full range' single drivers. So: If I were to be forced (with a gun to my head) to purchase a 'new' audio system today, I would start with the speakers, next to amplification, and with what's left move on from there. The choice of speakers would dictate the minimum power-output from the amp, NOT the other way around. However, an infinitely powerful amplifier will drive -any- speaker. I would purchase standard cables & interconnects. I would change my receptacle to a hospital-grade unit (well, I do that for most things in the house anyway, it is simply common-sense). I would not mess around with the line cords. Sadly, it is also my opinion that today 'audio' is dictated by what is heard on computer speakers. Anything that sounds even moderately better than the computer is instantly "good". I find this passing strange, as the improvements in speaker materials, magnets, design and manufacturing processes and even cross-over design should have led to very, very, very good speakers at relatively moderate costs as compared to 20-or-more years ago. But, at least from what I have seen, the trend is towards speakers designed seemingly just for aesthetics, flea-power amps and inaccessible ergonomics. More so, elsctronics have leaped ahead in many subtle ways, such that substantial clean, quiet power should also be readily available at very moderate costs. In some cases it is. In many cases, it is not. THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS, of course. But there is also a disproportionate amount of expensive ***** out there. I also respectfully submit that audio and video are in many significant ways mutually exclusive excepting the concert hall. So, now that I am on the outside of the limb and sawing briskly, what do you think? Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA p.s.: Gold is a rather poor conductor as compared to copper or silver. However, it does not corrode easily. THAT is why it is picked for connectors. That and aesthetics. Silver is the lowest-loss conductor of all. -- |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
In article ,
" wrote: snip Turntables: a) first value: Protect the vinyl b1) second value: Protect the cartridge and stylus b2) third value: Accurate speed c) excellent isolation d) ease of operation e) ease of care I would add to your a) How it sounds. The above can be had new for less than $400 these days. Yes, there are some good TT setups for around that price. Much better sounding can also be had. -- |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
I am not at all sure what you are attempting to write. Objectively,
fine-stranded silver suspended in liquid nitrogen will do the best job of transfering signal-to-speaker. Even poor instruments will show that, and amongst instruments used to test audio products, the ear is far-and-away the least accurate, least objective and most easily influenced by irrelevant issues. Cables of any function are amongst those things that make the least difference. Yes/No? Do they make more difference than the choice of Speakers? Amplifier? CD Player? Cartridge? Stylus? Tuner? Pre-amp? Turntable? Tape Deck? (That is after the most nominal basic quality issues are satisfied) Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
Jenn:
You are absolutely correct, better sounding units can be had. Sadly, the signal that they process is nearly always the weakest link in the chain, despite closely held beliefs to the contrary. If one is sufficiently lucky (and well-healed) enough to chase down *only* those very few recordings that demand ultra-silent turntables coupled with very high-end cartridges, then I can see spending more than my arbitrary $400. But to be very blunt with you, and writing for myself, I would prefer to spend those additional $$ on signal, not the means to play it. So, if I am assured that my turntable(s) are SOTA as far as protecting the vinyl and the cartridge(s) are concerned (and sound pretty damned good besides), I will stop there. At present, I am running a Revox B795 and a Rabco ST-8. The very first time I heard a tangental tone-arm (1975), I was hooked and _will not_ go back. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
Actually, Bob, that is not the issue either.
"Objectivists" will accept testing of their contentions. "Subjectivists" will not. I choose not to subscribe to any form of 'revealed religion'. I feel that double-blind testing is quite effective as an exclusive/exclusionary process. Once unacceptable systems are excluded, then in-house-testing of what remains (subjective) will be the final screening factor. Phase-distortion (as only one of many possible defects) does not manifest in as short a period as blind testing permits... unless said tests exceed 2 hours +/- per component, at least. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
wrote in message ...
Jenn: You are absolutely correct, better sounding units can be had. Sadly, the signal that they process is nearly always the weakest link in the chain, despite closely held beliefs to the contrary. If one is sufficiently lucky (and well-healed) enough to chase down *only* those very few recordings that demand ultra-silent turntables coupled with very high-end cartridges, then I can see spending more than my arbitrary $400. But to be very blunt with you, and writing for myself, I would prefer to spend those additional $$ on signal, not the means to play it. So, if I am assured that my turntable(s) are SOTA as far as protecting the vinyl and the cartridge(s) are concerned (and sound pretty damned good besides), I will stop there. At present, I am running a Revox B795 and a Rabco ST-8. The very first time I heard a tangental tone-arm (1975), I was hooked and _will not_ go back. The irony, Peter, is that your gear cost about $3000 back in the early seventies. Hardly budget gear. -- |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
In article ,
" wrote: Jenn: You are absolutely correct, better sounding units can be had. Sadly, the signal that they process is nearly always the weakest link in the chain, despite closely held beliefs to the contrary. If one is sufficiently lucky (and well-healed) enough to chase down *only* those very few recordings that demand ultra-silent turntables coupled with very high-end cartridges, then I can see spending more than my arbitrary $400. But to be very blunt with you, and writing for myself, I would prefer to spend those additional $$ on signal, not the means to play it. So, if I am assured that my turntable(s) are SOTA as far as protecting the vinyl and the cartridge(s) are concerned (and sound pretty damned good besides), I will stop there. At present, I am running a Revox B795 and a Rabco ST-8. The very first time I heard a tangental tone-arm (1975), I was hooked and _will not_ go back. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA I remember that TT and I remember being pretty impressed with the sound. I recently bought a $1000 TT/arm/cartridge combo that sounds better than anything I heard at the 4-500 level, and that, in my judgement, one had to spend many thousands of dollars to better. -- |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
Phase Distortion: OK.
Using the most common analogy, consider pebbles dropped in still water. Two pebbles dropped at different points and at different times will propagate different ripples. When these ripples cross, they _may_ cause interference with each other. That interference may add, cancel or simply cross over one ripple to another. To the end that they add or cancel, that is a source of distortion. So, multiple-driver speakers that are not very carefully designed and whose crossovers are not equally carefully considered *will* cause phase distortion. Example A: A pair of speakers sounds *just great* in the audition room. One brings them home and puts them in service. All of a sudden, one finds oneself restless. Wanting to get up and 'run an errand', unable to concentrate on the music for unknown reasons... Like-as-not, this is due to the subtle phase distortion of the speakers causing a near-subliminal discomfort. An extreme may be experienced by connecting speakers out-of-phase and note the wretched results, even though each speaker may sound fine alone. Electronic crossover-notch distortion is largely the same thing and may cause exactly the same effects again if not carefully addressed in the design. Hence, electronics that look *great* on paper may sound like glass in a blender at home. Going a bit further, poorly damped turntables may be affected by speakers, even at relatively high frequencies. These are subtle effects that manifest in a general discomfort with a system that is not necessarily obvious in a short test or in a listening room with the usual distractions. But it is enough to stop one reading while listening, make one restless... and in my opinion perhaps the single best reason that ultimately 'subjective' testing is necessary _always_. But, again, only *AFTER* the objective testing filters out the universe of preferred items. Now, this argument is also the single greatest point made by the full-range, single driver crowd. They will state (with some accuracy) that multiple-driver systems inevitably make a certain amount of this distortion, as they are the functional equivalent of multiple stones dropped in still water. And to the goal of all-from-one, quite elaborate, usually fairly massive boxes need be designed to get to even a semblance of bass... and quite often the top end of the treble is also washed out. Then one sees demonstrations with solo voices, or voices with very small instrumental accompanyment... source well-suited to single-driver systems. The best answer to that point is that even though a microphone records at a single point, the sound recorded is from multiple points. So, with careful design (and careful design ain't cheap), this can be addressed so as to minimize the negative effects of multiple drivers _and_ actually reproduce much of the audible spectrum with reasonable accuracy. Harry: An aside to your (hopefully) good-humored crack on the cost of my components: Even back in the 70s, when the Rabco ST-8 was 'new', I paid far less than list-price for it. My first tangental tone-arm was a Rabco SL-8E that I picked up at a stereo-store bankruptcy sale in 1976 for $20, machined down the arm to half its OEM weight and had a very nice little unit (I worked in a machine-shop at the time). That was stolen, and followed by the ST-8, purcased NIB, also at such a sale, for $100 in 1979. I dumpster-dived for Ortophone MC-20 & MC-30 cartridges at that same location (also NIB), together with the powered head-amp. The Revox stuff.... well, I purchased four (4) of them from eBay, most paid was $159, inclusive of shipping. Of those four, I made three fully-functioning units, one with my son-in-law, and the other two alternately in service here along with the ST-8 (yep, the same one since 1979) depending on which cartridge I want. But the B790 is so rarely used that it stays put away most of the time... even though it is the 'better' of the two with a digital speed read-out. And the Scott stuff (LK-150, LT-110, LC-21) were trades for excess/duplicates on my end. As was the Dynaco stuff. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
Scott:
With all due respect, analyze the statement you just made: With live music the interatcion of musical instruments is part of the sound not a distortion artifact. It is a big mistake to start comparing the nature of live performance and playback on technical points. What is good for one is often quite bad for the other. Ya think??!! Point being that 'phase distortion' is a reality of all music generated from more than a single point. And, it would, of course, depend on how one defined 'distortion'. At the risk of being a wee bit pedantic, just consider: That interaction as caused by instruments during the performance, it is as you say quite rightly, 'part of the sound'. Now, if your latter-day equipment adds (or subtracts) artifacts (additional interaction(s)) as a result of phase distortion, that is _not_ part of the sound. Good design minimizes the addition (or deletion) of said artifacts. Sure, only a few commercial makers are making 'single-driver, full range speakers'. However, quite a large number of makers do the parts-and-pieces for same. Lowther amongst others. And those who chose to do it themselves tend to realize full-well the limitations of the species, hence the quite-elaborate horn configurations often proposed by this crowd. Getting straight to your point of 'washed out highs', what is the price paid for good treble? No bass? Keep in mind that the basic limitations of physics mitigate strongly against the provebial 'free lunch'. There is no reason that any given single driver cannot have excellent treble. But the quality of that treble will be in direct and inverse proportion to the quality of the bass. Again, that is dictated by physics, not opinion. Most such systems tend to tread the middle ground... hence the statement of 'washed out highs' and 'limited bass'. Full Pedantic Mode: You need to catch up on an individual, William of Occam, and his principle of the "excluded middle", AKA Occam's Razor. What he does is state that the concept of 'polar opposites' is a fallacy. Most of us muddle along believing that the opposite of 'Black' is *necessarily* white. Nope. No such thing. The opposite of 'black' is quite simply, anything that is *NOT* black. So, unless a given driver is fully capable of reproducing the entire audio spectrum on a flat curve from the commonly used 30Hz to 20kHz, and the equally commonly assumed +/-3dB, it ain't nohow 'full range'. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
wrote:
snip controvorsial but largely correct analysis So, now that I am on the outside of the limb and sawing briskly, what do you think? Agree mostly. A few minor quibbles: If you're installing cables inside the walls of your house, spend the extra $$$ or rated cables. This is a fire safety issue, not a sound quality issue. Use at least CL2 rated cable. This will set you back about twenty cents a foot vs. plain zip cord. A reasonable discussion at http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/inwallrating.htm NOTE: not an endorsement of their product, never bought anything from them myself. Speaker stands: the job of a speaker stand is to position the speaker in the right place without otherwise changing the sound in any way. Cheap stands may vibrate, resonate, etc which is a bad thing. Once the manufacturer has solved this problem (and any competent woodworker can - just make it solid) they're all the same. As for the full range speakers, I'm intrigued by the idea, but can't find a way to demo them, so I can't agree or disagree with you there. I suspect you're probably right, but need more data to form an opinion. Hospital grade recepticals are probably overkill for the basic home stereo installation. They certainly won't hurt, but depending on the situation may be just an unnucessary expense. Granted, whenever I spec power for an installation I start with a separate transformer for audio (and insist that *nothing* else get plugged into that tap) and orange (hospital) recepticals throughout, but this is expensive. For a home system, unless there's some identifiable power problem I'd say just spend the bucks on better speakers. Otherwise, you're spot on. It's unfortunate that many people trying to assemble a high end system are confounded into wasting most of their budget on irrelevant or barely audible accessories. //Walt -- |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
Wrong, they will ALWAYS interfere. However, I suspect you
view interference as "phase distortion" or some other non- linear process when, in fact, it is a direct consequence of the principle of liner superposition.. That two waves interfere AT A POINT is not distorion at all: their intereference at that point does not distort the waveform at all/ To the end that they add or cancel, that is a source of distortion. False on several fronts. First, two incident waves ALWAYS interfere, and the degree of interference can go from fully destructive to fully additive, again according to the well- established prinsiples of liner superposition. Your these makes the prediction that only if the wave somehow emerges intact from the interation is there no distortion. Well, in fact, that is true regardless of the degree of interference. Take your pond analogy. You will find that two waves traveling past each other indeed interfere destructively at some points, constructively at other points, yet your these ignores the fact that AFTER all the intereference happens, the two original wave emerge from the interations completely intact. Interference is NOT something that happens to waves, it happens AT points., and when it happens, it only determines the energy at that immediate point, and has not effect whatsoever on the total wave. Excepting the fact that water in a pond is (more-or-less) one dimensional, and we are accepting no other objects within the system. Sound from a speaker is in three dimensions and nearly-instantly interacts with objects that will reflect different frequencies in different ways. And precisely why I suggested connecting speakers out-of-phase to show the extreme conditions. Your statement may be true with a speaker in free air and with a highly damped face, with the listening point easily chosen. That rarely obtains in the real world. Speaker design can contribute to these interference waves. And cross-overs can shift the phase of the various drivers (for good or ill). The effects are subtle but very real. So, multiple-driver speakers that are not very carefully designed and whose crossovers are not equally carefully considered *will* cause phase distortion. Possibly, but not for the reaons you describe above. Actually. And for the reasons described. Listening rooms are not free-air. And objects within the room do affect the waves, and crossovers do affect phase directly. Electronic crossover-notch distortion is largely the same thing and may cause exactly the same effects again if not carefully addressed in the design. False. Crossover distortion is NOT "phase distortion" in any way, shape or form. Crossover distortion is a simple non-linear distortion in the amplitude domain and there is no way that such distortion can result in the same signal to the ears as ANY formof phase distortion to ANY degree. "Phase distortion," absent your definition, is a non-linear function of delay vs frequency. Crossover distortion as you describe it is a non-linear function of amplitude. There is no function of delay vs frequency that is in any way remotely similar to non-linear amplitude. I beg to differ. Look at notch distortion on a scope. At that point, not only does amplitude shift, but some frequencies are suppressed or exaggerated about that point. Again the effects are subtle, but can make the difference between sweet and 'glass in a blender'. Now, this argument is also the single greatest point made by the full-range, single driver crowd. They will state (with some accuracy) that multiple-driver systems inevitably make a certain amount of this distortion, Maybe with some ferver and conviction, but most arguments made by this crowd are essentially devoid of technical accuracy. There may be valid technical reasons, but these people seldom if ever state them. as they are the functional equivalent of multiple stones dropped in still water. As does EVERY multiple source of sound, including two full range single-driver speakers in a stereo system, as does even a single point source in a room with even a single reflective boundary. Yep. Inherent false premises. We absolutely agree on this... BTW, have you seen the lastest "single-point stereo" stuff out there? Based on exactly the premise that two speakers interfere with each other. The best answer to that point is that even though a microphone records at a single point, the sound recorded is from multiple points. As is exactly the case for a single eardrum in a room, yes? Yeah, but we have two of them, as well as our 'guts' for the really low notes. When we listen, information comes from our entire body, the ears being most of it. Just like we think we taste with our tongues... actually that is about 20%, the other 80% being smell (Some would further divide the 80% to include sight at a significant number). There are VERY fundamental differences, to be sure, but they do not negate the fundamental flaw in the statement. If you say so. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
Walt:
Rated cables when buried is a common sense. Even when not buried is good sense. Speaker stands: Sure. They have a basic function, and should meet that function. But it is not rocket science, nor should it be expensive (other than the expense required of any decent furniture). Hospital-grade receptacles cost about $5 each at a supply-house in quantities of 10. My initial reason for installing them around the house was that I got 20 (Pass & Seymour) of them once at a surplus auction for $10. With the coming of our first grandchild and her present toddlerhood, I then realized that plugs are very hard to pull out of them, relative to standard grade. Another practical reason. Physics mitigates against single drivers. For lots of reasons. But your ears are the ultimate judge, true. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
"Walt" wrote in message
... wrote: snip controvorsial but largely correct analysis So, now that I am on the outside of the limb and sawing briskly, what do you think? Agree mostly. A few minor quibbles: If you're installing cables inside the walls of your house, spend the extra $$$ or rated cables. This is a fire safety issue, not a sound quality issue. Use at least CL2 rated cable. This will set you back about twenty cents a foot vs. plain zip cord. A reasonable discussion at http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/inwallrating.htm NOTE: not an endorsement of their product, never bought anything from them myself. Speaker stands: the job of a speaker stand is to position the speaker in the right place without otherwise changing the sound in any way. Cheap stands may vibrate, resonate, etc which is a bad thing. Once the manufacturer has solved this problem (and any competent woodworker can - just make it solid) they're all the same. It is quite easy to build your own stands that willnot vibrate, although I'm not sure the vibration from any stand will ever be sufficient to cause any audible problems. A very simple method is to get some black (or white) PVC tubing as is sold at Home Depot, attach it with some form of adhesive and hardware to a bottom base, fill it with sand, then seal it with the platform for the speaker. Back before I became aware of how little difference stands actually make I built the following stands with some help from a friend who worked in place where welding equipment was available. The riser is 2x4'' 3/8'' thick steel filled with sand, with a 12" square x 3/8" thick base plate at the bottom and a similar plate at the top, which was trimmed in size for the main speakers. The whole thing was much cheaper than any of the 'high end' stands I've ever seen and quite a bit more massive. As for the full range speakers, I'm intrigued by the idea, but can't find a way to demo them, so I can't agree or disagree with you there. I suspect you're probably right, but need more data to form an opinion. You couold check the measured specs for any of the so called full range drivers and see for yourself that they really aren't. I certainly do not know of any driver that can produce bass below 30 Hz and treble up to 20 kHz, but if somebody knows of one.................. Hospital grade recepticals are probably overkill for the basic home stereo installation. They certainly won't hurt, but depending on the situation may be just an unnucessary expense. Granted, whenever I spec power for an installation I start with a separate transformer for audio (and insist that *nothing* else get plugged into that tap) and orange (hospital) recepticals throughout, but this is expensive. For a home system, unless there's some identifiable power problem I'd say just spend the bucks on better speakers. Otherwise, you're spot on. It's unfortunate that many people trying to assemble a high end system are confounded into wasting most of their budget on irrelevant or barely audible accessories. //Walt Agree completely. There really are very few things worth sinking major dollars into for a decent audio system, and the most important is speakers, everything else is very far behind, with the possible exception of a Vinyl playback system for those folks who are enamored of that sound. -- |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
Several of the Sound Labs do just that and not just their flagship speakers
Um.... Um.... Sound Lab speakers are electrostatics? Right? That is a 'single driver' only by the very broadest definition of the term. If you look at their literature, the term "stators" vs. "stator" is used. That is your clue. It is absolutely true that a single diaphram is used.... but multiple fixed elements. Noted also that no curves or specifications in dB are published, but given their size I can accept a +/-3dB spec. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
Skeeter wrote:
Hello Peter, I welcome your acquaintance. I get the feeling that you are inviting controversy with this voicing of personal opinion. Needless to say, it is intriguing enough to lure my attention. wrote: I have seen a couple of threads lately that refer to types and sorts of equipment that near-as-make-no-difference when it comes to the actual sound produced. In my opinion, they include, but are not limited to: Speaker Cables: Within the broad universe of typical home use, speaker cables have no impact whatsoever on sound produced, roughly along these lines: Very important qualifier here. "Within the broad universe of typical home use" Just what universe is this? I suspect he meant this to exclude such exotica as tube amps with abnormal output impedances and the occasional speaker whose impedance drops to a single ohm. If you have gear like that, you do need to pay attention to factors beyond resistance losses. Perhaps the majority of population who do not listen critically or analytically? This qualifier most certainly suggests that anything following is not intended for, or pertaining to the pursuit of pure, transparent audio reproduction. In general (meaning: absent exotica mentioned above), there are two kinds of listeners: People who do not hear differences between cables, and people who only think they hear differences between cables. We are still waiting for confirmation of any third category. Until such confirmation comes, we can confidently rely on properly sized zipcord to provide us with "pure, transparent audio reproduction." bob -- |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
The isolated ground goes without saying... as you stated, NEC and all
that. Home-run directly to the panel with no stops or splices in between. So, HG receptacles for only certain applications and certain locations where they are not part of a string. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
Skeeter & Scott:
First, let's establish one thing: Electrostatic speakers are _not_ what is typically taken as single-driver, full range speakers. First, by their nature, they distribute the reproduction via the interaction between the fixed charge on the diaphram and the variable charges on the stators (plural). By that possibility, they need no additional baffles in order to function, and they have the capacity to have local and general effects on the diaphram... as Sound Lab carefully explains in their literature. So, Lowthers they ain't (as a typical 'full-range single driver'). I guess I should have qualified to state typical voice-coil & magnet drivers. The Bose 901.... YIKES.... that old phrase "no highs, no lows, must be Bose" is well-stated. One can equalize the hell out of them and get them to produce something akin to a full-range response if you like it so muddy as to be at best the third-cousin, twice-removed of the incoming signal. Just like one can force a grape through a sieve... only it ain't much of a grape on the other side. But the 901 is a multiple-driver system for all that as well. That it sells in quantity... well, so does Night Train Express, or Mad Dog 20/20. By "audio & video", I am taking a not-so-subtle dig at the surround-sound about a massive television crowd. You will note the very clear statement "excepting the concert hall". But when I am listening to music at home, unless it is background-for-reading (or otherwise) activities, I find myself closing my eyes and imagining the venue and where the musicians might be placed. A massive screen, even if blank, would be distracting from that. As to vinyl systems, sure the cartridge & arm assembly is all part of the protection-of-the vinyl part, but it is certainly possible to put a crappy cartridge on an excellent TT, and a very-high-end cartridge on a crappy TT. Point being that both should be attended-to with the same care and value. I won't get too far into your statement on mechanically apt audiophiles... I agree that the proper set-up of a TT is not for the inept, but beyond that, any well-designed equipment should be pretty intuitive in its operation, certainly far less complicated than the 'program the VCR' skill-level. Not for a Martian perhaps, but certainly for any normally skilled individual raised in a 'machine' culture. Not so sure on the speaker cable piece. Sure, oxidation does happen. Hence the proper connectors to eliminate that specific issue. I could tell you several war-stories about salts on cheap patch-cords rectifying in the CB-frequency range (amongst others)... and at considerable volume. So, junk cords are not what is under discussion. But keep in mind that at room temperature, copper is a better conductor than gold, and silver is best of all. Aluminum would be between copper and gold, but for the troublesome oxides that form on its surface. Point of all this, I guess, is that if our collective goals is to design a concatenation of equipment that meet our personal (and *possibly* unique) desires from an audio system, we should concentrate on those things that actually make real differences... and only to the extent that they actually do make a difference. Only after all that sweat the small stuff. Lastly, speaker stands: If one buys cheap or expedient furniture, one is also likely to buy cheap or expedient audio equipment. One assumes a very basic mimimal quality... after which the rest is either aesthetics on the one hand or smoke-and-mirrors on the other. But to endow a bit of furniture with mystical powers beyond its simple function is.... again.... simply silly. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
wrote:
"Walt" wrote wrote: snip controvorsial but largely correct analysis Speaker stands: the job of a speaker stand is to position the speaker in the right place without otherwise changing the sound in any way. Cheap stands may vibrate, resonate, etc which is a bad thing. Once the manufacturer has solved this problem (and any competent woodworker can - just make it solid) they're all the same. It is quite easy to build your own stands that willnot vibrate, although I'm not sure the vibration from any stand will ever be sufficient to cause any audible problems. Imagine going to the local hardware store, buying a pair of aluminum trash cans, bringing them home, turning them upside down, and placing your speakers on them. They might get them at the right height, but... Ok, this is an extreme example, but stands can vibrate and add an annoying distorted artifact to the sound. Cheaply constructed stands *will* have sympathetic vibrations and that's why you don't just buy any old plant stand from Target or the garden store for your speakers. As you say, a solid stand that doesn't vibrate isn't that difficult to build, but it does take some care on the part of the builder. Agree that there's nothing magical about a speaker stand - it shouldn't add anything to the sound. As for the full range speakers, I'm intrigued by the idea, but can't find a way to demo them, so I can't agree or disagree with you there. I suspect you're probably right, but need more data to form an opinion. You couold check the measured specs for any of the so called full range drivers and see for yourself that they really aren't. I certainly do not know of any driver that can produce bass below 30 Hz and treble up to 20 kHz, but if somebody knows of one.................. Lowther claims 30Hz to 22kHz for their drivers, although they don't quote tolerances so they may be 30 db down at the extremes. Of course, the enclosure will make a huge difference in the low end response and these specs are for the driver only. See: http://www.lowtherspeakers.com/dx.jpg As I said, intriguing idea at least on paper. But I haven't heard them, so I'll have to reserve judgment. BTW, I did write the US vendor and ask about a demo, and I got back a sales pitch saying that they don't do demos, but I can buy them blind with a money back guarantee. They claim that no one has ever returned a pair of their speakers and that no one has ever come for an audition without buying. Sounded too good to be true. I passed. //Walt -- |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
Ah, Lowthers would be a speaker you are refering to.?.? never heard of it.
I guess I should have qualified to state typical voice-coil & magnet drivers. Yeah. But what's up? i never heard about this movement in audio? Is it a movement? More like a revealed religion. http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/olde...hornspkrs.html http://melhuish.org/audio/DIYRH9.html And much, much, much more. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA -- |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Those Things that Make the Least Difference
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Great Money Making Opportunity | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio |