Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mike S. Mike S. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I
want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker
cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way?
I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable.
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable



"Mike S." wrote:

I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I
want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker
cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way?
I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable.


RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos
IME (as opposed to cheap POS computer speakers for example).

Are you SURE those connectors are actually SPEAKER outputs ? Are they
marked as such ? More likely that they are preamp level outputs.

Not even sure what you mean by a "stereo RCA speaker cable". Never met
anything marketed as such in 40 years of taking an serious interest in
audio. To be honest, if you don't know this stuff you probably shouldn't be
touching any wires at all.

Graham


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

"Mike S." wrote ...
I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I
want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker
cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way?
I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo
cable.


There is no functional difference between "two mono cables"
and "a stereo cable". It isn't magic.

HOWEVER, it is highly questionable whether any
output from audio equipment using RCA jacks is
*speaker level*. I would assume that it is NOT and
will not work to connect speakers to, unless proved
otherwise.

Note that unless you identify the equipment you are
talking about, we can only speak in generalities which
is of doubtful usefuleness to you.

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mike S. Mike S. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable



Eeyore wrote:
"Mike S." wrote:

I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I
want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker
cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way?
I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable.


RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos
IME (as opposed to cheap POS computer speakers for example).

Are you SURE those connectors are actually SPEAKER outputs ? Are they
marked as such ? More likely that they are preamp level outputs.

Not even sure what you mean by a "stereo RCA speaker cable". Never met
anything marketed as such in 40 years of taking an serious interest in
audio. To be honest, if you don't know this stuff you probably shouldn't be
touching any wires at all.

Graham




The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top
quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some
of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby
Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on
mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system.

The stereo (amplifier) and speakers does use use RCA/phono
connections. I didn't realize until today that stereo RCA speaker
cable even existed (I never saw it before). Just to be clear, the mono
RCA cable has two plugs (one on each end), and the stereo RCA speaker
cable has four plugs (two on each end). I've always used two mono
cables. I was just wondering if one stereo cable would be better or
the same as two mono cables.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
[email protected] dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

On Mar 13, 6:22 am, "Mike S." wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Mike S." wrote:


RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker
connections on decent stereos


The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top
quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some
of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby
Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on
mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system.


Are being deliberately secretive?

What is your system? What brand? What model?



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jamesgangnc[_3_] jamesgangnc[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

"Mike S." wrote in message
...


Eeyore wrote:
"Mike S." wrote:

I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I
want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker
cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way?
I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable.


RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos
IME (as opposed to cheap POS computer speakers for example).

Are you SURE those connectors are actually SPEAKER outputs ? Are they
marked as such ? More likely that they are preamp level outputs.

Not even sure what you mean by a "stereo RCA speaker cable". Never met
anything marketed as such in 40 years of taking an serious interest in
audio. To be honest, if you don't know this stuff you probably shouldn't
be
touching any wires at all.

Graham




The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top
quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some
of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby
Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on
mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system.

The stereo (amplifier) and speakers does use use RCA/phono
connections. I didn't realize until today that stereo RCA speaker
cable even existed (I never saw it before). Just to be clear, the mono
RCA cable has two plugs (one on each end), and the stereo RCA speaker
cable has four plugs (two on each end). I've always used two mono
cables. I was just wondering if one stereo cable would be better or
the same as two mono cables.


Your post looks more like a troll than a serious one. Allowing that you
really have rca jacks on your speakers, which is possible, unless you wish
to place the speakers right next to each other you need to use individual
rca cables. And not very many sources have rca cables for speakers. The
rca cables for low level signals have even smaller wire that the ones used
for speakers. If you are buying them commercially you want ones where a
single rca to rca cable has wire that looks like a pair of wires side by
side. Not where one rca jack connects to one round wire as these are the
low level shielded cables. The shielded cables will work if used though.

Which is why you got a lot of questions about the rca connection for
speakers. RCA connections are typically for low level signals, not
speakers. When they were used for speakers it was only for amplifiers with
rather limited output power. Like computer pc sound cards and "boom box"
style systems.

No one really listens to albums anymore either.


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable



jamesgangnc wrote:

No one really listens to albums anymore either.


No ?

Graham


  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jamesgangnc[_3_] jamesgangnc[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


jamesgangnc wrote:

No one really listens to albums anymore either.


No ?

Graham


Let's just say the bulk of the world quit listening to albums. I won't
argue that there is still some music that never got re-released on cds. But
that's because it's audience was quite limited which just further supports
my statement. If there was a market someone released it on cd.


  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Gareth Magennis Gareth Magennis is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 589
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable


"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


jamesgangnc wrote:

No one really listens to albums anymore either.


No ?

Graham


Let's just say the bulk of the world quit listening to albums. I won't
argue that there is still some music that never got re-released on cds.
But that's because it's audience was quite limited which just further
supports my statement. If there was a market someone released it on cd.



In the old days, a record was listened to in 2 distinct halves of about 20
minutes each, that had a beginning, middle and end. Nowadays the (often
many) duff tracks on a very long CD are skipped. Not quite the same
listening experience at all IMHO. Mind you I don't smoke dope any more
.......



Gareth.


  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jamesgangnc[_3_] jamesgangnc[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


jamesgangnc wrote:

No one really listens to albums anymore either.

No ?

Graham


Let's just say the bulk of the world quit listening to albums. I won't
argue that there is still some music that never got re-released on cds.
But that's because it's audience was quite limited which just further
supports my statement. If there was a market someone released it on cd.



In the old days, a record was listened to in 2 distinct halves of about 20
minutes each, that had a beginning, middle and end. Nowadays the (often
many) duff tracks on a very long CD are skipped. Not quite the same
listening experience at all IMHO. Mind you I don't smoke dope any more
......



Gareth.

I won't argue that some music was produced intentionally designed for a
single lp side and to be played through. But even then the majority of the
music produced was targeted at single plays on the radio. I'll admit that
many new cds are produced as just a collection of tracks. Today, just like
yesterday, you do not find many that have arranged the tracks so they
combine to make something more complete than just a collection of songs.
But the factors that drive that are the same as they were back then.

Point is that you can get those albums on cd if you want. And you can
listen to them from track one to the end. Plus cd collections are a bit
more rugged. My album collection never grew past a certain size because
albums deteriorate when they are played. They require delicate handling.
And accidents happen to them, particularly when associated with the rest of
the culture that went with the music experience of that era, ie smoking
dope. The oldests cds in my collection are still just fine even though I
bought them 20+ years ago.




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
GregS[_3_] GregS[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 664
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

In article , "Mike S." wrote:
I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I
want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker
cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way?
I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable.


How did you do it before ?

greg
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jakdedert jakdedert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 672
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

Mike S. wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Mike S." wrote:

I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I
want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker
cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way?
I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable.

RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos
IME (as opposed to cheap POS computer speakers for example).

Are you SURE those connectors are actually SPEAKER outputs ? Are they
marked as such ? More likely that they are preamp level outputs.

Not even sure what you mean by a "stereo RCA speaker cable". Never met
anything marketed as such in 40 years of taking an serious interest in
audio. To be honest, if you don't know this stuff you probably shouldn't be
touching any wires at all.

Graham




The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top
quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some
of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby
Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on
mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system.



I believe you--as far as the RCA speaker connectors go. Those plugs
have been used for speakers over the years, may even be so today, in
some gear.

They were even more common in the 70's; but they were never--repeat,
*never*--used for high quality equipment; which is why many here have
never experienced the practice. As far as 'better than some...made
today'; well, you're right there. There has always been lo-fi crap
available, and there still is today.

This is a forum which deals mostly with mid to high fidelity equipment.
Most gear produced with RCA speaker outs was in the range of three or
four lo-fi watts per channel. Mostly, the speaker cabling used was 20
gauge or even smaller. Radio Shack used to carry them. They might
still....

The stereo (amplifier) and speakers does use use RCA/phono
connections. I didn't realize until today that stereo RCA speaker
cable even existed (I never saw it before). Just to be clear, the mono
RCA cable has two plugs (one on each end), and the stereo RCA speaker
cable has four plugs (two on each end). I've always used two mono
cables. I was just wondering if one stereo cable would be better or
the same as two mono cables.


No offense, but your question(s) and comments belie a general lack of
technical acumen. For instance, as another responder queried; how would
you use a stereo cable unless you put your speakers directly beside each
other? That's not accepted practice...at least if your intention is to
hear what the artists and engineers of the source material intended. If
you're happy with your 'system' as it is, then fine. Who am I to say
that you shouldn't be? Buy some speaker cables at the Rat Shack...or
strip some long stereo signal cables apart and use those (many--but not
all--can be separated and used individually..shouldn't hurt anything in
this application--although again--not 'best practice'). At the very
least, though, you should separate the speakers by a distance roughly
equal to the distance from which you listen to them.

OTOH, you might want to audition some really high (or even mid) fidelity
gear. Check out an audio retailer...or perhaps friends' systems. If
the difference doesn't astound you, then there's little hope, and you
might as well enjoy what you have. Not everybody cares...but don't
trumpet 'quality' of which you have little concept.

jak
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
WindsorFox[_3_] WindsorFox[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

Mike S. wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Mike S." wrote:

I have an old stereo with two (left and right) audio outputs that I
want to connect to two speakers. Should I use two mono RCA speaker
cables or one stereo RCA speaker cable, or is it the same either way?
I just didn't know if two mono cables are the same as one stereo cable.

RCA jacks have NEVER been used for speaker connections on decent stereos
IME (as opposed to cheap POS computer speakers for example).

Are you SURE those connectors are actually SPEAKER outputs ? Are they
marked as such ? More likely that they are preamp level outputs.

Not even sure what you mean by a "stereo RCA speaker cable". Never met
anything marketed as such in 40 years of taking an serious interest in
audio. To be honest, if you don't know this stuff you probably shouldn't be
touching any wires at all.

Graham




The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top
quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some
of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby
Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on
mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system.

The stereo (amplifier) and speakers does use use RCA/phono
connections. I didn't realize until today that stereo RCA speaker
cable even existed (I never saw it before). Just to be clear, the mono
RCA cable has two plugs (one on each end), and the stereo RCA speaker
cable has four plugs (two on each end). I've always used two mono
cables. I was just wondering if one stereo cable would be better or
the same as two mono cables.



Consider this: If you take a ordinary RCA plug patch cable and grab
the red plug in one hand and the black in the other and pull it into two
single pieces of wire, does that change the functionality of the cable?

And I'm with Dick, what exactly is this mystery machine??

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
WindsorFox[_3_] WindsorFox[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

jamesgangnc wrote:

No one really listens to albums anymore either.



I bet more than you think.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842
  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dave Platt Dave Platt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:

HOWEVER, it is highly questionable whether any
output from audio equipment using RCA jacks is
*speaker level*. I would assume that it is NOT and
will not work to connect speakers to, unless proved
otherwise.


I've seen a few radios and receivers which did in fact use RCA jacks
for the speaker-level outputs. They were either very old models, or
very cheap low-end models, or both.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
[email protected] JamesGangNC@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

On Mar 13, 12:13*pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.


* * I bet more than you think.

--

* * * * h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
* * * * * Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

* * * *http://tinyurl.com/yjm842


I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some
other format.
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jakdedert jakdedert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 672
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.

I bet more than you think.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some
other format.


Not on this forum....

jak
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jamesgangnc[_3_] jamesgangnc[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

"jakdedert" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.
I bet more than you think.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some
other format.


Not on this forum....

jak


The population of this forum is not even statistically significant for a
small town.

What's your rational for playing albums? Music not available on modern
formats? Or you're just losers?


  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable



jamesgangnc wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
jamesgangnc wrote:

No one really listens to albums anymore either.


No ?



Let's just say the bulk of the world quit listening to albums. I won't
argue that there is still some music that never got re-released on cds. But
that's because it's audience was quite limited which just further supports
my statement. If there was a market someone released it on cd.


Oh you mean VINYL not 'albums'.

You still get albums on CD.

Graham




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jakdedert jakdedert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 672
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

jamesgangnc wrote:
"jakdedert" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.
I bet more than you think.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842
I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some
other format.

Not on this forum....

jak


The population of this forum is not even statistically significant for a
small town.

What's your rational for playing albums? Music not available on modern
formats? Or you're just losers?


Oops...sorry. I didn't realize who you were. How are things under the
bridge these days?

jak
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jamesgangnc[_3_] jamesgangnc[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

"jakdedert" wrote in message
...
jamesgangnc wrote:
"jakdedert" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.
I bet more than you think.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842
I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some
other format.
Not on this forum....

jak


The population of this forum is not even statistically significant for a
small town.

What's your rational for playing albums? Music not available on modern
formats? Or you're just losers?

Oops...sorry. I didn't realize who you were. How are things under the
bridge these days?

jak


A lot better than the rock you're under, yukyuk. Wake up and smell the 21
century.


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
WindsorFox[_3_] WindsorFox[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.

I bet more than you think.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some
other format.



Maybe. I'm sure you pulled that number out of your hind end, but it
could be close to correct. It is still most likely more than you think
it is though, which was my only point.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
WindsorFox[_3_] WindsorFox[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

jamesgangnc wrote:
"jakdedert" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.
I bet more than you think.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842
I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some
other format.

Not on this forum....

jak


The population of this forum is not even statistically significant for a
small town.

What's your rational for playing albums? Music not available on modern
formats? Or you're just losers?



??? Where did you come from? Doesn't sound like you've been around
the audio groups much.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
dizzy dizzy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 652
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

Mike S. wrote:

The stereo system I'm inquiring about is from the 70's, was top
quality and still produces great sound. It's actually better than some
of the ones currently being made today. Don't believe me? Play Bobby
Helms's Jingle Bell Rock album on a new stereo system, then play it on
mine. What a difference! I'll only listen to that album on my system.


Idiot.



  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable


"Dave Platt" wrote in message
news
I've seen a few radios and receivers which did in fact use RCA jacks
for the speaker-level outputs. They were either very old models, or
very cheap low-end models, or both.


That is my experience too. Always very low quality, and most usually the
"all in ones".

MrT.


  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jamesgangnc[_3_] jamesgangnc[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

"WindsorFoxSS" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS" wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.
I bet more than you think.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some
other format.



Maybe. I'm sure you pulled that number out of your hind end, but it
could be close to correct. It is still most likely more than you think it
is though, which was my only point.


I'm game. Why? Can't say that I frequent any music categories that might
tend to have something really obscure but it sure seems like just about
everything is available on cds these days. At least everyting that got
released on vinyl.


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable


"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
"WindsorFoxSS" wrote in message

Maybe. I'm sure you pulled that number out of your hind end, but it
could be close to correct. It is still most likely more than you think

it
is though, which was my only point.


I'm game. Why?


Usually nostalgia.


Can't say that I frequent any music categories that might
tend to have something really obscure but it sure seems like just about
everything is available on cds these days. At least everyting that got
released on vinyl.


Not even close! Most of the top 40 albums maybe.
I've even done one off vinyl-CD transfers for the original artists personal
collection.

MrT.


  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jamesgangnc[_3_] jamesgangnc[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

Usually nostalgia.

Nolstalgia? I'm in the camp that just wants my audio system to as
accurately as possible recreate the sound of the live performance. But to
each their own.


  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
WindsorFox[_3_] WindsorFox[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

jamesgangnc wrote:
I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some
other format.


Maybe. I'm sure you pulled that number out of your hind end, but it
could be close to correct. It is still most likely more than you think it
is though, which was my only point.


I'm game. Why? Can't say that I frequent any music categories that might
tend to have something really obscure but it sure seems like just about
everything is available on cds these days. At least everyting that got
released on vinyl.



Which actually doesn't have a lot to do with why some people listen
to records. If it were then you're only a $70 USB turntable away from
100% digital bliss. The same reason some people listen to tubes and some
people put those little riser thingies under their speaker wire.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jamesgangnc[_3_] jamesgangnc[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

"WindsorFoxSS" wrote in message
...
Which actually doesn't have a lot to do with why some people listen to
records. If it were then you're only a $70 USB turntable away from 100%
digital bliss. The same reason some people listen to tubes and some people
put those little riser thingies under their speaker wire.


You forgot the people that buy thousand dollar speaker wire.

Although I'm inclined to say that's two different groups. The group that
falls for those various gimcracks like monster speaker wire, speaker wire
risers, $200 interconnects, etc. And the other group that thinks their
audio system should participate in the music production by adding "color".

Tube amps would be fine if you didn't have to have that stupid transformer
at the end. Just no way to make a tube current amp. And no way to make a
transformer that is transparent from 20hz to 20khz.


  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

wrote in message

On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS"
wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.


I bet more than you think.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!


http://tinyurl.com/yjm842


I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000
listening to some other format.


If by album you mean LP, then you have to come up with a number that relates
to the fact that about 1% of all sales of recordings is for LPs. 1 in
10,000 is IMO far too few. Besdies, there are people who listen to LPs who
don't buy new LPs.

I'll bet for every album listener there are more like 50 listening
exclusively to other formats. That would be a more reasonable guess.


  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
WindsorFox[_3_] WindsorFox[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

jamesgangnc wrote:
"WindsorFoxSS" wrote in message
...
Which actually doesn't have a lot to do with why some people listen to
records. If it were then you're only a $70 USB turntable away from 100%
digital bliss. The same reason some people listen to tubes and some people
put those little riser thingies under their speaker wire.


You forgot the people that buy thousand dollar speaker wire.

Although I'm inclined to say that's two different groups. The group that
falls for those various gimcracks like monster speaker wire, speaker wire
risers, $200 interconnects, etc. And the other group that thinks their
audio system should participate in the music production by adding "color".


I didn't forget, Ididn't have time or room to mention everything

Tube amps would be fine if you didn't have to have that stupid transformer
at the end. Just no way to make a tube current amp. And no way to make a
transformer that is transparent from 20hz to 20khz.


I'm going to back up now, cuz I'm sure that is going to garner some
replies from those more qualified than I.


--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
jakdedert jakdedert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 672
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

WindsorFoxSS wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000 listening to some
other format.

Maybe. I'm sure you pulled that number out of your hind end, but
it could be close to correct. It is still most likely more than you
think it is though, which was my only point.


I'm game. Why? Can't say that I frequent any music categories that
might tend to have something really obscure but it sure seems like
just about everything is available on cds these days. At least
everyting that got released on vinyl.


Which actually doesn't have a lot to do with why some people listen
to records. If it were then you're only a $70 USB turntable away from
100% digital bliss. The same reason some people listen to tubes and some
people put those little riser thingies under their speaker wire.


That's just silly. Personally, I listen to the LPs because I have them,
have had them for 40 years or so, and have the equipment to listen to
them. I don't listen to them exclusively. I don't listen to them every
day. Most of what I have is available on MP3 or CD--but not all. I
don't listen to every single piece often enough to either digitize or
replace it with CD, as it would cost many thousands of dollars (many of
which I've already spent, years ago)...or countless hours.

Personally, I prefer the ease and accessibility (and sound) of popping
in a CD, or pulling up a file; but I also enjoy pulling out an old track
I haven't even thought about in years....

I've never been a consumer of snake oil. My speaker cables came from
Home Depot, bulk (labeled SOJ). Most of my gear was bought second-hand
at thrift stores, pawn shops or yard sales...some eBay, some picked up
off the curb. Much of it was non-functional, incomplete or defective in
some fashion when I obtained it. I haven't paid a service person a dime
in 30 years....

I don't have special power cords, outlet covers, magic rocks or anything
else of that ilk.

jak
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
[email protected] JamesGangNC@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

On Mar 14, 9:31*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS"
wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.


I bet more than you think.


--


h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!
http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000
listening to some other format.


If by album you mean LP, then you have to come up with a number that relates
to the fact that about 1% of all sales of recordings is for LPs. * 1 in
10,000 is IMO far too few. *Besdies, there are people who listen to LPs who
don't buy new LPs.

I'll bet for every album listener there are more like 50 listening
exclusively to other formats. That would be a more reasonable guess.


Ya think? Seems unlikely to me. Where do you get your 1%? And 1%
equals 1 in a 100, not 1 in 50. And assumes an equal distribution of
sales. And I'm betting that the lp listeners don't fit that profile.
There are no "new" lps.


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dave Dave is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable


"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
Usually nostalgia.

Nolstalgia? I'm in the camp that just wants my audio system to as
accurately as possible recreate the sound of the live performance. But to
each their own.

There is an arguement that the CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz does not provide
enough bandwidth for truly perfect sound reproduction. Sound is an analog
signal. To convert analog to digital, samples are taken, in this case
44,100 times per second, and a digital representation is made of each
sample. A CD player contains a digital to analog converter which reverses
the process. Problem is, you can't reproduce a sound wave, which is a
curve, from discrete digital samples, you can only approximate it. The more
samples, the better the approximation. Remember that the CD standard sample
rate was adopted in the 80's, when PC's didn't exist and the fastest
processor ran at 8 or 16MHz.

There is a contingent of the population, and I'll grant you that it's a
small contingent when compared to the general population, that believes that
LP's _CAN_ sound better than CD's. Granted, LP's come with their own set of
issues as far as perfect sound reprodution, but they are a true analog
medium and can, POTENTIALLY, deliver truer sound than can a CD. If you've
ever heard a really really good vinyl system playing a really really
well-mastered album, you'll know what I mean.

The popularity of CD's is due to a number of factors, but a real big one is
that for a tiny fraction of the cost of an awesome turntable, you can get a
CD player with 95% of the sound quality. With the advent of the computer
age, CD's offer transferability that vinyl cannot. Things like music
distribution evolve with technology, but remember that just because it's
newer doesn't always mean it's better. Also, better for one person doesn't
always equal better for all. I'll take a well-mastered LP over some piece
of crap 128kbps-encoded mp3 any day of the week, but a VAST VAST majority of
music purchasers (who are, btw, mainly kids) are perfectly happy with the
highly compressed format and accompanying loss of sound quality.

But then I'm old....

Dave

  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Serge Auckland[_2_] Serge Auckland[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

"Dave" wrote in message
news:hOwCj.108382$C61.35398@edtnps89...

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
Usually nostalgia.

Nolstalgia? I'm in the camp that just wants my audio system to as
accurately as possible recreate the sound of the live performance. But
to each their own.

There is an arguement that the CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz does not
provide enough bandwidth for truly perfect sound reproduction. Sound is
an analog signal. To convert analog to digital, samples are taken, in
this case 44,100 times per second, and a digital representation is made of
each sample. A CD player contains a digital to analog converter which
reverses the process. Problem is, you can't reproduce a sound wave, which
is a curve, from discrete digital samples, you can only approximate it.
The more samples, the better the approximation. Remember that the CD
standard sample rate was adopted in the 80's, when PC's didn't exist and
the fastest processor ran at 8 or 16MHz.


Absloutely not! For any band-limited signal, provided you sample at more
than twice the highest frequency, you recreate *exactly* (to the limits of
noise) the original signal. Mr Nyquist showed this very many years ago.

There is a contingent of the population, and I'll grant you that it's a
small contingent when compared to the general population, that believes
that LP's _CAN_ sound better than CD's. Granted, LP's come with their own
set of issues as far as perfect sound reprodution, but they are a true
analog medium and can, POTENTIALLY, deliver truer sound than can a CD. If
you've ever heard a really really good vinyl system playing a really
really well-mastered album, you'll know what I mean.


Also not true. LPs *cannot* deliver a truer sound than CD. They have
massively higher distortion, noise and frequency response errors than CD.
That some people *prefer* the sound if vinyl is a subjective issue, more to
do with those people, but under any objective measure CD is vastly better in
performance. Sadly these days, many CDs are mastered with excessive
compression, limiting and even clipping in an attempt to impress the
punters, but that's got nothing to do with the capability of CD.

The popularity of CD's is due to a number of factors, but a real big one
is that for a tiny fraction of the cost of an awesome turntable, you can
get a CD player with 95% of the sound quality.


With 150% I'd say.....

With the advent of the computer age, CD's offer transferability that vinyl
cannot. Things like music distribution evolve with technology, but
remember that just because it's newer doesn't always mean it's better.
Also, better for one person doesn't always equal better for all. I'll take
a well-mastered LP over some piece of crap 128kbps-encoded mp3 any day of
the week, but a VAST VAST majority of music purchasers (who are, btw,
mainly kids) are perfectly happy with the highly compressed format and
accompanying loss of sound quality

But then I'm old....




Dave

So am I....

S.



--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Serge Auckland[_2_] Serge Auckland[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 9:31 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Mar 13, 12:13 pm, "WindsorFoxSS"
wrote:
jamesgangnc wrote:
No one really listens to albums anymore either.


I bet more than you think.


--


h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!
http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

I'll bet for every album listener there is 10,000
listening to some other format.


If by album you mean LP, then you have to come up with a number that
relates
to the fact that about 1% of all sales of recordings is for LPs. 1 in
10,000 is IMO far too few. Besdies, there are people who listen to LPs who
don't buy new LPs.

I'll bet for every album listener there are more like 50 listening
exclusively to other formats. That would be a more reasonable guess.


Ya think? Seems unlikely to me. Where do you get your 1%? And 1%
equals 1 in a 100, not 1 in 50. And assumes an equal distribution of
sales. And I'm betting that the lp listeners don't fit that profile.
There are no "new" lps.


Of course there are! Just look on Amazon or in the larger record stores (if
there are any left in your locality). There's plenty of new vinyl being
offered for sale. There's also a significant reissue market of classic LPs
being remastered and recut on 180gm vinyl. Now, why anyone would want to pay
significantly more for the vinyl than for the same album on CD is beyond me,
but having heard some abortions that pass for remastered CDs recently,
perhaps the vinyl *is* better.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
[email protected] dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

On Mar 14, 11:26 am, "Dave" wrote:
There is an arguement that the CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz does not provide
enough bandwidth for truly perfect sound reproduction. Sound is an analog
signal. To convert analog to digital, samples are taken, in this case
44,100 times per second, and a digital representation is made of each
sample. A CD player contains a digital to analog converter which reverses
the process. Problem is, you can't reproduce a sound wave, which is a
curve, from discrete digital samples, you can only approximate it. The more
samples, the better the approximation.


Forgive me for my impatience, Dave but, in a word, bull****.

This same tired, old and, most importantly wrong technical
explanation is unearthed now and again. While it may
seem intuitively correct, it is technically completely
wrong.

The falacy of your argument was proven quite a long time
ago, over a half century, by Shannon, Nyquist and others.

I'll spare you the technical details primarily because
others and myself have written MANY times that once
you have sampled at a rate exceeding twice the highest
frequency, no higher sampling rate buys you ANY
increase of accuracy or fidelity in sampling waveforms
contained within that bandwidth.

That means that for a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, it
is capable of theoretically perfect capture and
reproduction of any waveform or combination of
waveforms whose combined bandwidth is less
than 22.05 kHz, within the accuracy of the quantizer
itself, and that, for CD audio, is 16 bits broadband,
or some 96 dB of dynamic range.

Remember that the CD standard sample
rate was adopted in the 80's, when PC's didn't exist and the fastest
processor ran at 8 or 16MHz.


True but completely irrelevant.

issues as far as perfect sound reprodution, but they are a true analog
medium


They are no truer an "analog" than digital.

The difference is one is a time and amplitude continuous
analog, one is a discrete time, quantized analog.

and can, POTENTIALLY, deliver truer sound than can a CD.


No, they cannot. LPs have a substantially more limited
dynamic range and, with very RARE exceptions, equal of less
practical bandwitdh than CD, far better speed stability and more.

newer doesn't always mean it's better. Also, better for one
person doesn't always equal better for all. I'll take a well-
mastered LP over some piece of crap 128kbps-encoded
mp3 any day


Irrelevant strawman: you're tarring the CD with a "crappy
MP3 brush).

I'd much rather NOT have a crappy, badly mastered LP,
CD or whatever, but they all exist.

But then I'm old....


And, with no disrespect intended, not very knowledgeable
on digital vs analog principles, technology and capability.

  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
[email protected] JamesGangNC@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default RCA speaker cable/patch cable

On Mar 14, 11:26*am, "Dave" wrote:
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message

... Usually nostalgia.

Nolstalgia? *I'm in the camp that just wants my audio system to as
accurately as possible recreate the sound of the live performance. *But to
each their own.


There is an arguement that the CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz does not provide
enough bandwidth for truly perfect sound reproduction. *Sound is an analog
signal. *To convert analog to digital, samples are taken, in this case
44,100 times per second, and a digital representation is made of each
sample. *A CD player contains a digital to analog converter which reverses
the process. *Problem is, you can't reproduce a sound wave, which is a
curve, from discrete digital samples, you can only approximate it. *The more
samples, the better the approximation. *Remember that the CD standard sample
rate was adopted in the 80's, when PC's didn't exist and the fastest
processor ran at 8 or 16MHz.

There is a contingent of the population, and I'll grant you that it's a
small contingent when compared to the general population, that believes that
LP's _CAN_ sound better than CD's. *Granted, LP's come with their own set of
issues as far as perfect sound reprodution, but they are a true analog
medium and can, POTENTIALLY, deliver truer sound than can a CD. *If you've
ever heard a really really good vinyl system playing a really really
well-mastered album, you'll know what I mean.

The popularity of CD's is due to a number of factors, but a real big one is
that for a tiny fraction of the cost of an awesome turntable, you can get a
CD player with 95% of the sound quality. *With the advent of the computer
age, CD's offer transferability that vinyl cannot. *Things like music
distribution evolve with technology, but remember that just because it's
newer doesn't always mean it's better. *Also, better for one person doesn't
always equal better for all. *I'll take a well-mastered LP over some piece
of crap 128kbps-encoded mp3 any day of the week, but a VAST VAST majority of
music purchasers (who are, btw, mainly kids) are perfectly happy with the
highly compressed format and accompanying loss of sound quality.

But then I'm old....

Dave


Totally wrong. The cd format is vastly superior to vinyl in frequency
range and dynamic range. And the vinyl deteriorates every time you
play it. CDs are not lossy so you can't compare them to mp3s. We're
talking about the standard cd uncompressed format against vinyl.
Compression, mp3s, is a sacrifice for portability. What are you going
to do to make the vinyl portable?
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
patch cable help/question David General 15 January 18th 06 10:52 PM
patch cable help/question David Pro Audio 15 January 18th 06 10:52 PM
FA: New! MONSTER CABLE SuperFlat Mini Speaker Cable 20ft w/Conn. [email protected] Marketplace 0 March 24th 05 09:42 AM
FA: New! MONSTER CABLE SuperFlat Mini Speaker Cable 20ft w/Connectors [email protected] Marketplace 0 March 24th 05 09:39 AM
FA: MONSTER CABLE SuperFlat Mini Speaker Cable 50ft w/Connectors [email protected] Marketplace 0 March 24th 05 09:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"