Cable Delusions [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Cable Delusions



RobotCzar
04-29-2006, 06:44 AM
This is one of my infrequent messages to this forum. I just like to drop in and let any newcommers who are reading this stuff know that threre are some inconvenient facts that get in the way of the audiophile love fest. Let's look at a few statements from a post in this forum:

"There is lots of methadology concerning double blind testing."
Well, there is lots of methadology concerning any...method. Is this at all sensible?

"There are those who have problems with the concept of double blind testing."
There are those who "have problems" with the Earth being round. Those people do not include scientists and judges, as double blind testing is REQUIRED in many scientific testing protocols and is often required to resolve product claims in a court of law.

"Most of the time double blind testing is used to reinforce the objectivists contention that there is no difference between cables electronics or any thing else."
This statement has it backwards. DBT is used in testing ANY differences in perception and clearly shows that humans can make many subtle audio distinctions (such as in volume level). Objectivists (or rationalists if you prefer) point out that those claiming to hear differences in everything have not demonstrated that they can in a scientific listening test. For example, audible differences in typical home cables have never been demonstrated in a scientifically controlled test. Given how big a difference many posters in this forum claim for cables, you think one of them could actually show that they can hear a difference without know in advance which cable is which. Show us, don't tell us what you hear.

"If anyone hears a difference in wires or cables the onus is not on them to prove it. It is up to those who disbelieve to disprove it."

This is not correct scientifically. The onus is on the person making the claim. I can say "I can jump to the moon" and the onus is not on you to disprove it. Note that one probably can prove scientifically and rationally that I can't jumpt to the moon, just as one can prove, by analysis and measurment, that one cannot possibly hear differences in typical home audio cables.

"If I am wishfully thinking so be it. It is my money and my ears that I have to satisfy. If it sounds better to me then it is. If it is my imagination I don't care."
This is, at last, the crux of the argument. People believe they will hear differences and they will (in their mind). But, when they do not have the cues to help their mind, they cannot. This is a well-established psychological principle which allows high-end sellers to make a lot of money. Another well-established principle is that people will not give up their false beliefs when faced with evidence they are wrong. So, I don't expect the people who regularly post here will change their minds, but some new people may be misled by the major deceptions present in the world of home audio.

Note that many people who post are eager to tell you what component are in their system. THAT is what high end is about--ego and one upsmanship. It is like owning jewelery. Such people are scientifically naive, but they can't help telling other what they should hear.

So, are you a person who wants to pay big money for illustions you make up in your mind, go right ahead-- become a high-end audiophool. If you want accurate home audio at a reasonable price, avoid places like this or any popular audio magazines.

Bernd
04-29-2006, 09:20 AM
Are you the saviour of the newbie or after an arguement?:incazzato:
I do agree with some of your post, but it isn't right to generalise. And lets not forget that this is a hobby. If I have the money and want to buy an expensive cable, I will. I don't feel the need to have to prove anything. And here comes my qualifier- it has to justify it's cost to "my" ears. No-one elses. Am I interested in measurements. No. Will I try before I buy-absolutly always.
The best we can do is share our findings and experiences with fellow audio friends and let them decide for themselves.

Peace

Bernd:16:

JohnMichael
04-29-2006, 01:08 PM
Well you tell people to avoid AR and magazines but then you fail to advise them where to go to learn. So you are not helping.

As far as cables and other audio components what might have sounded best to us on initial purchase does not bring long term musical pleasure. We might choose the best sounding cable from a blind test only to find out that after several weeks the sound is grating.

I hear differences in cables but I am not concerned in proving that to you. It is a part of music reproduction with which I seem to be sensitive. I can not listen to most stranded cables for very long at a time. Other distortions I may not notice might drive someone else up the wall. Bright speakers and components can send me out of a room quickly.

I hope everyone can learn to trust their ears and buy what brings them musical pleasure. Just like the czar this is just an opinion and your own experiences matter more.

JoeE SP9
04-29-2006, 02:44 PM
What I find interesting is the two buddies who I have infected with audiophilia both came to me asking about wires sounding different. This was after they had changed a cable and their wives had complained about the difference in the sound.
I gave them them both sides of the argument. My side being that everything can make things sound different and the objectivists side that any competently designed and constructed device or wire is indistinguishable from another. I even told them about double blind testing and the null results usually acheived. Their wives subsequently convinced them both to upgrade their interconnects and speaker cables.:cool:

Bernd
04-30-2006, 01:24 AM
John Michael makes a very valid point and not for the first time.:cornut:
An instant A-B comparison of cables is usualy useless as it does indeed take some time for the cable to integrate into ones system. I am certain that everytime you move your cables about, it takes again some time to have them settled in.Not day and night but certainly different. I have no measurements or scientific proof for this, just my ears.:) And that's good enough for me. I believe that whatever you do to your system has an effect on the re-produced sound. Some big some small. This makes it very vulnerable to Charlatans and Snake oil vendors.:incazzato:
"Trust your ears" is the best advice one can follow.

Enjoy the music

Bernd:16:

Fergymunster
04-30-2006, 06:44 AM
Thanks for your thoughts Robotczar.I thought I was the only one who has their sanity intact.My thinking is it is sheer madness that's going on in the power cord and power conditioner buisness.Most "audiophiles" claim it's a hooby.It's far worse,it's a full blown addiction.

daviethek
04-30-2006, 07:57 AM
Thanks for your thoughts Robotczar.I thought I was the only one who has their sanity intact.My thinking is it is sheer madness that's going on in the power cord and power conditioner buisness.Most "audiophiles" claim it's a hooby.It's far worse,it's a full blown addiction.

It can be and usually is an expensive pre-occuupation. Its a hobby to someone who trys to build, rebuild or otherwise tweak to death some of his or her gear, no diferent than classic cars, or guns or the guy who drops a couple of grand on a fly rod that enables him to "feel" the cast better. Addiction, I'm not sure. That usually infers a harmful and self destructive behavior of which this is largely not.

Fergymunster
04-30-2006, 08:07 AM
"sorry you're addicted"Yes,my current addition is cigarettes

bacchanal
04-30-2006, 02:42 PM
I am certain that everytime you move your cables about, it takes again some time to have them settled in.Not day and night but certainly different. I have no measurements or scientific proof for this, just my ears.:)

So if I go and jostle your cables when you're in the other room, you'll notice? Your ears must be golden!

superpanavision70mm
04-30-2006, 08:25 PM
It's all in your head if you are hearing differences just by moving the cables around a bit.

Bernd
04-30-2006, 11:32 PM
So if I go and jostle your cables when you're in the other room
........................I'll spank your bottom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

And bacchanal you can look forward to a weeks detention for that little outburst.

But more to the point. This old cable chestnut comes up ever so often. And frankly I do not care what somebody else hears or doesn't hear. In my opinion you need one of two things to appreciate this issue. One, a system that is revealing microdynamics with clarity and second the ability to listen for that. If you miss one of those you are unlikely to hear those changes. Very often the loud voices of doubt come from Budget or Best Buy system owners or from individuals who play background music or want to "shake the walls". Nothing wrong with that, and questioning is good. But just because one individual can't hear changes it doesn't mean that this is gospel. So enjoy whatever you listen to or hear.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Bernd
05-01-2006, 12:26 AM
Enjoy: :)

Cable Break-In
There are many factors that make cable break-in necessary and many reasons why the results vary. If you measure a new cable with a voltmeter you will see a standing voltage because good dielectrics make poor conductors. They hold a charge much like a rubbed catís fur on a dry day. It takes a while for this charge to equalize in the cable. Better cables often take longer to break-in. The best "air dielectric" techniques, such as Teflon tube construction, have large non-conductive surfaces to hold charge, much like the cat on a dry day.
Cables that do not have time to settle, such as musical instrument and microphone cables, often use conductive dielectrics like rubber or carbonized cotton to get around the problem. This dramatically reduces microphonics and settling time, but the other dielectric characteristics of these insulators are poor and they do not qualify sonically for high-end cables. Developing non-destructive techniques for reducing and equalizing the charge in excellent dielectric is a challenge in high end cables.
The high input impedance necessary in audio equipment makes uneven dielectric charge a factor. One reason settling time takes so long is we are linking the charge with mechanical stress/strain relationships. The physical make up of a cable is changed slightly by the charge and visa versa. It is like electrically charging the cat. The physical make up of the cat is changed by the charge. It is "frizzed" and the charge makes it's hair stand on end. "Teflon Cats", cables and their dielectric, take longer to loose this charge and reach physical homeostasis.
The better the dielectric's insulation, the longer it takes to settle. A charge can come from simply moving the cable (Piezoelectric effect and simple friction), high voltage testing during manufacture, etc. Cable that has a standing charge is measurably more microphonic and an uneven distribution of the charge causes something akin to structural return loss in a rising impedance system.
Mechanical stress is the root of a lot of the break-in phenomenon and it is not just a factor with cables. As a rule, companies set up audition rooms at high end audio shows a couple of days ahead of time to let them break in. The first day the sound is usually bad and it is very stressful. The last day sounds great. Mechanical stress in speaker cables, speaker cabinets, even the walls of the room, must be relaxed in order for the system to sound its best. This is the same phenomenon we experience in musical instruments. They sound much better after they have been played. Many musicians leave their instruments in front of a stereo that is playing to get them to warm up. This is very effective with a new guitar. Pianos are a stress and strain nightmare. Any change, even in temperature or humidity, will degrade their sound. A precisely tuned stereo system is similar.
You never really get all the way there, you sort of keep halving the distance to zero. Some charge is always retained. It is generally in the MV range in a well settled cable. Triboelectric noise in a cable is a function of stress and retained charge, which a good cable will release with both time and use. How much time and use is dependent on the design of the cable, materials used, treatment of the conductors during manufacture, etc.
There are many small tricks and ways of dealing with the problem. Years ago, I began using Teflon tube "air dielectric" construction and the charge on the surface of the tubes became a real issue. I developed a fluid that adds a very slight conductivity to the surface of the dielectric. Treated cables actually have a better measured dissipation factor and the sound of the cables improved substantially. It had been observed in mid eighties that many cables could be improved by wiping them with a anti-static cloth. Getting something to stick to Teflon was the real challenge. We now use an anti-static fluid in all our cables and anti-static additives in the final jacketing material. This attention to charge has reduced break-in time and in general made the cable sound substantially better. This is due to the reduction of overall charge in the cable and the equalization of the distributed charge on the surface of conductor jacket.
It seems there are many infinitesimal factors that add up. Overtime you find one leads down a path to another. In short, if a dielectric surface in a cable has a high or uneven charge which dissipates with time or use, triboelectric and other noise in the cable will also reduce with time and use. This is the essence of break-in
A note of caution. Moving a cable will, to some degree, traumatize it. The amount of disturbance is relative to the materials used, the cable's design and the amount of disturbance. Keeping a very low level signal in the cable at all times helps. At a show, where time is short, you never turn the system off. I also believe the use of degaussing sweeps, such as on the Cardas Frequency Sweep and Burn-In Record (side 1, cut 2a) helps.
A small amount of energy is retained in the stored mechanical stress of the cable. As the cable relaxes, a certain amount of the charge is released, like in an electroscope. This is the electromechanical connection.
Many factors relating to a cable's break-in are found in the sonic character or signature of a cable. If we look closely at dielectrics we find a similar situation. The dielectric actually changes slightly as it charges and its dissipation factor is linked to its hardness. In part these changes are evidenced in the standing charge of the cable. A new cable, out of the bag, will have a standing charge when uncoiled. It can have as much as several hundred millivolts. If the cable is left at rest it will soon drop to under one hundred, but it will takes days of use in the system to fall to the teens and it never quite reaches zero. These standing charges appear particularly significant in low level interconnects to preamps with high impedance inputs.
The interaction of mechanical and electrical stress/strain variables in a cable are integral with the break-in, as well as the resonance of the cable. Many of the variables are lumped into a general category called triboelectric noise. Noise is generated in a cable as a function of the variations between the components of the cable. If a cable is flexed, moved, charged, or changed in any way, it will be a while before it is relaxed again. The symmetry of the cable's construction is a big factor here. Very careful design and execution by the manufacturer helps a lot. Very straight forward designs can be greatly improved with the careful choice of materials and symmetrical construction. Audioquest has built a large and successful high-end cable company around these principals.
The basic rules for the interaction of mechanical and electrical stress/strain variables holds true, regardless of scale or medium. Cables, cats, pianos and rooms all need to relax in order to be at their best. Constant attention to physical and environmental conditions, frequent use and the degaussing of a system help it achieve and maintain a relaxed state.
A note on breaking in box speakers, a process which seems to take forever. When I want to speed up the break-in process, I place the speakers face to face, with one speaker wired out of phase and play a surf CD through them. After about a week, I place them in their normal listening position and continue the process for three more days. After that, I play a degaussing sweep a few times. Then it is just a matter of playing music and giving them time.

G.Cardas


Peace

Bernd:16:

Resident Loser
05-01-2006, 05:33 AM
...may be in order for the benefit of some of the site noobs...RobotCzar is a longtime (if infrequent) poster who has carried the same message...to wit: that there is a rational, objective POV to this hobby to which the hobby-noobs should be made aware of as an alternative to a steady diet of the questionable subjective and anecdotal a...er, audiopilia that has become prevalent...One whose sole support is based an a rather tenuous premise of allowing the ears to be the pre-eminent arbiter while completely disregarding the existence of outside influences impinging on the results achieved using this methodology...further supported by the constant use of psuedo-scientific, jargon-based "factoids" which have little or nothing to do with audio reproduction...or much else for that matter.

jimHJJ(...but golly gee, they sure sound convincing...)

jneutron
05-01-2006, 05:46 AM
Enjoy: :)

Cable Break-In....

My goodness.

It's not the cables breakin in.. It is you.

Your long post, wow..I do not know where to start with the corrections, there are so many misconceptions and flat out errors.

I guess the best thing, is to just explain that pretty much all of it appears to be the aftermath of an explosion in a physics thesaurus factory.

I'm not claiming there is no difference resulting from cables. Just that it is no longer acceptable to make up technical sounding explanations and expect people to believe them..

Cheers, John

Bernd
05-01-2006, 05:49 AM
Hello Jim,
How are you doing? Spring has bloody disappeared again. I am waiting for snow.:)
Even so I agree with most of your post but what gets me is the" I know and you don't" attitude from "Both" sides of the argument.
You are right we are swamped with idiotic terminology and I felt that George Cardas' note stayed mostly clear of that, and made some very good points.
And newbies should be made aware of both sides and if you spent say $1000 on a first time system it makes no sense whatsoever to spent that amount again on cables. You will not hear it. But add a nought and then spent 10% of that on your cables and you will hear a change in presentation, or you should.
And as I mentioned I don't care what somebody else hears. For me the best benefit one can recieve or give is by sharing ones experiences on sites like this.

Peace

Bernd:16:

jneutron
05-01-2006, 05:55 AM
Hello Jim,
How are you doing? Spring has bloody disappeared again. I am waiting for snow.:)
Even so I agree with most of your post but what gets me is the" I know and you don't" attitude from "Both" sides of the argument.
You are right we are swamped with idiotic terminology and I felt that George Cardas' note stayed mostly clear of that, and made some very good points.
And newbies should be made aware of both sides and if you spent say $1000 on a first time system it makes no sense whatsoever to spent that amount again on cables. You will not hear it. But add a nought and then spent 10% of that on your cables and you will hear a change in presentation, or you should.
And as I mentioned I don't care what somebody else hears. For me the best benefit one can recieve or give is by sharing ones experiences on sites like this.

Peace

Bernd:16:

OOOOHHHH, that explains it..

I saw the signat of cardas at the bottom...was thinkin you were he..and that you accidentally signed it..

Ya gotta attribute text to the author, guy....or mistakes will be made..

Sheesh..

Most of that collection of english words is simply a collection of cowchips..

Cheers, John

Bernd
05-01-2006, 05:59 AM
My goodness.

It's not the cables breakin in.. It is you.

Your long post, wow..I do not know where to start with the corrections, there are so many misconceptions and flat out errors.

I guess the best thing, is to just explain that pretty much all of it appears to be the aftermath of an explosion in a physics thesaurus factory.

I'm not claiming there is no difference resulting from cables. Just that it is no longer acceptable to make up technical sounding explanations and expect people to believe them..

Cheers, John

Hi John,

That was writen by George Cardas. So you need to take that up with him and put him straight on his incorrect findings. I am sure you are the man to do just that.:cornut: And I look forward on reading his response to your corrections.
I never read any of his findings and research until I had decided on which cables to buy. To much stuff being writen that means nothing to me. But my ears I trust, I am used to them and no doubting scientist will convince me that Black is White and White is Black.
However I am always open to hear and welcome personal findings on these matters.
As for breaking in....Terra Firma all the way. Hard earned bread does not leave my paw easily.

Peace

Bernd:16:

jneutron
05-01-2006, 06:09 AM
Hi John,

That was writen by George Cardas. So you need to take that up with him and put him straight on his incorrect findings. I am sure you are the man to do just that.:cornut: And I look forward on reading his response to your corrections.

Yes, I realized that after you mentioned it to jim..

My DUH moment..

I've wasted my time in the past having dialogue with these "white paper" shovelers.

Let's face it, for them to back off of their ridiculous statements, is to remove the bulk of the market advantage they garner from those cowchip papers.

I do not expect them to retract their statements as that would impact them financially, and that is not what I am about.

I've poked and prodded for years now, on these various sites, providing accurate e/m gobbledeygook. But it is a learning process for these vendors. Let them learn at their rate, let the changes be slow..upheaval is not a viable process in my book, unless it is required.

Cheers, John

Bernd
05-01-2006, 06:19 AM
Yes, I realized that after you mentioned it to jim..

My DUH moment..

I've wasted my time in the past having dialogue with these "white paper" shovelers.

Let's face it, for them to back off of their ridiculous statements, is to remove the bulk of the market advantage they garner from those cowchip papers.

I do not expect them to retract their statements as that would impact them financially, and that is not what I am about.

I've poked and prodded for years now, on these various sites, providing accurate e/m gobbledeygook. But it is a learning process for these vendors. Let them learn at their rate, let the changes be slow..upheaval is not a viable process in my book, unless it is required.

Cheers, John

I totaly accept and welcome your stance. However I would like to read a(ny) response to some of your doubts from the manufacturer on their claims. Will it happen-who knows. I still believe that Cardas is one of the more genuine guys. He could have used silver a long time ago and cash in even more, but he didn't, as the drawbacks are greater then the rewards. I think a lot is talked about what is in effect a small improvement to ones system and a very personal choice. And if another music lover likes to use bell-wire to connect his/her speakers and is happy, so be it. Maybe they know something that I, and many others, are missing.
Thanks for joining in and have a good one.

Peace

Bernd:16:

jneutron
05-01-2006, 06:33 AM
I totaly accept and welcome your stance. However I would like to read a(ny) response to some of your doubts from the manufacturer on their claims. Will it happen-who knows. I still believe that Cardas is one of the more genuine guys. He could have used silver a long time ago and cash in even more, but he didn't, as the drawbacks are greater then the rewards. I think a lot is talked about what is in effect a small improvement to ones system and a very personal choice. And if another music lover likes to use bell-wire to connect his/her speakers and is happy, so be it. Maybe they know something that I, and many others, are missing.
Thanks for joining in and have a good one.

Peace

Bernd:16:

I went back and forth with two cable vendors a coupla years ago. I provided clear and concise corrections to the more blatent e/m errors, with my blessings to use it in their papers, they did not. And without explanation.

They didn't have to give any explanation, as I understood the position they are in. They need to live, they need to eat.

When their customers are better versed in what is real and what is not, they will simply adapt. When they find that they lose customers because of their white paper crapola, they will change their white paper. Simple. Market driven, and reality.

My desire is to both educate their customers, and advance this thing called "science"..

I cannot provide the dialogue I had with either. If they had wished, they could do so with my blessings. But I do not divulge private conversations without permission.

Cheers, John

Bernd
05-01-2006, 06:49 AM
Thanks. I believe you and you have my respect for keeping private,private. And full marks for trying.

Peace

Bernd:16:

bacchanal
05-01-2006, 07:17 AM
........................I'll spank your bottom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

No! Anything but that!

But seriously though...It's really a cost justification and system balance issue.

Think about TT cartridges and needles. Those things cost nothing to make, but they sell for $1000's.

The thing about audio is that high price tags don't necessarily always translate to better performance (to any given listener), but that doesn't mean that it will never bring greater performance.

For one $1000 cable you may just be paying for pretty packaging, for another you may get a quality product. Is there a difference, is it justifiable, does it integrate with your equipment? Only one person can figure these things out. The same goes for speakers and amps and anything else. If one really wants to talk about product performance, more time should be spent discussing how to become a more critical listener instead of discussing what this or that expert wrote or what this or that study said. Then agian, there is a balance between being a critical listener and knowing how to listen for enjoyment.

Bernd
05-01-2006, 07:51 AM
No! Anything but that!

But seriously though...It's really a cost justification and system balance issue.

Think about TT cartridges and needles. Those things cost nothing to make, but they sell for $1000's.

The thing about audio is that high price tags don't necessarily always translate to better performance (to any given listener), but that doesn't mean that it will never bring greater performance.

For one $1000 cable you may just be paying for pretty packaging, for another you may get a quality product. Is there a difference, is it justifiable, does it integrate with your equipment? Only one person can figure these things out. The same goes for speakers and amps and anything else. If one really wants to talk about product performance, more time should be spent discussing how to become a more critical listener instead of discussing what this or that expert wrote or what this or that study said. Then agian, there is a balance between being a critical listener and knowing how to listen for enjoyment.

Well we have to think of another punishment then.:ihih:

Very well put. And I agree with what you said. The critical listening has the ability to sometimes cross over with the listening for enjoyment. Again it's a learning process. To me anything that creates "wow" from the off is usually very tiresome in the long run.
As for packaging you are spot on. My Cables come in a clear plastic zip bag, and one sheet of printed paper and thats it. But I have seen some in hard wood boxes and silk lined. And of course I always said that high price does not equate great performance.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Resident Loser
05-01-2006, 08:59 AM
...one case in point I didn't have time to address earlier is the mention of "...play a degaussing sweep..."?????????????????

Now I purport to be no expert, I'll defer to our magnet-maven jneutron on that, but the only degaussing that I'm familiar with is re: tape recorders which require an electronic device and careful manipulation of said device to counter residual magnetism...also with CRTs which usually have an added bit of hardware to accomplish the same end on each power-up...generally speaking an electro-mechanical process/device...

If I am to believe the quote, there is a disc that somehow completly eliminates this manual process by sending a stream of 1s and 0s which, via a reconstituted signal within the audible spectrum, degauss? And degauss what in particular?

Does magnetism even have a frequency range? If so it ain't 20Hz-20kHz...Electromagnetic force is simply one of the four fundamental forces and the variant/hybrid we use and encounter with regularity is electrodynamics...

Signal traces on PCBs and wiring other is copper...the last time I looked copper, while a conductor, was a non-magnetic metal...yes, it's used in electromagnets, but the operative force is the varying signal that passes through it and it doesn't retain any charge that I'm aware of...after all, your loudspeakers would lock-up if that were the case as soon as a signal was applied...and if the conductor doesn't retain one, what chance does a dielectric material have...and I believe static electricity and rubbing balloons or yer cat's @$$ is a whole 'nother thing...so let's avoid that trip...or touch your cables once in a while, that should discharge 'em.

There was a regular poster here who said the white-coats at IBM were able to take a micro-photo of the sub-atomic thingies in your every-day, garden variety copper wire, they had cajoled and coerced into forming the letters I...B and M...under a strong magnetic field...perhaps under radioactive bombardment...in a vacuum...at zero degrees Kelvin...neat parlor trick, but since the environment is neither particularly practical nor naturally ocurring, it begs the question...

jimHJJ(...so what?...)

Bernd
05-01-2006, 09:23 AM
Well Jim,
It is such an emotive subject and I am certainly no technical expert and am certain that there is a lot of sales patter flying about. All I know is that the Cardas Golden Reference works for me better than any other I have tried.
But is no good me arguing a point for all costs about something that only I have experienced, in my room,etc,etc.
And here is something else that is hard to explain I think. I play once week a "Densen -DeMagic" cd. It's a 3 min long mix of tones and here is what it does:

Quote-"The DeMagic cleans the entire signal path of magnetism which has been build up during playback, due to DC leakage and other influences on all the parts used in the audio components.This magnetism results in magnetic introduced distortion (MID), where the magnetic fields distort the audio signal. By removing the MID with the disc a much clearer, more dynamic, detailed and transparent sound emerges."Quote

It works. And believe me that something that costs me £15 (which does not brake the bank) and does not work would end up in the trash. But this disc really works. Can't tell you more than that and I will continue to use it:) .

Peace

Bernd:16:

JohnMichael
05-01-2006, 09:34 AM
Well Jim,
It is such an emotive subject and I am certainly no technical expert and am certain that there is a lot of sales patter flying about. All I know is that the Cardas Golden Reference works for me better than any other I have tried.
But is no good me arguing a point for all costs about something that only I have experienced, in my room,etc,etc.
And here is something else that is hard to explain I think. I play once week a "Densen -DeMagic" cd. It's a 3 min long mix of tones and here is what it does:

Quote-"The DeMagic cleans the entire signal path of magnetism which has been build up during playback, due to DC leakage and other influences on all the parts used in the audio components.This magnetism results in magnetic introduced distortion (MID), where the magnetic fields distort the audio signal. By removing the MID with the disc a much clearer, more dynamic, detailed and transparent sound emerges."Quote

It works. And believe me that something that costs me £15 (which does not brake the bank) and does not work would end up in the trash. But this disc really works. Can't tell you more than that and I will continue to use it:) .

Peace

Bernd:16:


Bernd I would like to recommend the Cardas disc for your turntable. It helps demag the cartridge and other components down stream. It is inexpensive and beneficial. Of course you may already have a cartridge demagnatizer. If not ry the Cardas.

Bernd
05-01-2006, 09:41 AM
Bernd I would like to recommend the Cardas disc for your turntable. It helps demag the cartridge and other components down stream. It is inexpensive and beneficial. Of course you may already have a cartridge demagnatizer. If not ry the Cardas.

Thanks John,

There seem to be a conspiracy with me not getting the Cardas disc. I have ordered it twice. The first time it got lost and never turned up and the second time it arrived as Jigsaw.:incazzato:
Maybe it's time to try it for the third time (third time lucky or such nonsense). I will place an order right now and will report back.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Resident Loser
05-01-2006, 10:19 AM
Well Jim,
It is such an emotive subject and I am certainly no technical expert and am certain that there is a lot of sales patter flying about. All I know is that the Cardas Golden Reference works for me better than any other I have tried.
But is no good me arguing a point for all costs about something that only I have experienced, in my room,etc,etc.
And here is something else that is hard to explain I think. I play once week a "Densen -DeMagic" cd. It's a 3 min long mix of tones and here is what it does:

Quote-"The DeMagic cleans the entire signal path of magnetism which has been build up during playback, due to DC leakage and other influences on all the parts used in the audio components.This magnetism results in magnetic introduced distortion (MID), where the magnetic fields distort the audio signal. By removing the MID with the disc a much clearer, more dynamic, detailed and transparent sound emerges."Quote

It works. And believe me that something that costs me £15 (which does not brake the bank) and does not work would end up in the trash. But this disc really works. Can't tell you more than that and I will continue to use it:) .

Peace

Bernd:16:

...can't breathe....BWWAAAHH-HAA-HAa-ha-ha-ha...chuckle, chortle...cough, cough...there...that's better, nearly peed meself...not your post Bernd...I visited the Densen website and read the reviews of De-magic...thanks, I need a good laugh now and again...First, there is a vast difference between a "...powerful test signal..." as they put it and an "...algorithm of signals..." whatever that is...Most sounds from modern synthesizers are mathematical models, i.e. algorithm-based, but just what is an "...algorithm of signals..." and algorithm of alogrithms? and then of course there are the omnipresent, scientifically-vague tests conducted the the University of South Korea that "...definitely proved the theory behind the De-Magic signal..." Can you say psuedo-science factoid?

Proving any theory isn't quite the same as establishing the efficacy of a product or process based on that theory...but golly, it sure sounds like it does don't it? I have a theory that water will put out a fire and I can prove it...in reality however, water can't be used on all fires...depends on the circumstance...sorta' like my IBM story.

And if breaking-in entails getting all of your sonic ducks in a row, by lining up electrons or polarizing micro-diodes, why would you then want to disrupt the order that has been created in that process by blasting your handiwork with the random noise produced by the aforementioned algorithm? Isn't it sorta' like using a cable cooker on cryogenically treated wires?

Again Bernd, nothing personal and I'm happy that you're happy...

jimHJJ(...I have to go now and participate in a distinctly non-DC leakage...)

bacchanal
05-01-2006, 11:08 AM
It's probably worth noting that placebos really do work and are regularly used in medicine.

A placebo doesn't do anything in the sense that a standard prescription would, but the effect is felt by the patient.

I don't see any reason the same couldn't be true for audio.

http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

JohnMichael
05-01-2006, 11:16 AM
Thanks John,

There seem to be a conspiracy with me not getting the Cardas disc. I have ordered it twice. The first time it got lost and never turned up and the second time it arrived as Jigsaw.:incazzato:
Maybe it's time to try it for the third time (third time lucky or such nonsense). I will place an order right now and will report back.

Peace

Bernd:16:


Well I wish you luck in the third attempet. I will be curious to read your opinion of the record. I must also compliment you on what a gentleman you are. You rise above the cheap shots and keep an even temper.

Resident Loser
05-01-2006, 11:27 AM
...You rise above the cheap shots and keep an even temper.

...Was something deleted?...kindly advise as to the location of these cheap shots of which you speak...

jimHJJ(...I'd be keen on reading them...)

Fergymunster
05-01-2006, 11:39 AM
An indidvidual from Dedicated Audio told me there flooding the market with bogus Cardas Cables for the Sennheiser HD 600/650.Absolute truth.

Resident Loser
05-01-2006, 12:02 PM
An indidvidual from Dedicated Audio told me there flooding the market with bogus Cardas Cables for the Sennheiser HD 600/650.Absolute truth.

...wasn't it Cardas who was selling those mass-produced, Chinese manufactured ICs after removing the "Made In China" tags...that sorta' blurs the line of what is or isn't bogus...

jimHJJ(...but then again, wire IS wire, generally speaking...)

musicoverall
05-01-2006, 12:06 PM
This is one of my infrequent messages to this forum. I just like to drop in and let any newcommers who are reading this stuff know that threre are some inconvenient facts that get in the way of the audiophile love fest. Let's look at a few statements from a post in this forum:

"There is lots of methadology concerning double blind testing."
Well, there is lots of methadology concerning any...method. Is this at all sensible?

"There are those who have problems with the concept of double blind testing."
There are those who "have problems" with the Earth being round. Those people do not include scientists and judges, as double blind testing is REQUIRED in many scientific testing protocols and is often required to resolve product claims in a court of law.

"Most of the time double blind testing is used to reinforce the objectivists contention that there is no difference between cables electronics or any thing else."
This statement has it backwards. DBT is used in testing ANY differences in perception and clearly shows that humans can make many subtle audio distinctions (such as in volume level). Objectivists (or rationalists if you prefer) point out that those claiming to hear differences in everything have not demonstrated that they can in a scientific listening test. For example, audible differences in typical home cables have never been demonstrated in a scientifically controlled test. Given how big a difference many posters in this forum claim for cables, you think one of them could actually show that they can hear a difference without know in advance which cable is which. Show us, don't tell us what you hear.

"If anyone hears a difference in wires or cables the onus is not on them to prove it. It is up to those who disbelieve to disprove it."

This is not correct scientifically. The onus is on the person making the claim. I can say "I can jump to the moon" and the onus is not on you to disprove it. Note that one probably can prove scientifically and rationally that I can't jumpt to the moon, just as one can prove, by analysis and measurment, that one cannot possibly hear differences in typical home audio cables.

"If I am wishfully thinking so be it. It is my money and my ears that I have to satisfy. If it sounds better to me then it is. If it is my imagination I don't care."
This is, at last, the crux of the argument. People believe they will hear differences and they will (in their mind). But, when they do not have the cues to help their mind, they cannot. This is a well-established psychological principle which allows high-end sellers to make a lot of money. Another well-established principle is that people will not give up their false beliefs when faced with evidence they are wrong. So, I don't expect the people who regularly post here will change their minds, but some new people may be misled by the major deceptions present in the world of home audio.

Note that many people who post are eager to tell you what component are in their system. THAT is what high end is about--ego and one upsmanship. It is like owning jewelery. Such people are scientifically naive, but they can't help telling other what they should hear.

So, are you a person who wants to pay big money for illustions you make up in your mind, go right ahead-- become a high-end audiophool. If you want accurate home audio at a reasonable price, avoid places like this or any popular audio magazines.

...newcomers should also note that it's your own ears that matter, not demands for proof from others. Robot Czar's opinion should not enter into the equation anymore than mine should. It's your own listening that should dictate what you believe. You owe proof to no one but yourself. Your ears are different than mine and, God willing, they are different from Robot Czar's as well.

But I have to say that I LOVED this quote of his: " Note that many people who post are eager to tell you what component are in their system. THAT is what high end is about--ego and one upsmanship. It is like owning jewelery. Such people are scientifically naive, but they can't help telling other what they should hear."

Perhaps we share our systems because this is an audio hobbyist website? And I wonder how he would classify people who can't help telling people what they should NOT hear! LOL!

E-Stat
05-01-2006, 03:48 PM
So, are you a person who wants to pay big money for illustions you make up in your mind, go right ahead-- become a high-end audiophool.
Count me in as a music lover who enjoys the "illustions" I hear in the concert hall. ;)

rw

E-Stat
05-01-2006, 04:02 PM
My desire is to both educate their customers, and advance this thing called "science"..

I cannot provide the dialogue I had with either. If they had wished, they could do so with my blessings. But I do not divulge private conversations without permission.

Cheers, John
I hope that one of these days you will actually hear something like a Nordost Valhalla in a high rez system to supplement your theoretical foundation.

It was a couple of years ago that I suggested you contact your relative neighbor Harry Pearson on that matter. If you were to hear zip cord speaker wire vs. Valhalla in his system, I suspect you would find yourself going back to the drawing board wondering why it sounded so different. :)

rw

superpanavision70mm
05-01-2006, 10:04 PM
I thought it was TARA LABS that was under investigation regarind the manufacturing.

Bernd
05-02-2006, 01:29 AM
...can't breathe....BWWAAAHH-HAA-HAa-ha-ha-ha...chuckle, chortle...cough, cough...there...that's better, nearly peed meself...not your post Bernd...I visited the Densen website and read the reviews of De-magic...thanks, I need a good laugh now and again...First, there is a vast difference between a "...powerful test signal..." as they put it and an "...algorithm of signals..." whatever that is...Most sounds from modern synthesizers are mathematical models, i.e. algorithm-based, but just what is an "...algorithm of signals..." and algorithm of alogrithms? and then of course there are the omnipresent, scientifically-vague tests conducted the the University of South Korea that "...definitely proved the theory behind the De-Magic signal..." Can you say psuedo-science factoid?

Proving any theory isn't quite the same as establishing the efficacy of a product or process based on that theory...but golly, it sure sounds like it does don't it? I have a theory that water will put out a fire and I can prove it...in reality however, water can't be used on all fires...depends on the circumstance...sorta' like my IBM story.

And if breaking-in entails getting all of your sonic ducks in a row, by lining up electrons or polarizing micro-diodes, why would you then want to disrupt the order that has been created in that process by blasting your handiwork with the random noise produced by the aforementioned algorithm? Isn't it sorta' like using a cable cooker on cryogenically treated wires?

Again Bernd, nothing personal and I'm happy that you're happy...

jimHJJ(...I have to go now and participate in a distinctly non-DC leakage...)

Hi Jim,

I don't take any of it personally. So don't worry.
You're right the website reads funny, but what do I care. The DeMagic disc works.
Also a decent laugh:) is very therapeutic and one feels so much better after it, don't you think?

Take it easy

Bernd:16:

Bernd
05-02-2006, 01:54 AM
Well I wish you luck in the third attempet. I will be curious to read your opinion of the record. I must also compliment you on what a gentleman you are. You rise above the cheap shots and keep an even temper.

Thanks for your kind words John. Like my friend Mike Scott said :"If you're not an a**ehole why act like one". A true line if ever I heard one.

The Cardas disc has been ordered and I surely will report back. Looking forward to it. :cornut:

Peace

Bernd:16:

Resident Loser
05-02-2006, 04:41 AM
I thought it was TARA LABS that was under investigation regarind the manufacturing.

...further investigation (after the fact) shows it was Tara Labs and not Cardas...Apologies to them are in order and I didn't mean to single them out...My intent is to indict the whole cottage industry of dubious tweak-dom, whether it be CD lens cleaners, degaussing discs, eutectic solders, et al...

Like the proverbial tip-of-the-iceberg or if you see a roach it's probably too late, Tara's the one we know about...

jimHJJ(...mea culpa...)

Resident Loser
05-02-2006, 05:07 AM
I suspect you would find yourself going back to the drawing board wondering why it sounded so different. :)

rw

...the misdirection, if you will, that keeps popping up in these threads...

I really can't recall anyone saying wire couldn't sound different...nearly any wire with or without benefit of a network can be made to sound different...if that weren't so, why would they bother to make them at all...What would be the selling point, if not to inject doubt and a hope for betterment in the prospective buyers mind? It's the old carrot-and-stick ploy. The question is: is it closer to the reality of the performance that was recorded?

Given the fact that most folks don't have access to the masters, nor have systems that are exactly like those used to finalize the mix, we have nothing but anecdotal accolades championing the high-priced spread...Couple that with the fact (generally speaking) that the disc that's spinning is purely a product of multi-tracking and other signal manipulations which skew reality for the sake of convenience and expediency, how is it possible for anyone to say what is the right and proper representation? And then you use it (a thorughly flawed test signal) and your ears ( a thoroughly flawed piece of test equipment) to somehow determine accuracy?

jimHJJ(...just because you like something, doesn't make it right...for you maybe, but that's about it...)

Resident Loser
05-02-2006, 06:19 AM
Count me in as a music lover who enjoys the "illustions" I hear in the concert hall. ;)

rw

...Everything you hear in a concert hall is real physics, pure and simple, measurable, definable...from a vibrating string or column of air, straight to your tympanic membrane and dem bones, dem bones, dem ear-bones...

jimHJJ(...hot-chaa...)

jneutron
05-02-2006, 07:16 AM
I hope that one of these days you will actually hear something like a Nordost Valhalla in a high rez system to supplement your theoretical foundation.

It was a couple of years ago that I suggested you contact your relative neighbor Harry Pearson on that matter. If you were to hear zip cord speaker wire vs. Valhalla in his system, I suspect you would find yourself going back to the drawing board wondering why it sounded so different. :)

rw

Initial contact with Harry elicited NADA.. It would appear that I am inconsequential.

The differences in cable parameters does not require my going back to the drawing board, that stuff is the easy part.

I went "back to the drawing board years ago, when I first had Ted Smith test a cable set of mine. His feedback included some excellent descriptors which included a variance of image depth vs power level, and a general image depth alteration.

That feedback was very intelligent, and immediately sent me scurrying for the chalk. After all, it a description of localization parameters in 2-D space, which is inconsistent with all the "high end audio" explanation sillyness, as well as outside the boundaries of the engineering (or "anti-cable" group as some with an agenda would have us believe), as it entails parameters which are not considered in the world of engineering.

In other words, fertile ground for true groundbreaking research.

You seem to be of the opinion that "if only jneutron heard what we are talking about", that I'd be, what, swayed?? That I'd, um, start thinking about localization??

I'm taking localization considerations far beyond anything that has been considered previously in the field or in the research...what is the purpose of me listening to anything?? Convince me of, what exactly??

Cheers, John

musicoverall
05-02-2006, 07:24 AM
...the misdirection, if you will, that keeps popping up in these threads...

I really can't recall anyone saying wire couldn't sound different...nearly any wire with or without benefit of a network can be made to sound different...if that weren't so, why would they bother to make them at all...What would be the selling point, if not to inject doubt and a hope for betterment in the prospective buyers mind? It's the old carrot-and-stick ploy. The question is: is it closer to the reality of the performance that was recorded?

Given the fact that most folks don't have access to the masters, nor have systems that are exactly like those used to finalize the mix, we have nothing but anecdotal accolades championing the high-priced spread...Couple that with the fact (generally speaking) that the disc that's spinning is purely a product of multi-tracking and other signal manipulations which skew reality for the sake of convenience and expediency, how is it possible for anyone to say what is the right and proper representation? And then you use it (a thorughly flawed test signal) and your ears ( a thoroughly flawed piece of test equipment) to somehow determine accuracy?

jimHJJ(...just because you like something, doesn't make it right...for you maybe, but that's about it...)

The original poster claims we need DBT's to distinguish cables and that we are unable to do so. By so stating, he's in effect saying that cables sound the same. Otherwise, why bother with a blind listening test?

As for the rest of your post, you are so right. IMHO, no matter how much we crow about neutrality on this site, what we really mean is that the component meshes with our system in a way we find sonically pleasing. The trick is to find those components that do the best job with what we believe are our best recordings. Even so, I would not be surprised to learn that audiophiles actually prefer certain distortions for the most part. And as a music lover first and audiophile second, I'm fine with whatever serves the way my ear/brain determines is correct.

On the other hand, some of the systems I've heard that measure as totally transparent show that one of two things is true: Either measurements don't give us enough of the sonic picture or CD's really DO sound like hammered dogsh*t and it's a flawed medium.
Most of them sound decent-to-excellent on my system. Consequently, I don't chase the numbers.

Resident Loser
05-02-2006, 07:54 AM
The original poster claims we need DBT's to distinguish cables and that we are unable to do so. By so stating, he's in effect saying that cables sound the same. Otherwise, why bother with a blind listening test?.

...I don't quite get that interpretation...I see it simply as sighted vs. non-sighted and DBTs as an aid to remove potential bias sources...there are other factors involved, but a re-hash is wearisome for all involved...soooo since I am double-blind as to his specific intent, I'll just shut up...

jimHJJ(...at least as far as that's concerned...)

E-Stat
05-02-2006, 10:54 AM
.The question is: is it closer to the reality of the performance that was recorded?
Agreed.


Couple that with the fact (generally speaking) that the disc that's spinning is purely a product of multi-tracking and other signal manipulations which skew reality for the sake of convenience and expediency, how is it possible for anyone to say what is the right and proper representation?
Use better minimally miked recordings that reveal more of the spatial cues from the venue. I participated at one of the ASO's Telarc Recordings. I know the hall and I have the recording.


And then you use it (a thorughly flawed test signal) and your ears ( a thoroughly flawed piece of test equipment) to somehow determine accuracy?
In the absence of relevant objective metrics, observationalist use what is left on largely unflawed recordings: our listening skills.

rw

E-Stat
05-02-2006, 10:58 AM
...Everything you hear in a concert hall is real physics, pure and simple, measurable, definable...from a vibrating string or column of air, straight to your tympanic membrane and dem bones, dem bones, dem ear-bones..
It's certainly a shame that we are unable to quantify those aspects in absolute terms.

rw

Resident Loser
05-02-2006, 12:04 PM
Use better minimally miked recordings that reveal more of the spatial cues from the venue. I participated at one of the ASO's Telarc Recordings. I know the hall and I have the recording.

In the absence of relevant objective metrics, observationalist use what is left on largely unflawed recordings: our listening skills.

...such minimalist recordings seem to be the exception rather than the rule...and if one seeks out only such pristine examples of the recording art it would seem to pare down the number of usable choices...if it's anything like the old D-to-D vinyl, the A&R choices further narrows the field (or expands in directions I might night want to travel) insofar as the styles of music available...

jimHJJ(...give me test tones and measuring equipment any day...even if it ends up as some sort of reasonable compromise, I'll then listen to what I prefer...)

Resident Loser
05-02-2006, 12:18 PM
It's certainly a shame that we are unable to quantify those aspects in absolute terms.

rw

...a string or column of air vibrates at a specific frequency...the instrument has specific overtones that further identify it...it travels through space bouncing hither and tither in the hall...the ear hears the sound, the separate arrival times are translated by the brain which localizes the source reasonably well and voila!...applause. Quite quantifiable and measureable in one manner or another, even if biology enters the equation at the end, it too is understood to some degree...charts, graphs, numbers...nothing really vague about it...

jimHJJ(...it's them wires that confuse the issue...)

E-Stat
05-02-2006, 12:27 PM
...such minimalist recordings seem to be the exception rather than the rule...and if one seeks out only such pristine examples of the recording art it would seem to pare down the number of usable choices..
Don't take my comments of only using exceptional recordings for evaluating subtle differences as any indication as to what I listen to in general. They are indeed a minority in my record/CD collection and merely provide a basis for comparisons.

rw

E-Stat
05-02-2006, 12:31 PM
...a string or column of air vibrates at a specific frequency...the instrument has specific overtones that further identify it...it travels through space bouncing hither and tither in the hall...the ear hears the sound, the separate arrival times are translated by the brain which localizes the source reasonably well and voila!...applause. Quite quantifiable and measureable in one manner or another, even if biology enters the equation at the end, it too is understood to some degree...charts, graphs, numbers...nothing really vague about it...
What is not quantifiable, however, is correlating any of that using conventional audio component metrics. Distortion measurements of all sorts are useless. Frequency response curves are useless in all but extreme cases. And so on and so on.


..it's them wires that confuse the issue...)
Indeed they do because we don't know why it is most don't pass all the musical content there is to be had.

rw

E-Stat
05-02-2006, 12:39 PM
Initial contact with Harry elicited NADA.. It would appear that I am inconsequential.
Next time let me know your're having difficulty before two years down the road! :)

Keep in mind that as a prominent audio reviewer, his schedule is tight and deadlines always loom. He will not necessarily have time to allow you to test various iterations of your DIY project to his reference. Above all, I wanted for you to hear the current system and get a notion as to what is possible. I was shocked the first time I heard the Nolas so nicely driven about four years ago.


You seem to be of the opinion that "if only jneutron heard what we are talking about", that I'd be, what, swayed?? That I'd, um, start thinking about localization??
Only of the degree of resolution and localization capabilities that exist today. His review system (which in itself constantly changes) does stuff I have never heard anywhere else.

rw

JoeE SP9
05-02-2006, 03:44 PM
The real question is, why do people from widely spaced areas with no real contact report the same subjective responses/feelings. What's up with that? And, why are there so many of us? What's up with that?

jneutron
05-03-2006, 06:42 AM
Next time let me know your're having difficulty before two years down the road! :)

What, you in a hurry? This is a long term project..:)


Above all, I wanted for you to hear the current system and get a notion as to what is possible. I was shocked the first time I heard the Nolas so nicely driven about four years ago.rw

I'm sure it's good. The best it could do would be to convince me that the artist is there.

But hearing a system do that leads to a simple question? How can a two channel system present an accurate image even though the source material does not have all the relevant localization cues left intact throughout the mixdown process.

If a pan pot moved image presents on the system in such a fashion that I believe the artist has been moved to that new location, then I have been fooled by the system into re-organizing my interpretive hearing into believing the new location..

What you are doing is playing with the system to the extent that the result is to change the interpretive algorithms in us.

I strive for a tad more. Part of that "more", is to get everybody thinking about how to actually capture the true localization cues. Listening to a wonderful system doesn't change that thinking.

I attached an excel spreadsheet of that ribbon testing I did yesterday. As you can see, I am able to duplicate the inductance easily using one set of braids. The valhalla specs are for both in parallel, this would be the 305 nH in parallel with the 149 nH spaced sets, a value of 99 nH per foot. All I have to do is put the 1 inch spaced ribbons in parallel with my (zero) spaced ribbons.

So I can easily dupe the inductance.. With a double set of braids, physically set just like they do the dual ribbon, I can get below their inductance also very easily.

However, the capacitance will tradeoff inversely proportional. If I dupe their inductance, I will dupe their capacitance (as the lower limit of course, dielectric dependent.. If I go for 50% of their inductance, I will double their capacitance...physics..

It would be better to go for an impedance match, as the capacitive storage is much too small, and not optimum for a low z load.

For a diy use, this can easily be done by using two coaxial cables, but only using the braids.

Cheers, John

E-Stat
05-03-2006, 06:49 AM
How can a two channel system present an accurate image even though the source material does not have all the relevant localization cues left intact throughout the mixdown process.
Don't use recordings that "mix down"! :)

Three mike recordings from the fifties do a nice job of retaining the localization cues. There are numerous flavors of minimally miked (usually, but not always classical) recordings about. Conventional multi-track stuff is useless for this kind of test.

rw

Fergymunster
05-03-2006, 07:16 AM
...wasn't it Cardas who was selling those mass-produced, Chinese manufactured ICs after removing the "Made In China" tags...that sorta' blurs the line of what is or isn't bogus...

jimHJJ(...but then again, wire IS wire, generally speaking...)
"there" doesn't refer to George Cardas.That's ludicrous.I mean someone or somebodys.

jneutron
05-03-2006, 07:16 AM
Don't use recordings that "mix down"! :)

Three mike recordings from the fifties do a nice job of retaining the localization cues. There are numerous flavors of minimally miked (usually, but not always classical) recordings about. Conventional multi-track stuff is useless for this kind of test.

rw

Agreed, current generation multitrack is useless for this.

Three mike recordings do not retain the correct localization cues. You are being fooled by the system. It may be your preference, but you are being fooled nonetheless.

Multitrack recording technology has the potential to provide absolutely correct localization information to a two channel system which is consistent with nature.

It requires ITD and IID modulation, not just the IID of a pan pot, but some heavy duty DSP algorithms to accomodate the geometric localization.

After that step has been accomplished, the reproduction system must be designed to hold fast to ITD and IID over the entire bandwidth and at all power levels. (Note that this is what you are attempting to do with the power cords, the IC's, the speaker cables, the amps, the external dacs, all that stuff. You are attempting to do this without a clear understanding of what it is you are actually changing).. ("you" is all the "audiophiles", not just e-stat..)

And then, one can back up into the recording aspect, and iterate the processing there to accomodate the sideband images produced by two speaker setups (vs freq), and tailor the DSP's to accomodate the speaker geometric setup, as well as their nearfield dispersion properties (the old planar vs cylindrical vs point source problem).

Once all this has been done, then the next step is to go back to the origional sources (piano, tuba, drum, whatever), and learn how to apply dsp algorithms to defining the polar frequency and time based dispersion of those instruments. One microphone is insufficient to capturing the three dimensional propagation of an instrument..for example, a horn sounds sharper on axis, yet the off axis energy is part and parcel of a live performance..

As I have stated, this is not a short term project. And step 1 has yet to be realized.....hell, step 1 is not even understood by most.

Cheers, John

E-Stat
05-03-2006, 07:29 AM
You are being fooled by the system. It may be your preference, but you are being fooled nonetheless.
Why thank you. I submit that it what the very best reproduction systems do!

I'll invoke the doctrine of "good enough" here for purposes of cable comparisons which are usually applied at considerably lower levels of resolution.

rw

jneutron
05-03-2006, 07:39 AM
Why thank you. I submit that it what the very best reproduction systems do!
Agreed.

With better source material, they will do it even better.


I'll invoke the doctrine of "good enough" here for purposes of cable comparisons which are usually applied at considerably lower levels of resolution.
rw

Good enough.... isn't.:)

When I bump my shin on the piano.....now, that's good enough.

Cheers, John