Would all cables sound alike under DBT test?...Probably not!

[Tony_Montana]

Looking at the some of [exotic] cables marketed out there, one see why the answer to above question is that not all cables will sound the same under DBT testing protocol.

For example, Silver speaker cables tend to be made of higher gauge [thinner] cables, or the silver Interconnect not having any Shields. If we compare them with standard speaker cable or ICs, one will probably note lower volume (especially in the bass area) for Silver, and higher noise or interference ratio for silver ICs.

Or, MIT cables have a secret patented boxes on their cables that will probably manipulate frequency response of the cable, and make them sound different than other cables.

And some cables are faulty by design such as Ribbon speaker cables that have excessive inductance (warm sound), or Silver/Teflon Interconnects that sound "bright" because of high frequency ringing due to undesirable properties of Teflon dielectric.

So if we do a round up of cables that are out there in a credible DBT test, it should no be assumed automatically that all of them will sound the same :)

[Beckman]

For example, Silver speaker cables tend to be made of higher gauge [thinner] cables, or the silver Interconnect not having any Shields. If we compare them with standard speaker cable or ICs, one will probably note lower volume (especially in the bass area) for Silver, and higher noise or interference ratio for silver ICs.

Or, MIT cables have a secret patented boxes on their cables that will probably manipulate frequency response of the cable, and make them sound different than other cables.

And some cables are faulty by design such as Ribbon speaker cables that have excessive inductance (warm sound), or Silver/Teflon Interconnects that sound "bright" because of high frequency ringing due to undesirable properties of Teflon dielectric.

So if we do a round up of cables that are out there in a credible DBT test, it should no be assumed automatically that all of them will sound the same :)

Couldn't agree more. The question is why use cables to attenuate or add distorition to a stereo. Why not use an equalizer?

[pctower]

Looking at the some of [exotic] cables marketed out there, one see why the answer to above question is that not all cables will sound the same under DBT testing protocol.

For example, Silver speaker cables tend to be made of higher gauge [thinner] cables, or the silver Interconnect not having any Shields. If we compare them with standard speaker cable or ICs, one will probably note lower volume (especially in the bass area) for Silver, and higher noise or interference ratio for silver ICs.

Or, MIT cables have a secret patented boxes on their cables that will probably manipulate frequency response of the cable, and make them sound different than other cables.

And some cables are faulty by design such as Ribbon speaker cables that have excessive inductance (warm sound), or Silver/Teflon Interconnects that sound "bright" because of high frequency ringing due to undesirable properties of Teflon dielectric.

So if we do a round up of cables that are out there in a credible DBT test, it should no be assumed automatically that all of them will sound the same :)

I wonder if anyone remembers "Jack's Secret Sauce" from Jack In The Box' early days in the late '50s. Perhaps some cable company acquired Jack's secret recipe and that's what they are really stuffing inside those mysterious black boxes.

[markw]

Looking at the some of [exotic] cables marketed out there, one see why the answer to above question is that not all cables will sound the same under DBT testing protocol.

For example, Silver speaker cables tend to be made of higher gauge [thinner] cables, or the silver Interconnect not having any Shields. If we compare them with standard speaker cable or ICs, one will probably note lower volume (especially in the bass area) for Silver, and higher noise or interference ratio for silver ICs.

Or, MIT cables have a secret patented boxes on their cables that will probably manipulate frequency response of the cable, and make them sound different than other cables.

And some cables are faulty by design such as Ribbon speaker cables that have excessive inductance (warm sound), or Silver/Teflon Interconnects that sound "bright" because of high frequency ringing due to undesirable properties of Teflon dielectric.

So if we do a round up of cables that are out there in a credible DBT test, it should no be assumed automatically that all of them will sound the same :)

No problemo. The "problemo" is that many like to go by the catch phrase "all cables [missing part] sound the same" but conveniently disregard the all important [missing part] that qualifies this, which is "of similar length, guage and construction".

Now, wether the difference in length, gauge and construction is worth the tremendous disparity in price between the low end and the high end is another matter entirely. One might more logically question where the point of diminishing returns levels off, and this may not only be based on acoustic differences, although it really should be.

[skeptic]

I pointed out on another thread that comparing cables to each other makes no sense at all and all such tests are invalid. They should be compared to an ideal shunt, as close to one as you can get, or put in a circuit which includes a duplicate shunt. The difference between the cable and the shunt is the magnitude and nature of the distortion of the cable. It should be pointed out that the same cable can give different results when being connected to different equipment. Therefore recommendations based on the results in one sound system may not be relevant to the results you would get with a different sound system.

[okiemax]

Couldn't agree more. The question is why use cables to attenuate or add distorition to a stereo. Why not use an equalizer?

Equalizers are practically being given away at eBay auctions. I see auctions for these things starting at $1 and ending up with no bids, and those that do sell, frequently go for prices that are lower than their shipping costs. Depreciation from the price when new may be the worst of any audio gear. Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

[mtrycraft]

Looking at the some of [exotic] cables marketed out there, one see why the answer to above question is that not all cables will sound the same under DBT testing protocol.

For example, Silver speaker cables tend to be made of higher gauge [thinner] cables, or the silver Interconnect not having any Shields. If we compare them with standard speaker cable or ICs, one will probably note lower volume (especially in the bass area) for Silver, and higher noise or interference ratio for silver ICs.

Or, MIT cables have a secret patented boxes on their cables that will probably manipulate frequency response of the cable, and make them sound different than other cables.

And some cables are faulty by design such as Ribbon speaker cables that have excessive inductance (warm sound), or Silver/Teflon Interconnects that sound "bright" because of high frequency ringing due to undesirable properties of Teflon dielectric.

So if we do a round up of cables that are out there in a credible DBT test, it should no be assumed automatically that all of them will sound the same :)


Greenhill already demonstrated that some cables do sound different and it is not a mistery why.

MIT has no secret components. It is patented and stated. It is for RF not audio.

I'd like to see the high frequency ringing from a teflon cable.

Ribbon cables have very high capacitance and very low inductance. Some amps go into oscilation with high capacitance. That si not a wiare fault but an amp fault. Poor design as others can handle it.

So, the answer is rather simple, 12 ga to 16 ga. :D

[pctower]

Equalizers are practically being given away at eBay auctions. I see auctions for these things starting at $1 and ending up with no bids, and those that do sell, frequently go for prices that are lower than their shipping costs. Depreciation from the price when new may be the worst of any audio gear. Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

Check out this paper starting on page 16:

http://international.infinitysystems.com/homeaudio/whitepapers/audio_art_science.pdf

and this:

http://www.jblpro.com/LSR/PDF/White%20Papers.pdf

and especially this:

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JKW/is_2000_Dec/ai_70035922

[Pat D]

Greenhill already demonstrated that some cables do sound different and it is not a mistery why.
LOL! Oh, but Greenhill isn't scientific enough for PC Tower. Of course, that doesn't prevent PC and others from accusing of of saying that "all" cables sound the same,:) or even that "everything" sounds the same.:D


MIT has no secret components. It is patented and stated. It is for RF not audio.

I'd like to see the high frequency ringing from a teflon cable.

Ribbon cables have very high capacitance and very low inductance. Some amps go into oscilation with high capacitance. That si not a wiare fault but an amp fault. Poor design as others can handle it.
STOP confusing us with facts.:rolleyes:


So, the answer is rather simple, 12 ga to 16 ga.:D
That's too easy! Not expensive enough!;)

[okiemax]

Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

Check out this paper starting on page 16:

http://international.infinitysystems.com/homeaudio/whitepapers/audio_art_science.pdf

and this:

http://www.jblpro.com/LSR/PDF/White%20Papers.pdf

and especially this:

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JKW/is_2000_Dec/ai_70035922

After reading these articles, I think I see why equalizers are so cheap on eBay. My guess is many users are disappointed with results from these devices, and may see them as a hifi liability. After looking at several on eBay, however, I can see how the meter readers might go ga ga over these things. A person could spend many pleasureable evenings making adjustment after adjustment to all those controls.

I have to confess, the gadget lover in me was attracted to a couple of remote-controlled equalizers on auction, particularily a Sansui with a remote that could be hidden inside the cabinet ( at $50 "Buy Now," but no takers). This unit might be worth $30 to me, considering it's entertainment value, and how it would impress my non-audiophile friends, who don't even notice my cables.

P.S. If I end up buying one of these things, I think it's only fair that I send Beckman the bill for having brought up the subject.

[Resident Loser]

...I have no idea why equalizers don't seem to have a market...perhaps, most of them are cheaply-made, with the ability to screw things up more than fix them...less than octave-width, which really renders them glorified tone controls...misunderstanding their abilities and incorrect use by consumers may also have given them a bad rap...outright misuse is fairly common; it would seem as though most users employ them as overall "gain devices" as opposed to equalizers...

Now for the fun part...PCT, I'm not sure what sort of follow-up research you did re: your citations but, after reading them, off went all my buzzers and bells...the first two "white papers" were authored by people who would seem to have more than a passing interest in their respective organizations proprietary ideas and products. Both schemes seem aimed at the professional market and perhaps, at some future date, may filter down to the home audio enthusiast in a reasonable and reasonably priced form.

The co-authors of the third reference are even more firmly entrenched in the marketing facet of the industry...one of them seems to have been, at various times: an electronic publisher, a media company director and even the editor and webmaster of the site cited itself(say THAT a few times)...other titles include: sales manager, manufacturers rep, marketing manager and director of sales. The other was named director of business development of a well-known name in pro audio apps, has held other "key sales and marketing positions", was VP of sales and marketing for another. regional sales manager and manufacturers rep for yet another.

Hardly trying to denigrate these gentlemen's abilities in their respective fields of expertise, but I always have to take what certain folks say with a grain of salt...especially when they all seem to badmouth one thing in deference to something else they seem to have...er, shall we say...an "interest" in...

jimHJJ(...but, of course and as always, that's just me...)

[pctower]

...I have no idea why equalizers don't seem to have a market...perhaps, most of them are cheaply-made, with the ability to screw things up more than fix them...less than octave-width, which really renders them glorified tone controls...misunderstanding their abilities and incorrect use by consumers may also have given them a bad rap...outright misuse is fairly common; it would seem as though most users employ them as overall "gain devices" as opposed to equalizers...

Now for the fun part...PCT, I'm not sure what sort of follow-up research you did re: your citations but, after reading them, off went all my buzzers and bells...the first two "white papers" were authored by people who would seem to have more than a passing interest in their respective organizations proprietary ideas and products. Both schemes seem aimed at the professional market and perhaps, at some future date, may filter down to the home audio enthusiast in a reasonable and reasonably priced form.

The co-authors of the third reference are even more firmly entrenched in the marketing facet of the industry...one of them seems to have been, at various times: an electronic publisher, a media company director and even the editor and webmaster of the site cited itself(say THAT a few times)...other titles include: sales manager, manufacturers rep, marketing manager and director of sales. The other was named director of business development of a well-known name in pro audio apps, has held other "key sales and marketing positions", was VP of sales and marketing for another. regional sales manager and manufacturers rep for yet another.

Hardly trying to denigrate these gentlemen's abilities in their respective fields of expertise, but I always have to take what certain folks say with a grain of salt...especially when they all seem to badmouth one thing in deference to something else they seem to have...er, shall we say...an "interest" in...

jimHJJ(...but, of course and as always, that's just me...)

Dr. Toole is God on this board. You are risking excommunication.

[Resident Loser]

...I just calls 'em as I sees 'em...let the chips fall where they may...

jimHJJ(...I guess that's why I'm still doin' what I have been for 35 years...)

[Resident Loser]

...many pleasureable evenings making adjustment after adjustment to all those controls..."

Probably one of the misconceived reasons for purchase and why EQs have a low rep...

For the most part, and when used as intended, EQs should be a "set it and forget it" component...even octave equalizers are difficult, if not impossible to set up by ear. Using program material further complicates the task...A calibrated source, such as a test disk or disc(media dependent) and an SPL meter are the minimal required tools. I've found graph paper, not just a little patience and an understanding spouse to also be invaluable. One must keep in mind, they do have limits and should be used judiciously, functioning as a frequency "equalizer" and not a "gain device"...

Not that just "playing around" with 'em can't be useful however...it will give you some idea of the level of malarkey that abounds in "audiophile land" re: air and inner details and such...

If you want to tweak a poor recording, simple tone controls are usually more than sufficient...that's of course if you have any!

jimHJJ(...worked for me...)

[Beckman]

Equalizers are practically being given away at eBay auctions. ...Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

With the popularity of surround sound receivers that have equalizers built in there is no need for such devices in todays market for the average consumer. As for two channel audiophile's I think they look down upon anything that alters the sound of the music by attenuating the signal for a certain frequency range. I personaly have an integrated amplifier that does not have any equalizer controls on it and don't find that it needs them.

My main argument to begin with was that any sound difference in an aftermarket cable over standard 12 gauge zip cord can only be caused from an attenuation in the signal over some part of the audio frequency range (usualy higher frequwncies giving a warm sound to the music). So why spend large sums of money on what is basicly a passive crossover when one could purchase an equalizer for $50 on ebay and have an active crossover?

I think the answer has a lot to do with the audiophile crowd that feels the more you spend the better the sound, and don't know anything about signals, systems, Laplace transforms and electric & magnetic fields.

If I had $2000 to improve the sound of a high end stereo I would look towards room treatments.

[Beckman]

P.S. If I end up buying one of these things, I think it's only fair that I send Beckman the bill for having brought up the subject.

How about you send me a check for the price difference between an equalizer on ebay and a high end set of speaker cables:)

[Tony_Montana]

I wonder if anyone remembers "Jack's Secret Sauce" from Jack In The Box' early days in the late '50s. Perhaps some cable company acquired Jack's secret recipe and that's what they are really stuffing inside those mysterious black boxes.

Whatever is those boxes (and a passive one at that) will probably do more damage than not. Electrically, the best signal transfer is the one with least component in its way.

By the way, did anybody find out what was in the Jack's secret sauce :D


The "problemo" is that many like to go by the catch phrase "all cables [missing part] sound the same" but conveniently disregard the all important [missing part] that qualifies this, which is "of similar length, guage and construction".

Very true. I hope PCtower add that line next time he accuse AR memebers of not hearing difference between cables or components :)


They [cables] should be compared to an ideal shunt, as close to one as you can get, or put in a circuit which includes a duplicate shunt.

That might be harder than it sound, especially for run-the-mill consumers. How would you create a shunt?


Greenhill already demonstrated that some cables do sound different and it is not a mistery why.

So the line I have seen you use alot such as:"nobody in the world been able to demonstrated differences between cables" is not true any more. Wouldn't you say?


Ribbon cables have very high capacitance and very low inductance.

Not according to Audioholic's speaker cable face-off article. Gene mentioned that Ribbon cables had the lowest measured capacitance out of all the cables in this face off, at the expense of high inductance. Here is the link :)

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SpeakerCableFaceoffp2.htm


So why spend large sums of money on what is basicly a passive crossover when one could purchase an equalizer for $50 on ebay and have an active crossover?

I raised that question a while back in CA, and everybody jump down my throat saying that EQ will add distortion. Little do they realize that passive cables will manipulate the signal more than active component such as EQ does. And the worst part is that if cables doesn't work out for you, you can not change its setting :)

[pctower]

Whatever is those boxes (and a passive one at that) will probably do more damage than not. Electrically, the best signal transfer is the one with least component in its way.

By the way, did anybody find out what was in the Jack's secret sauce :D

Very true. I hope PCtower add that line next time he accuse AR memebers of not hearing difference between cables or components :)

That might be harder than it sound, especially for run-the-mill consumers. How would you create a shunt?



So the line I have seen you use alot such as:"nobody in the world been able to demonstrated differences between cables" is not true any more. Wouldn't you say?



Not according to Audioholic's speaker cable face-off article. Gene mentioned that Ribbon cables had the lowest measured capacitance out of all the cables in this face off, at the expense of high inductance. Here is the link :)

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SpeakerCableFaceoffp2.htm



I raised that question a while back in CA, and everybody jump down my throat saying that EQ will add distortion. Little do they realize that passive cables will manipulate the signal more than active component such as EQ does. And the worst part is that if cables doesn't work out for you, you can not change its setting :)

I hope PCtower add that line next time he accuse AR memebers of not hearing difference between cables or components

Just to keep the record straight, I'll bet if someone could go back through all the old archives of AR and AA for the past 2 years for purposes of seeing who used the phrase "of similar length, guage and construction" the most they would find that I've used it more than everyone else combined.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As for two channel audiophile's I think they look down upon anything that alters the sound of the music by attenuating the signal for a certain frequency range. I personaly have an integrated amplifier that does not have any equalizer controls on it and don't find that it needs them.

I have news for audiophiles, your room already alters the sound of the music. Has anyone here heard of a mode or a node? Resonances?

Eq is a VERY valuable tool in the hands of the educated and experienced. It in combination with acoustical eq(bass traps, absorption foam, diffusor and reflectors) can transform a really bad sounding room, into one that has quite please sonic qualities. Of course CHEAP eq's don't help in any situation. One octave eq's are less than worthless.

Not many people know what to look for when purchasing a EQ, so off to ebay. Most purchase cheap, usless eq's, so off to ebay. Most do not have the associated equipment that it takes to even make a very good eq helpful, so off to ebay.

Eq is not the problem, ignorance, inexperience, and lack of education are.

[Beckman]

Not many people know what to look for when purchasing a EQ, so off to ebay. Most purchase cheap, usless eq's, so off to ebay. Most do not have the associated equipment that it takes to even make a very good eq helpful, so off to ebay.

Eq is not the problem, ignorance, inexperience, and lack of education are.

Just out of curiosity, where are these good eq's. It seems like there are a ton of really cheap ones out there. I know McIntosh makes some, but are there others?

As for having the associated equipment to make a good eq helpful, why couldn't a good eq be helpful to any stereo?

I am not looking for an argument, but posing serious questions:)

[Beckman]

And the worst part is that if cables doesn't work out for you, you can not change its setting :)

You could always go out and spend another $1000 on cables that produse that warm, detailed, open sound.;)

[mtrycraft]

So the line I have seen you use alot such as:"nobody in the world been able to demonstrated differences between cables" is not true any more. Wouldn't you say?

No, not at all, I would not sat that. The 24 ga speaker cable in that test is not considerd to be a product that qualifies as a speaker cable. Broken.
16ga or better are. Try that on.



Not according to Audioholic's speaker cable face-off article. Gene mentioned that Ribbon cables had the lowest measured capacitance out of all the cables in this face off, at the expense of high inductance. Here is the link :)

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SpeakerCableFaceoffp2.htm


Well, please check out this link:

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

Check out what cable 6 and 11 are as identified on page 2 as and then check out in figure 2 on page 3 as to which cable has the most capacitance. How about cable 6 and 11? Oh, he identifies them as ribbon cable?

Maybe ribbon cables changed over the years? :D Please note that this is a peer AES journal paper :)

[mtrycraft]

STOP confusing us with facts.:rolleyes:




Oh, no. Did I do that again? I'll stand in the corner for a time out :D

[skeptic]

The proper use of an equalizer to enhance the sound of a home audio system almost certainly is beyond the capabilities of most audiophiles. The home use consumer type spectrum analyzers, noise generators, and microphones doesn't give satisfactory results based on my experience with them. It takes a well trained ear familiar with the sound of live unamplified music and extraordinary patience. It normally takes me about two years to adjust one to my satisfaction after everything else has been optimized. However, after a mere two months, I am making surprising progress on my Bose 901 enhancement project. The real problem of the moment is getting the bass right. That's often tough.

While a 10 band equalizer doesn't offer nearly the precision or flexibility of a 27 or 30 band equalizer, what it can offer is substantial improvement. It seems to me that a 30 band equalizer or a parametric equalizer would require the use of professional grade measuring equipment and a technician experienced in using it. It's simply mind boggling imagining trying to get results by ear with something that complicated.

[jneutron]

Gene mentioned that Ribbon cables had the lowest measured capacitance out of all the cables in this face off, at the expense of high inductance.

Gene stated that a specific ribbon cable in his faceoff had lowest capacitance of those measured.

I do not recall him generalizing to all ribbons.

Without going to a coaxial system to constrain the magnetic field, flat, wide conductor ribbons separated by the insulation, placed face to face, will have higher capacitance and lower inductance. If they are placed edge to edge, they will have low capacitance and high inductance. The same if they are face to face, but are far apart..

Ribbons that are multiple wires, alternating, will be somewhere in the middle..

But the generalization that all ribbons are (one or the other) cannot be made..organization of the conductors will still play a large role.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

I have news for audiophiles, your room already alters the sound of the music. Has anyone here heard of a mode or a node? Resonances?

Eq is a VERY valuable tool in the hands of the educated and experienced. It in combination with acoustical eq(bass traps, absorption foam, diffusor and reflectors) can transform a really bad sounding room, into one that has quite please sonic qualities. Of course CHEAP eq's don't help in any situation. One octave eq's are less than worthless.

Not many people know what to look for when purchasing a EQ, so off to ebay. Most purchase cheap, usless eq's, so off to ebay. Most do not have the associated equipment that it takes to even make a very good eq helpful, so off to ebay.

Eq is not the problem, ignorance, inexperience, and lack of education are.

Unlike either you or skeptic, I have found it to be a trivial matter to setup and use my two channel 11 band eq.. Trivial enough, in fact, that my 9 and 11 year old children can also use it..

It is, of course, unfortunate, that once I have touched those damn knobs, I eventually have to bypass the stupid thing to get any reaonable sound out of it..

The only reason I have the darn thing is to eq the daylights outta my mobile two way rig..I designed the speakers for portability, efficiency, and spl...using 5% crossover components, and going for a simple +/- 3db on axis response..yah, the sweet spot (if there really is one) is about two degrees wide...but 450 people don't complain..(true, I wouldn't listen anyway...he he).

Cheers, John

PS..yah, I really do agree with you...an eq in the hands of some is a weapon of masked destruction..

[F1]

Just out of curiosity, where are these good eq's. It seems like there are a ton of really cheap ones out there. I know McIntosh makes some, but are there others?
.......

Well I'm happy with Behringer FB1502 15-band equaliser. It's only $120 which is much cheaper than those exotic cables. :)

[skeptic]

"I have found it to be a trivial matter to setup and use my two channel 11 band eq.. Trivial enough, in fact, that my 9 and 11 year old children can also use it.."

Apparantly that is why you get results that are so trivial that you prefer to bypass it. I think that proves my point. Even if you suspend your disbelief that this can actually be a useful tool in a fine home audio system, getting real benefit from it takes more than a trivial effort. Most people give up long before they even start down the right road so what you say is hardly surprising to me.

If you ever decide to make any serious attempt to use it. Why not first listen to a lot of unamplified live music, then set all of the controls for flat, and then adjusting only one or two controls very cautiously, see if you can get just a minor improvement for a start. Don't do anything else for weeks until you are convinced that the change is for the better not for the worse. Then satisfy yourself with just a small improvement each time taking days or weeks to decide if the last change was for the better or the worse. Reitterate this until you are just about nuts and you'll get some idea of why I say it is a long slow patient process. Any attempt to fix every problem at once is doomed.

[pctower]

Equalizers are practically being given away at eBay auctions. I see auctions for these things starting at $1 and ending up with no bids, and those that do sell, frequently go for prices that are lower than their shipping costs. Depreciation from the price when new may be the worst of any audio gear. Do you have any thoughts on the lack of demand for used equalizers?

BTW, the Wilson WAMM speaker system, which was at one time the most expensive two-channel, home-based speaker system in the world, employed an equalizer. Dave Wilson would personally spend 3-days setting up a new system, with much emphasis on the equalizer setting.

I once saw him set up a system and it was fascinating to say the least. Unfortunately, he would be banned from this board because he says this about cables:

"There are several good cables on the market that are compatible with Wilson Audio products. Generally speaking, we find that "networked" cables to be the most predictable and provide the best overall performance. However, cable combinations are often dependent on the total combination of products in one’s system. Contact your Dealer for specific questions on cable choices."

He probably believes in alien abductions and Miss Cleo too. No - even worse - he's a Mormon.

[skeptic]

Still smoking the weed Phil?

" Contact your Dealer for specific questions on cable choices."

C'mon Phil, who are you and this guy Wilson kidding. Whatever dealer you call will say that while there are many good products on the market (rarely will knock someone elses product) the brands he carries are the best ones to buy for the money in each price category. As for quality, he'll tell you there's good, better, and best which by some strange conincidence happen to coincide exactly with expensive, expensiver, and expensivest.

What are "network" cables? More made up technobabble to further confuse the already confused no doubt.

BTW, why do you bother to tell this to us "peasants" who shop only at Best Buy or Circuit City anyway. Aren't we beneath you ....Lord of the Tower?

[jneutron]

"I have found it to be a trivial matter to setup and use my two channel 11 band eq.. Trivial enough, in fact, that my 9 and 11 year old children can also use it.."

Apparantly that is why you get results that are so trivial that you prefer to bypass it. I think that proves my point. Even if you suspend your disbelief that this can actually be a useful tool in a fine home audio system, getting real benefit from it takes more than a trivial effort. Most people give up long before they even start down the right road so what you say is hardly surprising to me.

If you ever decide to make any serious attempt to use it. Why not first listen to a lot of unamplified live music, then set all of the controls for flat, and then adjusting only one or two controls very cautiously, see if you can get just a minor improvement for a start. Don't do anything else for weeks until you are convinced that the change is for the better not for the worse. Then satisfy yourself with just a small improvement each time taking days or weeks to decide if the last change was for the better or the worse. Reitterate this until you are just about nuts and you'll get some idea of why I say it is a long slow patient process. Any attempt to fix every problem at once is doomed.

Ummm...Skep? Ya gotta lighten up, dude..it was a joke..don't worry, I'll keep my day job..

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

...now yer bein' sillie....

"...Contact your Dealer for specific questions on cable choices."

Which in essence translates to "write us a blank check" or "give us your bank account's PIN"...

Sorry, fella'...I've said it before and I'ma gonna' say it agin...most salesmen are equally adept at selling refrigerators as they are audio equipment; they know little about either...wouldn't know the diff between wire and cable...they push what the boss tells 'em to. I've met a few who were conversant enough to provide half-decent opinions and recs, but for the most part they were few and far between...and the same goes for cars, storm windows, toaster-ovens...yada, yada yada...ad infinitum...

jimHJJ(...I assume the "networked" refers to MITs or whatevers, terminated in those little black boxes...and actually, he(Wilson) probably believes he shouldn't bite the hands of his bretheren...)

[Bobby Blacklight]

Hello Beckman

There are a couple of nice EQ's I can think of being Urei 539 and White Instruments. 1/3 octave cut only. Low noise very nice units. Then you have parametrics with give you more flexabillity. But you have to know who to use them.

[okiemax]

BTW, the Wilson WAMM speaker system, which was at one time the most expensive two-channel, home-based speaker system in the world, employed an equalizer. Dave Wilson would personally spend 3-days setting up a new system, with much emphasis on the equalizer setting.

I once saw him set up a system and it was fascinating to say the least. Unfortunately, he would be banned from this board because he says this about cables:

"There are several good cables on the market that are compatible with Wilson Audio products. Generally speaking, we find that "networked" cables to be the most predictable and provide the best overall performance. However, cable combinations are often dependent on the total combination of products in one’s system. Contact your Dealer for specific questions on cable choices."

He probably believes in alien abductions and Miss Cleo too. No - even worse - he's a Mormon.

I knew a few high-end manufacturers were in Utah(e.g., Wilson, Sound Lab, Zu). There probably are others. Maybe they are not all LDS -- some may be refugees from the Golden State.

I may be missing something, but are people here saying they adjust equalizers by ear under sighted listening conditions? If so, are some of them the same guys who say sighted listening is unreliable?

[Resident Loser]

...a fool's errand IMHO...

...as I outlined in my response to your post yesterday...and which I take the liberty of re-posting here:

...many pleasureable evenings making adjustment after adjustment to all those controls..."

Probably one of the misconceived reasons for purchase and why EQs have a low rep...

For the most part, and when used as intended, EQs should be a "set it and forget it" component...even octave equalizers are difficult, if not impossible to set up by ear. Using program material further complicates the task...A calibrated source, such as a test disk or disc(media dependent) and an SPL meter are the minimal required tools. I've found graph paper, not just a little patience and an understanding spouse to also be invaluable. One must keep in mind, they do have limits and should be used judiciously, functioning as a frequency "equalizer" and not a "gain device"...

Not that just "playing around" with 'em can't be useful however...it will give you some idea of the level of malarkey that abounds in "audiophile land" re: air and inner details and such...

If you want to tweak a poor recording, simple tone controls are usually more than sufficient...that's of course if you have any!

jimHJJ(...worked for me...)

[okiemax]

...a fool's errand IMHO...

...as I outlined in my response to your post yesterday...and which I take the liberty of re-posting here:

...many pleasureable evenings making adjustment after adjustment to all those controls..."

Probably one of the misconceived reasons for purchase and why EQs have a low rep...

For the most part, and when used as intended, EQs should be a "set it and forget it" component...even octave equalizers are difficult, if not impossible to set up by ear. Using program material further complicates the task...A calibrated source, such as a test disk or disc(media dependent) and an SPL meter are the minimal required tools. I've found graph paper, not just a little patience and an understanding spouse to also be invaluable. One must keep in mind, they do have limits and should be used judiciously, functioning as a frequency "equalizer" and not a "gain device"...

Not that just "playing around" with 'em can't be useful however...it will give you some idea of the level of malarkey that abounds in "audiophile land" re: air and inner details and such...

If you want to tweak a poor recording, simple tone controls are usually more than sufficient...that's of course if you have any!

jimHJJ(...worked for me...)


I think skeptic said he did it by ear. I wasn't sure about everyone's description of what they did, which Is why I prefaced my question with a "I may be missing something."

Anyway, not having used an equalizer, I'm not sure I understand the procedure. How do you know the equalizer is needed to begin with, if not by using your ears,and how do you know you adjusted the equalizer right, if not by using yours ears? And if you listen, is it blinded or sighted listening?

[pctower]

I think skeptic said he did it by ear. I wasn't sure about everyone's description of what they did, which Is why I prefaced my question with a "I may be missing something."

Anyway, not having used an equalizer, I'm not sure I understand the procedure. How do you know the equalizer is needed to begin with, if not by using your ears,and how do you know you adjusted the equalizer right, if not by using yours ears? And if you listen, is it blinded or sighted listening?

I can't believe it. Here we've been talking about equalizers and I totally forgot I've got two in my system - one per channel. My Vandy 5s use an 11-band equalizer on the self-powered subwoofers. Richard Vandersteen personally set mine using just a Stereophile CD and
my Rat Shack sound thingy.

Result: just about the cleanest, most extended bass I've ever heard in a system.

I tend to forget the equalizers are even there. Once set, I never felt the need to go back and tinker.

[Monstrous Mike]

Once set, I never felt the need to go back and tinker.
Absolutly correct. However, if you knock out a wall in your listening room, raise the ceiling, go from carpet to hardwood, etc., you might want to invite Richard Vandersteen back for a beer and a tweak.

[Monstrous Mike]

How do you know the equalizer is needed to begin with, if not by using your ears,and how do you know you adjusted the equalizer right, if not by using yours ears? And if you listen, is it blinded or sighted listening?
The only time you really don't need an equalizer is when you have an acoustically perfect room with a flat response from 20-20000 Hz. So really, everybody needs one if you want to get technical. And I would venture to guess that a combination of room acoustics and proper equalization would make anyone completely forget about cables.

I'm no acoustic expert but I would guess that what is needed is a frequency response map of the listening room and then a plan to correct frequency fluctuations with the equalizer. Depending on the dimensions, shape and content of the room, some frequencies will likely resonate which is usually undesirable. Then you would re-measure and see if it is flat yet (flat is the goal). When you are done you can do a blind comparision between equalizer bypass and the new settings to see if you prefer them.

I would suspect you would need some fairly sophisticated equipment to map the frequency response of a room.

In the end, the difficult part is that some or most people either don't like a flat response or have never really heard a true one so it might sound odd.

These are just ramblings so take them with a grain of salt.

[Bobby Blacklight]

You want to get the response in room as good as you can with placement and room treatments. Then you use cut only EQ's as icing on the cake. You map across your primary listening positions with an RTA and go from there. By ear won't work you need a pink noise source and a good measurement device. You can get computer based RTA software for not much money and a measurement mike for around $50 from Behringer. Just need a phantom power source for the mic and you can go right into your sound card. Takes a while to get it all set-up for a final curve but it's worth it.

[Tony_Montana]

Well, please check out this link:

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

Check out what cable 6 and 11 are as identified on page 2 as and then check out in figure 2 on page 3 as to which cable has the most capacitance. How about cable 6 and 11? Oh, he identifies them as ribbon cable.

Sorry Mtry, but I don't have Acrobat reader so can't open the link. But I believe you. Jnuetron also mentioned that different configuration of Ribbon cable will have different capacitance and inductance. But most ribbon configuration I have seen are edge to edge configuration (same as the one Gene used), so I went by that assumption :)


Flat, wide conductor ribbons separated by the insulation, placed face to face, will have higher capacitance and lower inductance. If they are placed edge to edge, they will have low capacitance and high inductance.

What configuration is face to face? The most ribbon cables I have seen are edge to edge to make them thin and "ribbon" like :)


It seems to me that a 30 band equalizer or a parametric equalizer would require the use of professional grade measuring equipment and a technician experienced in using it. It's simply mind boggling imagining trying to get results by ear with something that complicated.

Not really. It can be done with ear, but increment adjustments have be small (less than 1 dB) and taking your time doing it :)

[Beckman]

I can't believe it. Here we've been talking about equalizers and I totally forgot I've got two in my system - one per channel. My Vandy 5s use an 11-band equalizer on the self-powered subwoofers. Richard Vandersteen personally set mine using just a Stereophile CD and
my Rat Shack sound thingy.

Result: just about the cleanest, most extended bass I've ever heard in a system.

I tend to forget the equalizers are even there. Once set, I never felt the need to go back and tinker.

Rat shack sound thingy? Do you remember exactly how he did it? I would think you would just sit where a listener would sit and adjust the level of sound for each frequency as to have a flat frequency response.

[okiemax]

The only time you really don't need an equalizer is when you have an acoustically perfect room with a flat response from 20-20000 Hz. So really, everybody needs one if you want to get technical. And I would venture to guess that a combination of room acoustics and proper equalization would make anyone completely forget about cables.

I'm no acoustic expert but I would guess that what is needed is a frequency response map of the listening room and then a plan to correct frequency fluctuations with the equalizer. Depending on the dimensions, shape and content of the room, some frequencies will likely resonate which is usually undesirable. Then you would re-measure and see if it is flat yet (flat is the goal). When you are done you can do a blind comparision between equalizer bypass and the new settings to see if you prefer them.

I would suspect you would need some fairly sophisticated equipment to map the frequency response of a room.

In the end, the difficult part is that some or most people either don't like a flat response or have never really heard a true one so it might sound odd.

These are just ramblings so take them with a grain of salt.

Those were pretty good ramblings. Your outline of the procedure for using an equalizer made sense to me. A couple of questions come to mind. How would you expain why a flat response is good? What does it mean if a person doesn't like a flat response?

[Beckman]

How would you expain why a flat response is good? What does it mean if a person doesn't like a flat response?


I see your point. I am from Wisconsin, I grew up firing shotguns and hunting rifles and am a little tone deaf. So I tend to like the treble turned up a little (The frequency response is flat in my head, but not to a meter). But I can see how using a sound meter and a test cd would at least help with getting a sub to blend well with speakers or at least getting a starting point from which you could tweak the higher or lower frequencies a little to taste. Also, when making up for room accoustics each speaker might need to be adjusted differently.

[Thomas_A]

Note that it is the direct sound of the speaker that should be flat, not the direct sound + room reflections. Room treatment should be made according to the dead end - live end principle and parametric EQ use to tame standing waves should be used with care to get a good compromise betweeh static and dynamic properties.

T

[mtrycraft]

Sorry Mtry, but I don't have Acrobat reader so can't open the link.:)


It's free download:)

I was thinking of the cable arrangement as in computers where the cables are side by side and pair up every other ones.

So, it depends how the ribbon is made :)

[mtrycraft]

my Rat Shack sound thingy.

.

Huh? How long you been here? SPL meter :)

[jneutron]

What configuration is face to face? The most ribbon cables I have seen are edge to edge to make them thin and "ribbon" like :)

Given two ribbons half inch wide and 25 mils thick..

Side by side makes it one inch by 25 mils, that is what you considered ribbon.

Face to face makes it half inch wide, and 50 mils thick.

Ribbons can also be like the type used in computers..the cables that go to internal hard drives..they are lots of round wires side by side..some ribbon speaker cables are made by alternating conductors pos and neg. In essence, it takes the inductance of a pair of those wires, and parallels them..one pair, with say, .2 uH per foot, 50 pairs in parallel would be 200 nH divided by 50, or 4 nH per foot. (yah, I know this is very simplistic, as pair to pair proximity will also drop the inductance total..but the flavor is better kept by keeping the explanation simple.) Capacitance increases at about the same rate..

Cheers, John

[skeptic]

To discount the validity of the most commonly used wire for loudspeakers and audio interconnects as the best choice would be to assume that all of the people who have been researching, manufacturing, and using this material for nearly the last hundred years don't know what they are doing or talking about and that a handful of upstart marketing types, self appointed audio gurus, and delusioned tinkerers, all with a self serving goal of finding a product to make them selves rich are the ones with the right answers. Intelligent people who think about this will probably come to the conclusion that this whole new niche industry is a crock while those who don't will probably get ripped off buying expensive wires which if anything are inferior performers to what the mainstream of technically competent professionals rely on to earn a living.

[Monstrous Mike]

How would you expain why a flat response is good?
The ideal situation is get the sound from the musicians in the studio to come out of your speakers with the same frequency information that they recorded their material at. Thus, at all stages of the signal going from an instrument right up to your speaker, there is usually a need to equalize the signal due to a variety of technical reasons. I know that recording engineers use equalization when burning a master CD. And usually, home owners would likely need to equalize again to take into account their equipment and room acoustics. The goal is to have the band sound exactly the same in your room as they did if you were sitting in the studio.



What does it mean if a person doesn't like a flat response?
The frequency response a person likes is a matter of taste. The band and the recording engineers decide what is right for them and then they record it. People might strive to duplicate that using an equalizer. If not, then they adjust the spectrum according to their tastes.

So I see two aspects that relate to home equalization. First, a person may want to compensate for room or equipment defiencies to flatten the frequency response. Second, a person may have particular tastes like heavy on the bass and wish to use their equalizer for this purpose.

Personal tastes are easy to fool around with. The hard part would be to get a flat response in any given room. The neat thing about that though is if you listen to a track in somebody's room and then go to somebody else with different equipment and a different room, it should sound the same (well within reason, of course).

I guess it could be comparable to singing in key. Anybody can sing the national anthem by themselves in any key they want but if you sing a duet, you must be in the same key, preferably the key the song was written in.

[Resident Loser]

"...How do you know the equalizer is needed to begin with, if not by using your ears..."

When speaker placement and environnmental options have been maxed-out, it's time.

My preamp/control center has four tone controls w/center freqs @ 50Hz, 100Hz, 10kHz and 20kHz. My main concern was in the bass region and neither of the low freq controls were selective enough to ameliorate my particular problem. "Hearing "something" is only the first step...and as MM alluded to, unless you live in an anechoic chamber, generally it couldn't hurt.

"...how do you know you adjusted the equalizer right, if not by using yours ears?..."

I purchased an SAE 2700B stereo half-octave EQ...avoid non-independent "ganged" units; there will most likely be differences between channels. I felt the half-octave unit was satisfactory for my purposes given the alternative of buying two, single channel Altec Lansing one third-octave ones.

This is where the minimal tools are required...I used a Crown test record(I'm into analog) and an SPL meter. I had access to a pro unit and also purchased an RS unit. Both gave reasonably coincident results and the RS meter was more user(wallet) friendly.

On a legal pad I wrote down the frequency bands as listed on the album cover. Unfortunately, the disk was divided into one-third octave bands, but more on that later. After setting the reference SPL @ 1kHz pink noise, I simply began to measure levels at each frequency snippet for each channel and note them on my pad. I then transferred the list to my graph paper(you could get fancy w/ log paper, but regular stuff is sufficient IMO). I did this because of the diffs w/ 1/3 vs. 1/2 octaves. As a result, some compromises were made and the visual aid of the graphic plot helped resolve them. I then adjusted the EQ pots to the inverse of my graph. it was done three times to increase resolution. The vast majority of sliders are in the "cut" mode and the most activity is in the region below 120Hz. As PCT said, his subs are where the EQ is doin' it's thing.

Now here's where we get to my previous mention of EQing vs. gain. If done correctly, each band is at reference level so the overall volume should also be at this level; switching the EQ in and out of the signal path should result in no apparent volume shift, only a re-shaping of the frequency response. Anything else is wrong IMHO and something was probably done incorrectly.

After listening, I decided "flat wasn't where it was at" for me and applied a gentle roll-off above 10K as it sounded more "natural"...I have no intention of getting into a debate about absolute ruler flat response and my initial results which were, generally speaking, +/- 3db...in practice the ear isn't all that acute to notice IMO...smooth linear bass extension and natural sounding mids and highs is more than sufficient thank you.

When all is said and done, I am of the opinion that attempting to use ears alone is open to all sorts of vagaries...different recordings just plain sound different and trying to accomplish this task with them will result in less than "correct" results, at least initially. If you choose to tweak things to your preference as I did, it should only be after you have established a baseline reference point. BTW, I still rely on tone controls to adjust for varying qualities in source material...

jimHJJ(...and that's my story...)

[okiemax]

The ideal situation is get the sound from the musicians in the studio to come out of your speakers with the same frequency information that they recorded their material at. Thus, at all stages of the signal going from an instrument right up to your speaker, there is usually a need to equalize the signal due to a variety of technical reasons. I know that recording engineers use equalization when burning a master CD. And usually, home owners would likely need to equalize again to take into account their equipment and room acoustics. The goal is to have the band sound exactly the same in your room as they did if you were sitting in the studio.



The frequency response a person likes is a matter of taste. The band and the recording engineers decide what is right for them and then they record it. People might strive to duplicate that using an equalizer. If not, then they adjust the spectrum according to their tastes.

So I see two aspects that relate to home equalization. First, a person may want to compensate for room or equipment defiencies to flatten the frequency response. Second, a person may have particular tastes like heavy on the bass and wish to use their equalizer for this purpose.

Personal tastes are easy to fool around with. The hard part would be to get a flat response in any given room. The neat thing about that though is if you listen to a track in somebody's room and then go to somebody else with different equipment and a different room, it should sound the same (well within reason, of course).

I guess it could be comparable to singing in key. Anybody can sing the national anthem by themselves in any key they want but if you sing a duet, you must be in the same key, preferably the key the song was written in.

Thanks for answering the questions about equalizers. Anything that compensates for serious room deficiences is worth considering. Well, maybe not those things that look like scratching posts for giant cats.

Re the National Anthem, it's too hard to sing. I would like to see it replaced with America the Beautiful.

[Monstrous Mike]

Anything that compensates for serious room deficiences is worth considering.
I'm not pointing this at you or anybody else for that matter, but if some folks are as serious about home audio sound as they appear to be, then pursuing room acoustics, speaker placement and equalization would, IMHO, have the potential for real sonic improvement compared to cables and other tweaks. Anybody can buy a hot rod power cord or speaker wire but it would take some imagination and research to pursue the goal of acoustically upgrading your room and I believe that would be a pursuit that is worthy and much more likely to give real, positive improvements.



Re the National Anthem, it's too hard to sing.
That doesn't stop some people, does it? Being a Canadian, I would have to say ours a quite a bit easier to sing.

That last note in the second last line "...O'er the land of the free.." is a doosey. On the American Idol finale, Tamyra Gray sang it and I believe she may have hit that note although not with a lot of volume.

[okiemax]

"...How do you know the equalizer is needed to begin with, if not by using your ears..."

When speaker placement and environnmental options have been maxed-out, it's time.

My preamp/control center has four tone controls w/center freqs @ 50Hz, 100Hz, 10kHz and 20kHz. My main concern was in the bass region and neither of the low freq controls were selective enough to ameliorate my particular problem. "Hearing "something" is only the first step...and as MM alluded to, unless you live in an anechoic chamber, generally it couldn't hurt.

"...how do you know you adjusted the equalizer right, if not by using yours ears?..."

I purchased an SAE 2700B stereo half-octave EQ...avoid non-independent "ganged" units; there will most likely be differences between channels. I felt the half-octave unit was satisfactory for my purposes given the alternative of buying two, single channel Altec Lansing one third-octave ones.

This is where the minimal tools are required...I used a Crown test record(I'm into analog) and an SPL meter. I had access to a pro unit and also purchased an RS unit. Both gave reasonably coincident results and the RS meter was more user(wallet) friendly.

On a legal pad I wrote down the frequency bands as listed on the album cover. Unfortunately, the disk was divided into one-third octave bands, but more on that later. After setting the reference SPL @ 1kHz pink noise, I simply began to measure levels at each frequency snippet for each channel and note them on my pad. I then transferred the list to my graph paper(you could get fancy w/ log paper, but regular stuff is sufficient IMO). I did this because of the diffs w/ 1/3 vs. 1/2 octaves. As a result, some compromises were made and the visual aid of the graphic plot helped resolve them. I then adjusted the EQ pots to the inverse of my graph. it was done three times to increase resolution. The vast majority of sliders are in the "cut" mode and the most activity is in the region below 120Hz. As PCT said, his subs are where the EQ is doin' it's thing.

Now here's where we get to my previous mention of EQing vs. gain. If done correctly, each band is at reference level so the overall volume should also be at this level; switching the EQ in and out of the signal path should result in no apparent volume shift, only a re-shaping of the frequency response. Anything else is wrong IMHO and something was probably done incorrectly.

After listening, I decided "flat wasn't where it was at" for me and applied a gentle roll-off above 10K as it sounded more "natural"...I have no intention of getting into a debate about absolute ruler flat response and my initial results which were, generally speaking, +/- 3db...in practice the ear isn't all that acute to notice IMO...smooth linear bass extension and natural sounding mids and highs is more than sufficient thank you.

When all is said and done, I am of the opinion that attempting to use ears alone is open to all sorts of vagaries...different recordings just plain sound different and trying to accomplish this task with them will result in less than "correct" results, at least initially. If you choose to tweak things to your preference as I did, it should only be after you have established a baseline reference point. BTW, I still rely on tone controls to adjust for varying qualities in source material...

jimHJJ(...and that's my story...)

Thanks for an excellent post. I can appreciate the time an effort that went into it. Although I have never used an equalizer, your method of getting to a "baseline" was clear and easy to follow. I'm glad that you are pleased with the results.

[okiemax]

QUOTE=Monstrous Mike]I'm not pointing this at you or anybody else for that matter, but if some folks are as serious about home audio sound as they appear to be, then pursuing room acoustics, speaker placement and equalization would, IMHO, have the potential for real sonic improvement compared to cables and other tweaks. Anybody can buy a hot rod power cord or speaker wire but it would take some imagination and research to pursue the goal of acoustically upgrading your room and I believe that would be a pursuit that is worthy and much more likely to give real, positive improvements.
__________________________________________________ ________

Yes, but equalizers are a lot of trouble to use right, and room treatments and optimal speaker placement may be objectionabe to other family members. Cables are easy to switch in and out, and aren't conspicious. Neither way guarantees satisfaction, but the cables likely come with a money-back guarantee, while room treatments and the expense of professional help(if needed) with the equalizer may not. Then there is the issue of the equalizer coloring or distorting the sound even if it is set up properly, which keeps some audiophiles from using these devices.

Equalizers can be used to tailor sound in a way that will more pleasing. This thread has assumed all audiophile cables are designed to tailor the sound. Is the assumption true?

[F1]

Yes, but equalizers are a lot of trouble to use right, and room treatments and optimal speaker placement may be objectionabe to other family members. Cables are easy to switch in and out, and aren't conspicious. Neither way guarantees satisfaction, but the cables likely come with a money-back guarantee, while room treatments and the expense of professional help(if needed) with the equalizer may not. Then there is the issue of the equalizer coloring or distorting the sound even if it is set up properly, which keeps some audiophiles from using these devices.

Equalizers can be used to tailor sound in a way that will more pleasing. This thread has assumed all audiophile cables are designed to tailor the sound. Is the assumption true?

Equalizer like the ones from Behringer have spectrum analyser LED on the slider itself so you can address the problematic frequency without SPL meter even though it won't be as precise but not too far off. You can find baseline setting more easily.
BTW what is the audiophile's objective to use audiophile cable?

[okiemax]

Equalizer like the ones from Behringer have spectrum analyser LED on the slider itself so you can address the problematic frequency without SPL meter even though it won't be as precise but not too far off. You can find baseline setting more easily.
BTW what is the audiophile's objective to use audiophile cable?


The Behringer sounds nice. Its convience would make it more fun to play with. Still it isn't certain a listener will like the equalizer, so a money-back guarantee is important.

I can't speak for all audiophiles when it comes to objectives for using cables. My objective has been to change the sound of my system in a way that is more pleasing to me. I haven't been trying to address specific problems by using cables. I try something new to see if I like it better than what I am using. I know this isn't an efficient way of trying to improve a system, but I enjoy it. So I guess in a way the act or process is the objective.

[skeptic]

I would not think of NOT using an equalizer in a serious sound system. But there are other things I wouldn't do without that many audiophiles turn their noses up as well. For instance, after 15 years of experimentation with them, I would never consider listening in my own home to a music system that didn't have a multidirectional array of tweeters. An array of inexpensive 1/2 or 3/8 inch polypropylene (mylar) tweeters in a ratio of about 1:3 direct to indirect firing (depending on acoustics) is far more musical than any single direct firing tweeter I've ever heard but that's a different arguement. Once everything else is adjusted, positioned, etc, then the time consuming difficult task of adjusting the equalizer begins. To me it's like tuning a musical instrument (note I do not consider a sound reproduction system a musical instrument because I don't consider recordings music but that's also another arguement.)

To anyone who thinks that a casual tweaking is all that it takes to adjust an equalizer, I promise you that you will soon write it off as a useless toy. Same for anyone who thinks that they will simply connect a pink noise generator, an inexpensive condenser mic, and a fluorescent display spectrum analyzer. My own experience is that it doesn't work. This is something you really have to want to do badly because you know in the end it will be worth it.

The first prerequisite is to know what live unamplified music actually sounds like. Sorry but tuning a sound system with a graphic equalizer while not understanding what you are listening for is like trying to tune a piano or a violin by ear without knowing what a scale sounds like. IMO, it can't be done. This probably let's at least 95% of audiophiles out possibly explaining why so many equalizers are available inexpensively on the used market. In the wrong hands, meaning most hands, they are worse than useless. Secondly is an extensive collection of well made recordings of acoustical instruments. This is the real test material, not a test disc. Then there is the understanding that you will have to work within the limitations of the equipment you have. You aren't going to get that 8 inch two way ported speaker with an in box resonance frequency of 50 hz to reproduce a 30 hz organ pedal tone, especially at high volume. Acoustic suspension speakers may have their response extended about a half octave or so below system resonance. Maybe. If you are lucky and have sufficient amplifier power. Small incremental changes are all you can hope for at any given time. A few db at most in one or two adjacent octaves. Start with the controls set flat and start making cuts in those frequency bands which seem exaggerated. Often the mid bass is a good starting point because so may speaker/room combinations have annoying resonances there. Frequently deep bass is lacking and a slight boost there may help. Sometimes you feel like you are going backwards and things are getting worse, not better. Reducing a peak in one frequency range seems to make peaks in other ranges more audible. I just cut 2 db at 4khz in one system and suddenly it became obvious that the bass was exaggerated, something that was previously masked by the 4khz peak. Listen to a lot of your recordings. One thing you get accostomed to is that the huge variations in the way recordings are made will make a sound system seem exaggerated in one way with one recording and in the opposite way with another. The best you can hope for is to adjust for the average so that you get the best out of the majority of your recordings. You will also see that different equipment requires different settings. The frequency response you are adjusting for is the overall system response so that if you change cd players as I recently did, you become aware of differences from one to the next. Different components also have different frequency responses, for instance, every hi fi VCR I own seems to have an exaggerated bass. Fortunately with prices as cheap as they are, you can have a separate equalizer for different units or if you have a digital unit with memory presets, you can adjust the system for each one independently. One good thing to try occasionally is to not listen for a few days or a week or two. I think your ears become accostomed to the sound of your particular system at any time and giving them a break lets you hear everything with a fresh start. Don't be surprised if doing this doesn't make you think something is wrong when it doesn't sound as good as you remember it. I also try to keep left and right channels set identically except for deep bass where room acoustics, especially resonances and speaker positioning play such a large role in what you hear. As I said elsewhere, with patience, it often takes me about two years to get the results I want. Is it worth it. Are you kidding?

[DMK]

I would not think of NOT using an equalizer in a serious sound system. But there are other things I wouldn't do without that many audiophiles turn their noses up as well. For instance, after 15 years of experimentation with them, I would never consider listening in my own home to a music system that didn't have a multidirectional array of tweeters. An array of inexpensive 1/2 or 3/8 inch polypropylene (mylar) tweeters in a ratio of about 1:3 direct to indirect firing (depending on acoustics) is far more musical than any single direct firing tweeter I've ever heard but that's a different arguement. Once everything else is adjusted, positioned, etc, then the time consuming difficult task of adjusting the equalizer begins. To me it's like tuning a musical instrument (note I do not consider a sound reproduction system a musical instrument because I don't consider recordings music but that's also another arguement.)

To anyone who thinks that a casual tweaking is all that it takes to adjust an equalizer, I promise you that you will soon write it off as a useless toy. Same for anyone who thinks that they will simply connect a pink noise generator, an inexpensive condenser mic, and a fluorescent display spectrum analyzer. My own experience is that it doesn't work. This is something you really have to want to do badly because you know in the end it will be worth it.

The first prerequisite is to know what live unamplified music actually sounds like. Sorry but tuning a sound system with a graphic equalizer while not understanding what you are listening for is like trying to tune a piano or a violin by ear without knowing what a scale sounds like. IMO, it can't be done. This probably let's at least 95% of audiophiles out possibly explaining why so many equalizers are available inexpensively on the used market. In the wrong hands, meaning most hands, they are worse than useless. Secondly is an extensive collection of well made recordings of acoustical instruments. This is the real test material, not a test disc. Then there is the understanding that you will have to work within the limitations of the equipment you have. You aren't going to get that 8 inch two way ported speaker with an in box resonance frequency of 50 hz to reproduce a 30 hz organ pedal tone, especially at high volume. Acoustic suspension speakers may have their response extended about a half octave or so below system resonance. Maybe. If you are lucky and have sufficient amplifier power. Small incremental changes are all you can hope for at any given time. A few db at most in one or two adjacent octaves. Start with the controls set flat and start making cuts in those frequency bands which seem exaggerated. Often the mid bass is a good starting point because so may speaker/room combinations have annoying resonances there. Frequently deep bass is lacking and a slight boost there may help. Sometimes you feel like you are going backwards and things are getting worse, not better. Reducing a peak in one frequency range seems to make peaks in other ranges more audible. I just cut 2 db at 4khz in one system and suddenly it became obvious that the bass was exaggerated, something that was previously masked by the 4khz peak. Listen to a lot of your recordings. One thing you get accostomed to is that the huge variations in the way recordings are made will make a sound system seem exaggerated in one way with one recording and in the opposite way with another. The best you can hope for is to adjust for the average so that you get the best out of the majority of your recordings. You will also see that different equipment requires different settings. The frequency response you are adjusting for is the overall system response so that if you change cd players as I recently did, you become aware of differences from one to the next. Different components also have different frequency responses, for instance, every hi fi VCR I own seems to have an exaggerated bass. Fortunately with prices as cheap as they are, you can have a separate equalizer for different units or if you have a digital unit with memory presets, you can adjust the system for each one independently. One good thing to try occasionally is to not listen for a few days or a week or two. I think your ears become accostomed to the sound of your particular system at any time and giving them a break lets you hear everything with a fresh start. Don't be surprised if doing this doesn't make you think something is wrong when it doesn't sound as good as you remember it. I also try to keep left and right channels set identically except for deep bass where room acoustics, especially resonances and speaker positioning play such a large role in what you hear. As I said elsewhere, with patience, it often takes me about two years to get the results I want. Is it worth it. Are you kidding?

Only one small detail missing... what equalizer(s) do you consider to be the best you've used or what are you using in your current system? I've been toying with the idea of getting an equalizer for about a year now and your post has convinced me to get off ground zero. Need to know a brand/model that you think is the best. Equalization certainly sounds better than switching components and the rest of my system is in place for the long haul. Thanks!

[skeptic]

Originally I used an ADC sound shaper SS315. It had 10 bands per channel, a calibrated microphone, a spectrum analyzer with a fluorescent display and was fairly expensive when I bought it around 1982 (about $300.) The power transformer failed about two years ago and I had to substitute another one which was at hand. I had a spare BSR EQ 110-X. It was made by the same parent company, had the same center frequencies but it didn't perform the same way. Duplicating the settings and a plug out/plug in did not give the same results. It probably took the better part of a year to get back to where I thought I had been. (I have two more of these tied up with another project.) Right now in my experimentation with the enhanced Bose 901s, I'm using the 10 band equalizer built into the Marantz SR 930 receiver.

I don't think it matters so much which model you use, it's how you use it. However, I would not use one that will not allow infinitely contiunous adjustment for each band, in other words, one that would restrict you to a 2db or 1db increment per adjustment. The exception might be a digital unit but 1 db would be the absolute outside limit. 2db is just too much of a range. One thing that amazed me is how I could tell even small changes in the settings once I head the same musical passage over and over again.

Good luck, this is a long frustrating job but in the end, you probably won't regret it. One more tip, write down your settings so that you can refer back to them. Date each profile. you might even want to take notes on what you heard and what effect your adjustments have. After a while, you can kind of predict approximately what you need to do to fix a particular problem. Sometimes your guess even turns out to be right.

[Tony_Montana]

I was thinking of the cable arrangement as in computers where the cables are side by side and pair up every other ones.

So, it depends how the ribbon is made :)

I checked on this further and it seem that Ribbon cables can be made to have extremely low inductance (even lower than twisted pair) due to close loop coupling between conductors. I guess the ribbon speaker cable (which had high inductance) Gene used for the Shoot out was constructed as edge to edge :)


I'm not pointing this at you or anybody else for that matter, but if some folks are as serious about home audio sound as they appear to be, then pursuing room acoustics, speaker placement and equalization would, IMHO, have the potential for real sonic improvement compared to cables and other tweaks. Anybody can buy a hot rod power cord or speaker wire but it would take some imagination and research to pursue the goal of acoustically upgrading your room and I believe that would be a pursuit that is worthy and much more likely to give real, positive improvements.

Mike, please post it in CA. May be somebody will be saved :D


The exception might be a digital unit but 1 db would be the absolute outside limit. 2db is just too much of a range. One thing that amazed me is how I could tell even small changes in the settings once I head the same musical passage over and over again.

That amazes me also. I always thought that changes below 1 dB in either of audio extreme is hard to distinguish, but when I make changes to EQ in those areas that are less than 1 dB, I do notice a change when A/B it :)

[mtrycraft]

I checked on this further and it seem that Ribbon cables can be made to have extremely low inductance (even lower than twisted pair) due to close loop coupling between conductors. I guess the ribbon speaker cable (which had high inductance) Gene used for the Shoot out was constructed as edge to edge :)

I am having a difficult time with the difference here, how you place the wires edge to edge?
Are they flat wires, not round? That would certainly be different and explains it.

[skeptic]

"That amazes me also. I always thought that changes below 1 dB in either of audio extreme is hard to distinguish, but when I make changes to EQ in those areas that are less than 1 dB, I do notice a change when A/B it "

You reminded me of something I had forgotten a long time ago. When I was in the sixth grade, they came around from the Junior High School to give a test to see if anyone who wanted to be in "orchestra class" the next year was qualified. What was the test? They didn't care if you ever heard of Beethoven or Mozart. They never asked. All they did was to play a succession of pairs of musical tones. You had to be able to tell which one was the higher pitch. These tones were so close in pitch, they probably weren't off by much more than an eighth note. It's not something I actually hear the way I'd hear adjacent whole tones, it's something I kind of feel like one tone is sour or the other is brilliant when comparing them. You can try this on a violin by bowing a string while rocking your finger slowly back and forth on the same string on the fingerboard. It's like very slight pitch bending on an electronic keyboard. If you concintrate, you may be able to hear more than you think you can. The rule of thumb that 1 db change in loudness is the limit of what you can hear may be a generalization of the population as a whole which doesn't apply to everybody. When one part of the spectrum changes relative to another by 1 db or even less, that change to the spectral balance may be audible. It's a change to the overall impression you get and it's sometimes hard to put your finger on. Now who really has the sharp ears and who just wishes or thinks they do?

[Tony_Montana]

I am having a difficult time with the difference here, how you place the wires edge to edge?
Are they flat wires, not round? That would certainly be different and explains it.

Well, I think Jneutron might have explained it best. He said:"Given two ribbons half inch wide and 25 mils thick..
Side by side makes it one inch by 25 mils, that is what you considered ribbon.
Face to face makes it half inch wide, and 50 mils thick".Jn

One type of Ribbon cable that might be edge to edge (side by side), are the type that are specifically made to be placed under the carpet. No humps :D


When one part of the spectrum changes relative to another by 1 db or even less, that change to the spectral balance may be audible. It's a change to the overall impression you get and it's sometimes hard to put your finger on.

It might be worth mentioning that when a change made to an EQ settings, it will also effect the targeted adjacent frequency[s]. I have a 10 band EQ, and when I change setting on 8 kHz band, I am sure 7 kHz and 9 kHz band also be effected-to lesser degree. That might explain why we hear even small changes with EQs.

[okiemax]

That was an impressive post, skeptic, but what you meant by the last three sentences wasn't entirely clear to me.

Quote: "As I said elsewhere, with patience, it often takes me about two years to get the results I want. Is it worth it. Are you kidding?"

If it "often takes about two years" to get what you want, do you mean for a whole bunch of two-year periods you were not getting quite what you wanted. And the first time you got what you wanted, why did you mess it up and start over again?

I don't know if you think it was worth it or not? "Are you kidding" could be taken either way.

[skeptic]

As I said in another post about critical listening, the one about the test they used to weed out those with the ability to hear whether one tone was higher pitched than another, sometimes it's a matter of knowing things are "slightly off" rather than being able to put your finger on the exact problem. This leads to experimenting with the octave to octave balance and often getting it dead wrong. Sometimes you know you've made a mistake right away, and sometimes it takes awhile. If you've ever done any cooking and you have made a sauce which doesn't taste quite the way you want it to or the way you remember it, you add a little more of one ingredient or another and taste it again. You realize that you can't just follow the cookbook recipe if you want to get it just right. Your own sensory reaction to it is the final judge and the cookbook only gets you in the neighborhood.

One nice thing about most equalizers is that they have a bypass switch which allows instant AB comparison of the unequalized signal with the equalized signal. While the volume will not be exactly the same, you can compensate by keeping one hand on the volume control and the other on the bypass switch. This will allow you to see over time if things are really getting better. There's no doubt in my mind that they can and do get better, much better. BTW, if you make mostly cuts rather than boost the signal, the equalized signal will sound softer than the unequalized signal. Making cuts rather than boosts was strongly recommended to me many decades ago by an Altec Lansing salesman whose "Acousta Voice" equalizers were among the first professionally available as far back as the 50s and 60s. He told me as I think someone else repeated here, the associated phase shift with a cut from flat is inaudible.

Saturday, I had occasion to go to a local Best Buy on a wild goose chase to find a small electronic translator which could translate back and forth from English to Italian (they didn't have one.) It may have been the first time I was ever in a Best Buy (I hated it.) Anyway, while I was there, I took a look around and the only equalizer they had was an analog unit made by Audio Source. It had such a low profile that it seemed to me it would be very difficult to adjust. The entire range of adjustment for each slider was only an inch or two making small adjustments seemingly hard to repeat or to even see visually. I'd look for one that has a much higher profile with longer range for the sliders. I also would find it inconvenient to use rotary controls like the ones on McInotsh units. "Graphic" equalizers show you at a glance what they are supposed to be doing to the frequency response. I don't think it matters so much which brand you buy but how you use it. However, as I learned when my ADC SS315 failed and I substituted a BSR unit with identical center frequencies and adjusted the controls to the same settings, they didn't sound alike and the adjustments had to be made all over again. The two years is just about up and the sound seems just about right again.

One other thing I'm resigned to is the realization that the best a loudpeaker can do as far as I am concerned is to make musical instruments have the right timbre on some recordings. All other attributes IMO play a secondary role to this goal. This is at least one quality I can readily understand. If some other characteristic such as "imaging" (I'm not sure most people even agree on what imaging means) plays a back seat, so be it.

Yes, it is definitely worth the time and effort. When you get it right, it's like owning a much better stereo system than you started with.

[okiemax]

As I said in another post about critical listening, the one about the test they used to weed out those with the ability to hear whether one tone was higher pitched than another, sometimes it's a matter of knowing things are "slightly off" rather than being able to put your finger on the exact problem. This leads to experimenting with the octave to octave balance and often getting it dead wrong. Sometimes you know you've made a mistake right away, and sometimes it takes awhile. If you've ever done any cooking and you have made a sauce which doesn't taste quite the way you want it to or the way you remember it, you add a little more of one ingredient or another and taste it again. You realize that you can't just follow the cookbook recipe if you want to get it just right. Your own sensory reaction to it is the final judge and the cookbook only gets you in the neighborhood.

One nice thing about most equalizers is that they have a bypass switch which allows instant AB comparison of the unequalized signal with the equalized signal. While the volume will not be exactly the same, you can compensate by keeping one hand on the volume control and the other on the bypass switch. This will allow you to see over time if things are really getting better. There's no doubt in my mind that they can and do get better, much better. BTW, if you make mostly cuts rather than boost the signal, the equalized signal will sound softer than the unequalized signal. Making cuts rather than boosts was strongly recommended to me many decades ago by an Altec Lansing salesman whose "Acousta Voice" equalizers were among the first professionally available as far back as the 50s and 60s. He told me as I think someone else repeated here, the associated phase shift with a cut from flat is inaudible.

Saturday, I had occasion to go to a local Best Buy on a wild goose chase to find a small electronic translator which could translate back and forth from English to Italian (they didn't have one.) It may have been the first time I was ever in a Best Buy (I hated it.) Anyway, while I was there, I took a look around and the only equalizer they had was an analog unit made by Audio Source. It had such a low profile that it seemed to me it would be very difficult to adjust. The entire range of adjustment for each slider was only an inch or two making small adjustments seemingly hard to repeat or to even see visually. I'd look for one that has a much higher profile with longer range for the sliders. I also would find it inconvenient to use rotary controls like the ones on McInotsh units. "Graphic" equalizers show you at a glance what they are supposed to be doing to the frequency response. I don't think it matters so much which brand you buy but how you use it. However, as I learned when my ADC SS315 failed and I substituted a BSR unit with identical center frequencies and adjusted the controls to the same settings, they didn't sound alike and the adjustments had to be made all over again. The two years is just about up and the sound seems just about right again.

One other thing I'm resigned to is the realization that the best a loudpeaker can do as far as I am concerned is to make musical instruments have the right timbre on some recordings. All other attributes IMO play a secondary role to this goal. This is at least one quality I can readily understand. If some other characteristic such as "imaging" (I'm not sure most people even agree on what imaging means) plays a back seat, so be it.

Yes, it is definitely worth the time and effort. When you get it right, it's like owning a much better stereo system than you started with.

Thanks for the explanation. I think it's clear to me now.

[Resident Loser]

...I must take issue with Skeptic...

First, if done correctly there should be no apparent volume change, ONLY a re-shaping of the FR...this of course DNA to units which are strictly "cut" only, however most home audio components do not fall into this category...

Second, using music, whether the instruments are amplifed or not, does not take into account the vagaries in each and every disc...something neutral, i.e. a test disc/disk or other calbrated source is the only way to equalize the loudspeaker/room interface. Nothing is perfect, but averaging things out in this matter just makes more sense to me. After establishing that "baseline", further tweaking to take up the slack of poor source material should be done with simple tone controls. Unless, of course, you enjoy re-EQing for every recording you own...as I recall prior to RIAA standardization, most units had multiple EQ parameters...you set a switch depending who issued the recording...I'd rather turn one control than reset a few...

Finally, I see constant sturm und drang re: subjective use of the unreliable ear...so now we can use ears as an arbiter of accuracy?

jimHJJ(...and PCT does flip-flops?...)

[skeptic]

"Finally, I see constant sturm und drang re: subjective use of the unreliable ear...so now we can use ears as an arbiter of accuracy?"

Frankly, I don't see how you can avoid it. If you are tone deaf there is no point in buying an expensive sound system that meets someone elses criteria of accuracy. That is after all the ultimate goal and test of how well these systems work for you which is why you buy them.

[pctower]

...I must take issue with Skeptic...

First, if done correctly there should be no apparent volume change, ONLY a re-shaping of the FR...this of course DNA to units which are strictly "cut" only, however most home audio components do not fall into this category...

Second, using music, whether the instruments are amplifed or not, does not take into account the vagaries in each and every disc...something neutral, i.e. a test disc/disk or other calbrated source is the only way to equalize the loudspeaker/room interface. Nothing is perfect, but averaging things out in this matter just makes more sense to me. After establishing that "baseline", further tweaking to take up the slack of poor source material should be done with simple tone controls. Unless, of course, you enjoy re-EQing for every recording you own...as I recall prior to RIAA standardization, most units had multiple EQ parameters...you set a switch depending who issued the recording...I'd rather turn one control than reset a few...

Finally, I see constant sturm und drang re: subjective use of the unreliable ear...so now we can use ears as an arbiter of accuracy?

jimHJJ(...and PCT does flip-flops?...)
subjective use of the unreliable ear...so now we can use ears as an arbiter of accuracy

Geeze Jim:

If we can't use our 5 senses as the arbiter of what works for us - what stimulates our pleasure center, etc. - then why should we even bother to live.

Perhaps, The Day After Tomorrow,we'll all be extinct and somewhere else in the universe those living beings who are blessed with meters, scopes and digits, rather than our useless analog senses, will prosper. Only trouble is they won't be able to enjoy their prosperity.

PS: I'm not sure if the above sentiments are "flip" or "flop". I can see the respective merits of either label.

[Resident Loser]

...that after what seems to be a lifetime of discounting the efficacy of the fallible human ear in certain aspects of audio reproduction, one of the leading exponents of that rationale now eschews the use of measurement in favor of subjective use of software for a task as daunting as proper set-up of an equalizer...and adds it might take as long as two years to achieve satisfactory results...

Hmmm...so I guess it's not all anecdotal AND the trial and error facet is OK!?!?!? And with the potential of a two-year term, can break-in be far behind?

jimHJJ(...and as Scrooge said, "I'll retire to Bedlam!"...)

[Monstrous Mike]

If we can't use our 5 senses as the arbiter of what works for us - what stimulates our pleasure center, etc. - then why should we even bother to live.
Our senses do not lie. They are as objective a device as any electronic or other man made measurement tool. As always, it is the interpretation of the sensory input that is key here. We can choose to ignore some sensory input, we can choose to fill in where input is lacking, we can combine the inputs of two or more senses, etc.

All of our goals are to achieve pleasing sound and other sensory experiences when listening to music. And the pleasure of music can be enhanced by other senses like smell (incense), sight (mood lighting), etc. We can do a number of things where we don't affect what our ear is receiving but we can still greatly affect what our brain is perceiving. How can this be? Well it could be the result of some sort of change in the information that we use to decipher or interpret our sensory input or a change in the way we process that information.

I think the bottom line is that when we perceive a change, don't assume it is because of a sensory input change. We are not perfect in interpreting our senses. I feel they are sharpest when they are used for what they were designed for; to survive. We also now use our senses for pleasure and that's the point Jim was making. Beware of your interpretations. You can't make a mistake in determining what is pleasing to you but you can make a mistake in determining the cause of that pleasure.

[pctower]

Our senses do not lie. They are as objective a device as any electronic or other man made measurement tool. As always, it is the interpretation of the sensory input that is key here. We can choose to ignore some sensory input, we can choose to fill in where input is lacking, we can combine the inputs of two or more senses, etc.

All of our goals are to achieve pleasing sound and other sensory experiences when listening to music. And the pleasure of music can be enhanced by other senses like smell (incense), sight (mood lighting), etc. We can do a number of things where we don't affect what our ear is receiving but we can still greatly affect what our brain is perceiving. How can this be? Well it could be the result of some sort of change in the information that we use to decipher or interpret our sensory input or a change in the way we process that information.

I think the bottom line is that when we perceive a change, don't assume it is because of a sensory input change. We are not perfect in interpreting our senses. I feel they are sharpest when they are used for what they were designed for; to survive. We also now use our senses for pleasure and that's the point Jim was making. Beware of your interpretations. You can't make a mistake in determining what is pleasing to you but you can make a mistake in determining the cause of that pleasure.
I suppose to be technically correct and to correct myself, it's really the brain's final interpretation of what our senses pick up that is the determination of what works for each of us.

We all agree that a lot can happen between the ear and the brain.