"The Truth in Audio" -- according to www.commonsenseaudio.com

[Erukian]

And here's the truth in audio:

--

1. The speakers represent about 90% of the quality of sound you will get from your audio system.

--A speaker takes an electrical signal, moves air to convert it to sound, and then sounds like a real person. Incredibly hard to do well.

2. The source component (CD or LP) is the next most important piece of equipment.

--It takes a piece of plastic with pits in it and converts it to an electrical signal capable of making a speaker produce music.

3. The preamp (or preamp stage of an integrated amp) is next in importance.

--It takes components of varying impedances, voltages, and levels; uses switches and attenuators, and has an amplification stage of its own.

4. The amplifier is the least important part of a system.

--It takes a signal and makes it bigger.

--There are only 3 types of amps: good ones, bad ones, and 'boutique' ones (ones that alter the sound).

--If you're spending more than $500 on your amplifier....you're wasting your money.

5. Fancy cables are the 'snake oil' of modern life.

--Most are designed to have a sound of their own...to alter the signal. This is not the role a cable should play.

--16 gauge multistranded copper speaker wire (quality 'extension' cord) is all you need for resonably efficient speakers.

--Gold plated interconnects from Radio Shack will give you sound as good as any expensive cable.



You know for the most part, this guy seems to nail it.

[woodman]

Although I am not in total agreement with this fellow on his first 4 "truths", my objections to some of the things he says here are just "nitpicking" on my part, and not of enough real consequence to merit much in the way of debate.

His #5 however resonated with my POV on the subject enough to cause me to visit his website to see what else he had to say in the realm(s) of "common sense". There I found him touting vacuum tubes of all things, which flies directly and firmly against anything and everything resembling common sense, IMO. Having had to deal with those obstreperous devices on a daily basis for a whole bunch of years, I celebrated wildly at what I thought to be their demise and burial in the mid-1970s.

This desire to go backwards in time and worship at the altar of a technology that "died" a quarter of a century ago, but didn't have the decency to stay dead - absolutely boggles my mind. Makes me wonder if these poor misguided souls would also prefer horse-drawn buggys to automobiles, ice-boxes to refrigerators, tin cans connected by a string rather than telephones, and all of the rest of the outmoded and obsolete technologies of bygone eras. Time and technologies march on inexorably, and whether those that resist that fact realize and are willing to admit it or not, technologies are not replaced by inferior ones. Only when a "better" way of doing things is discovered do old methods fade away and (hopefully) die!

[Geoffcin]

I found that someone who professes to know all the answers is likely wrong about most.

[musicoverall]

Makes me wonder if these poor misguided souls would also prefer horse-drawn buggys to automobiles, ice-boxes to refrigerators, tin cans connected by a string rather than telephones,

Well, if the horse drawn buggies were faster and a more comfortable ride than cars, if iceboxes kept food fresher than fridges and if tin cans sounded clearer than telephones and were as easy to use, I'd certainly prefer them! Unfortunately, of all the comparisons in your analogy, only tube amps outperform their counterpart. But I also prefer vinyl over CD, manual car windows to power ones (well, since my power window got stuck open after a visit to the ATM last week!) and the oven to the microwave. So I guess I'm a little old fashioned! :) And since tubes have been having a resurgence for quite awhile, I guess the newer, better technology was viewed as only newer by many audiophiles and manufacturers. More reliable, though, and I guess that makes it better in one respect.

[woodman]

Well, if the horse drawn buggies were faster and a more comfortable ride than cars, if iceboxes kept food fresher than fridges and if tin cans sounded clearer than telephones and were as easy to use, I'd certainly prefer them! Unfortunately, of all the comparisons in your analogy, only tube amps outperform their counterpart. But I also prefer vinyl over CD, manual car windows to power ones (well, since my power window got stuck open after a visit to the ATM last week!) and the oven to the microwave. So I guess I'm a little old fashioned! :) And since tubes have been having a resurgence for quite awhile, I guess the newer, better technology was viewed as only newer by many audiophiles and manufacturers. More reliable, though, and I guess that makes it better in one respect.

You have two different POVs here that are in conflict with each other. Namely, you say that you prefer "vinyl over CDs", manual car windows over powered ones, and a conventional oven to a microwave. Fine. Those are indeed preferences, and so long as they are identified as such, I have no quarrel with them (although I disagree with each and every one myself). But then you say that ... "Unfortunately, of all the comparisons in your analogy, only tube amps outperform their counterpart" and you state this as though it were an actual fact (it's not). Outperform? In what way? If we're talking about sonic accuracy, they certainly come up short in that respect. If, as you point out (grudgingly) at the end of your post, we're talking about reliability, then it becomes a genuine "no-brainer" if there ever was one. That was the main reason that working with tubes on a daily basis was such a pain-in-the-ass to me that I was overjoyed when a technology came along to slay that dragon - once and for all! Only, the cussed things didn't have the common decency to stay slain, but instead, rose from the ashes to live another day. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

Tubes having a "resurgence" have nothing whatsoever to do with facts or truth ... their climb back up out of the grave (where they should've stayed, IMO) into some sort of a cult-like worship status is nothing but misguided respect and adoration, mixed with a cup of nostalgia on the part of some audiophools who really ought to know better, since their professed hobby is predicated upon a passionate interest in the accurate reproduction of sound ... in other words, "high-fidelity".

You need to put your affection for "the tube sound" into the same box as you placed vinyl, manual car windows, and conventional ovens ... a preference. If you had done so, you would've saved me from all of this typing!

[musicoverall]

Sorry you had to do all that typing! Tubes are indeed a preference for me. They bring the necessary life to the music, helping to transform it from an obvious reproduction to something that sounds "live". No reason for me not to state that they outperform their solid state brethren on that basis and naturally I would prefer them as a result. It may not be a fact for everyone but it's certainly a fact for me, i.e, a preference. I certainly have no quarrel with folks that prefer solid state, although I think they're shortchanging their listening pleasure... just my opinion.

[E-Stat]

Outperform? In what way?
To these ears, they are able to reproduce the harmonic content and transient envelope of unamplified music more faithfully than most SS amps. There are exceptions.


If we're talking about sonic accuracy, they certainly come up short in that respect.
That is true when one limits the discussion to a set of nearly useless specifications. May you enjoy your musical experience by viewing THD graphs


If, as you point out (grudgingly) at the end of your post, we're talking about reliability, then it becomes a genuine "no-brainer" if there ever was one.
Well designed tube gear is completely reliable. You confuse reliability with wear. Most tires are quite reliable after tens of thousands of miles of use, yet they do wear out. The same can be said of modern tube designs.


That was the main reason that working with tubes on a daily basis was such a pain-in-the-ass to me that I was overjoyed when a technology came along to slay that dragon - once and for all!
I can understand that sentiment from the viewpoint of a repairman.


You need to put your affection for "the tube sound" into the same box as you placed vinyl...
Indeed. The best analog (actually RTR tape) still outperforms the Redbook standard when live music is the criteria for judgement, IMHO. RB is as yet far from "perfect".

rw

[woodman]

To these ears, they are able to reproduce the harmonic content and transient envelope of unamplified music more faithfully than most SS amps. There are exceptions.

That sir, places them into the realm of a preference as I already pointed out to Mr. musicoverall. The very idea that tubes are somehow able to do a "better job" at recreating sound has been proven to be nothing beyond a myth. That is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any professional audio equipment using vacuum tubes being employed in any recording studios, radio and TV broadcasting, commercial post-production houses, movie studios, or anywhere else where sound reproduction is dealt with "professionally".


That is true when one limits the discussion to a set of nearly useless specifications. May you enjoy your musical experience by viewing THD graphs.

I don't enjoy music by viewing THD graphs ... or, by "listening to" vacuum tubes, or by "listening to" solid state devices either. I enjoy listening to MUSIC that emanates from whatever equipment is doing the reproduction of it, if said gear is doing a reasonable job of recreating it.


Well designed tube gear is completely reliable. You confuse reliability with wear. Most tires are quite reliable after tens of thousands of miles of use, yet they do wear out. The same can be said of modern tube designs.

Pure, unadulterated hogwash! The only thing that you can rely upon with any degree of certainty with tubed gear is the unreliability of the vacuum tubes themselves. They are inherently unreliable critters. They are prone to idiosyncrasies and all sorts of undesirable behaviors that their solid state counterparts are simply not inclined to exhibit ... ever. I confuse reliability with "wear"? Not hardly do I confuse any such thing. I was faced with the challenges presented to me by vacuum tubes, day in and day out for more than 30 years. Those challenges were not something caused by the tubes "wearing out" - not at all. They were often a case of a given tube simply not being capable of performing the job it was being asked to do. These tubes were not "worn out" or even performing poorly because of usage ... they were simply not up to the task. On the other hand, there were tubes that were functionally "usable", but didn't perform their jobs as well as they could have or should have, due to a plethora of reasons. Perhaps the most glaring difference between tubes and SS devices is the fact that from the day that it is put into service, a solid state device will perform its assigned task at an optimum and unvarying level until it finally dies, while a vacuum tube can (and will) exhibit a wide range of efficiency in dealing with the task it's asked to perform.


I can understand that sentiment from the viewpoint of a repairman.

I'll thank you to not refer to me as a "repairman". I was an electronic servicing technician, who also saw duty as an electronic design engineer (without the qualifying "credentials"). The term repairman in this context is tantamount to calling an automobile mechanic a "grease monkey".

[musicoverall]

To these ears, they are able to reproduce the harmonic content and transient envelope of unamplified music more faithfully than most SS amps. There are exceptions.


That is true when one limits the discussion to a set of nearly useless specifications. May you enjoy your musical experience by viewing THD graphs


Well designed tube gear is completely reliable. You confuse reliability with wear. Most tires are quite reliable after tens of thousands of miles of use, yet they do wear out. The same can be said of modern tube designs.


I can understand that sentiment from the viewpoint of a repairman.


Indeed. The best analog (actually RTR tape) still outperforms the Redbook standard when live music is the criteria for judgement, IMHO. RB is as yet far from "perfect".

rw

Well said.

As an educated guess, I've got about 3000 hours on my current set of tubes and they're still going strong. I find it telling that I personally know of many folks and have read posts from many others that have moved from solid state to tubes for a superior sonic experience. I can think of 2 people TOTAL that moved from tubes to solid state over the last dozen years.

[musicoverall]

Woodman, first of all excuse me for not being aware of how to set off each of your quotations (those I'll be referring to) in order to make my response easier to follow. I'll be happy to clarify if necessary.

You stated that you listen to music from a system that does a "reasonable" job of recreating the music. Solid state, IMHO, does that reasonable job. But after several years of listening to music through SS, I decided I preferred something that did the job much better than just reasonably. I upgraded to tubes and have never looked (or listened!) back.

A given tube not being able to perform its assignment might well have been normal back when you were working with tubes. Now such a thing is called an amp "design flaw". Only very rarely have I encountered tubed amps that used tubes not up to the task and in a few of those situations, the problem was fixed by using a different set of tubes. Certainly there are tubed amps that are unsuitable for certain speakers due to limited power or impedance issues or what have you. But when you find the proper amp to drive your speakers, you will no longer use the term "reasonable" in describing the music reproduction you're hearing, assuming your ancillary gear is well mated and performing optimally. My only complaint about tubed gear is that it tends to be expensive in many cases. On the other hand, there are many expensive solid state amps as well.

[E-Stat]

The only thing that you can rely upon with any degree of certainty with tubed gear is the unreliability of the vacuum tubes themselves.
I guess I have lived a charmed life having used various tube products since 1981.



I'll thank you to not refer to me as a "repairman".
My apologies. Although I now work in a sales capacity, I am a computer programmer. Does that make me a Software Design Engineer ?

rw

[E-Stat]

Well said.

As an educated guess, I've got about 3000 hours on my current set of tubes and they're still going strong. I find it telling that I personally know of many folks and have read posts from many others that have moved from solid state to tubes for a superior sonic experience. I can think of 2 people TOTAL that moved from tubes to solid state over the last dozen years.
I don't debate the practicality issue. I have a twenty four year old Threshold amp that I now use in my garage system that has been utterly trouble free. On the other hand, it cannot reproduce solo piano, voice, symphonic works, etc. quite like my VTL 450s.

rw

[kexodusc]

Hmm, I'm with Woodman on this one...

I've spent more than a few days demoing various tube amps hoping to find one that will just blow me away. Aside from all the impossible to prove rhetoric, I haven't heard any Tube amp that had an ability to make a recording sound like "live music" as opposed to just a recording of such. Same with SS, to be honest.
I meet alot of audiophile types who have some sort of emotional, nostalgic attachment to Tubes, and then others who are dead set against them. Myself, I demand proof, first hand, with my ears to believe that Tube amps are superior to Solid State amps of equal price. I haven't heard it yet, though, many sound AS GOOD to me, some sound great, but nothing better.

I laugh at people who suggest otherwise, then fail challenges using their own equipment to validate these claims.

I am a musician, I play alot of live venues...The sweetest amp I've ever heard playing through VR-1's sounded like utter hi-fi compared to being at a live show. I have personally challenged many people to invite me to listen to their systems so I could hear this phenomenon of transforming playback to the real thing. Most back down, the few that don't admit later that no system can ever be as good as a live venue, no matter how exotic the gear. At present time, nothing even comes close.

I passionately loath the term "musical" as a descriptor, to me this means "I hear something you don't, whether real or imaginary". And I laugh at the suggestions that hi-fi gear of any design (as of this date in history) can match the sound of a live performance.
What is "musical"...at what point does something become (or not become) musical, what value of resistor, what size of capacitor is responsible for this phenomenon.
Why does one audiophile passionately insist his Krell is more "musical" than his friends "McIntosh", and vice-versa?
Thoughts?

[markw]

I see it as meaning that the system "manipulates" the sound in such a way that the listener finds it pleasing.

Likewise the term "transparant". .... as opposed to what standards?

Actually, it would seem that the terms "musical" and "transparant" are at odds with each other.

I guess this is analagous to flowers vs. weeds. A weed is anything that grows where you don't want it to. So, in essense, if you are cultivating dandelions or chickory, a rose would be considered a weed in that garden.

[musicoverall]

no system can ever be as good as a live venue, no matter how exotic the gear. At present time, nothing even comes close.

I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. No gear comes close to the live experience. However, in my experience, tubed gear comes closer than solid state.

As for "musical" vs "transparent", I think a better term for the former would be "forgiving". A transparent component would pass the recorded signal unadulterated while a forgiving one would add something to the signal to make it more listenable. In this sense, I think markw's approach is agreeable.

It's hard for me to think of ANY component as perfectly transparent since many of them sound so different from one another. I prefer to think of components as more or less transparent rather than totally transparent. On the other hand, it's hard to guage since I wasn't in the recording studio when the recording was made. So even though I know that a stereo system isn't very close to live, I still use live music as my barometer. The closer a component comes to making me partially believe I'm hearing live music, the more transparent the component. I realize this isn't a very scientific method but it has allowed me to assemble a system that knocks down room boundaries and often makes me believe, even if just for an instant, that I'm at a live venue.

[markw]

On the other hand, it's hard to guage since I wasn't in the recording studio when the recording was made.bingo. Likewise, we are at the mercy of the remix engineer who has ultimate control over all matters audio. Relative contribution of each insturment in the overall mix, insturment placement, echo/reverb and equalization.

Ultimatly, what we hear on our home system is NOT a real time/real music situation. It's a totally manufactured event.

When anyone states absolutes such as more musical, more transparant, proper soundstaging, etc, etc... I tend to shake my head. The crux of the matter is simply that only the engineer knows for sure what he intended. Anything else that pops up on out home system is simply the manifestation of various distortions, smearings driver/room interactions et. al. that may or may not be pleasing to us.

Yes, it may come close to making us think it's a "real live" performance but that's simply the skill of the engineers at work creating that illusion, not the transparancy or musicality of the system.

[Geoffcin]

Hmm, I'm with Woodman on this one...

I've spent more than a few days demoing various tube amps hoping to find one that will just blow me away. Aside from all the impossible to prove rhetoric, I haven't heard any Tube amp that had an ability to make a recording sound like "live music" as opposed to just a recording of such. Same with SS, to be honest.
I meet alot of audiophile types who have some sort of emotional, nostalgic attachment to Tubes, and then others who are dead set against them. Myself, I demand proof, first hand, with my ears to believe that Tube amps are superior to Solid State amps of equal price. I haven't heard it yet, though, many sound AS GOOD to me, some sound great, but nothing better.

I laugh at people who suggest otherwise, then fail challenges using their own equipment to validate these claims.

I am a musician, I play alot of live venues...The sweetest amp I've ever heard playing through VR-1's sounded like utter hi-fi compared to being at a live show. I have personally challenged many people to invite me to listen to their systems so I could hear this phenomenon of transforming playback to the real thing. Most back down, the few that don't admit later that no system can ever be as good as a live venue, no matter how exotic the gear. At present time, nothing even comes close.


Thoughts?

While not a pro musician myself, I've been around music, and musicians all my life. Usually when 2 or more of my friends gather, at least one of them is a pro, or used to be. MOST guitar players that I know absolutely swear by tube amps. I never understood it totally myself, but being that it's their lively hood, and they devote much of their time to playing, I never questioned it. For home use I reserve opinion on them, as most people who know me know that I'm a "Big SS Iron" man. Even with that being said, I did settle on an SS amp, the PS Audio HCA 2, that is renown for it's "tube like" properties, whatever that might be. I also auditioned the sublime Musical Fidelity Tri Vista when I bought the MF A3cr, and while I didn't think it was worth the extra $$$, it had a quality that is a bit incomprehensible....a sweetness if you will, that A3cr didn't bring to the table. Hey, for $4k more you better get something right!

Even though I have SS amps exclusively, I try to keep an open mind. I'm not saying tubes or SS is better in quality, although just from an ergonomic point of view SS wins hands down.

[kexodusc]

Interesting diversion, Geoffcin, and you've mad a hippocrite of me. I swear by Marshall tube amps and the likes when I play, but tubes in guitar amps are intended to add a thick tone to the sound. That should be captured in the recording...adding tones again would be altering the source.

However, I'll be the first to admit, if there's one group that relies more on rhetoric and provides absolutely NO substantial proof, it's guitar players, and I'm one of them. I doubt I could pick between an inexpensive ss Peavey and a tube amp in a DBT, but if my guitar heroes used it, I'll buy it without question.

Flipping this around, I never said SS amps sound better either as a rule. I just haven't heard anything from a tube amp that sounds outright better.

I think for a given budget, I'd feel comfortable saying I could build a better stereo system with a less costly SS amp while diverting the rest of the money to speakers and source, than taking money away from these and allocating it to tubes. Just my opinion though.

[musicoverall]

Yes, it may come close to making us think it's a "real live" performance but that's simply the skill of the engineers at work creating that illusion, not the transparancy or musicality of the system.

I totally agreed with you up until the above statement. The problem with it is that when my system was SS, some of the engineers skill was missing. And some different solid state systems do a better job than others, as do some tube systems over others.

I think most of what makes a recording sound "live" is the engineer, no doubt. But the final tweak is the system. It enforces the illusion created by the recording. That's not to say that I don't enjoy music on other systems. To be honest, I sometimes wonder if I don't "really" enjoy my second system more than my main rig! But the truth is I enjoy them both at different times and during different moods.

[gonefishin]

For good "live sounding" recordings of good music, it's tough to beat MapleShade (http://mapleshaderecords.com/main/catalog.php) recordings. Their recordings are really top notch. If your after a recording that resembles real music...but not everyone wants that.
Listening to Mapleshade recordings always leads me to wonder why other recordings can't capture the music the way Mapleshade does. If you've never listened to their recordings...at least give the MUSICAL FESTIVAL (sampler) (http://mapleshaderecords.com/reviews/08132.php) cd a try.





Have a Happy (and safe) New Year!

dan

[E-Stat]

bingo. Likewise, we are at the mercy of the remix engineer who has ultimate control over all matters audio. Relative contribution of each insturment in the overall mix, insturment placement, echo/reverb and equalization.
I agree with you completely when you limit the discussion to multitracked studio recordings.

rw

[Geoffcin]

Interesting diversion, Geoffcin, and you've mad a hippocrite of me. I swear by Marshall tube amps and the likes when I play, but tubes in guitar amps are intended to add a thick tone to the sound. That should be captured in the recording...adding tones again would be altering the source.

However, I'll be the first to admit, if there's one group that relies more on rhetoric and provides absolutely NO substantial proof, it's guitar players, and I'm one of them. I doubt I could pick between an inexpensive ss Peavey and a tube amp in a DBT, but if my guitar heroes used it, I'll buy it without question.

Flipping this around, I never said SS amps sound better either as a rule. I just haven't heard anything from a tube amp that sounds outright better.

I think for a given budget, I'd feel comfortable saying I could build a better stereo system with a less costly SS amp while diverting the rest of the money to speakers and source, than taking money away from these and allocating it to tubes. Just my opinion though.

I've got a cheap Peavy, and although it's good, it's not a Marshall Valve by a long shot. The kid wanted a Bass for christmas so we've got a Peavey with a MicroBass amp.
Here's a pic of the kids Guitars so far;

http://members.aol.com/geoffcin/photos/guitars.jpg

[theaudiohobby]

I am a musician, I play alot of live venues...The sweetest amp I've ever heard playing through VR-1's sounded like utter hi-fi compared to being at a live show. I have personally challenged many people to invite me to listen to their systems so I could hear this phenomenon of transforming playback to the real thing. Most back down, the few that don't admit later that no system can ever be as good as a live venue, no matter how exotic the gear. At present time, nothing even comes close.

Thoughts?

I like the turn that this thread has taken, the live vs. recorded event is always an interesting one. I gathered that when B&O was testing their new acoustic lens speakers and placed a live band behind acoustically transparent blinds, the listening panel could not reliably distinguish between the recorded sound and the live band :D.

I think the reason why folks think that nothing comes close to live is because they can see the band or at least know it is there ;), an audio recording will never come close to a live performance because it is audio and has no visuals and we know that ;) , take away the visuals and many folks will be at loss to differentiate between the recording and live sound under optimal conditions.

[kexodusc]

I think the relatively larger size of the live venue has a huge roll to play in it too, and I've never heard any speakers that sound like the real thing just by cranking them up in a large room.

I also think that nobody does justice to human vocals like mother nature does herself. And, as much as we all hype and bash equipment, I think modern recording technology still has a long way to go...

[theaudiohobby]

Yep, I think it will be pretty difficult to recreate a live stadium event ;) , but recreating jazz club performances and smaller indoor classical ensembles are not nearly as difficult to recreate as many folks imagine, some of acoustic issues that speakers face are also encountered in live performances unwanted reflections, bass boom etc and the make for a less than satisfying experience at times. Truth be told, there are times that a recorded event can sound better than a live event ;) because these issues can be addressed in a recorded event.

[tamule1]

The only thing better than a tube preamp is no preamp.
Electrons flying through a vacuum do better than trying to get through a solid semi-conductor.

[markw]

The problem with it is that when my system was SS, some of the engineers skill was missing.I think I can pretty well state with confidence that the original recording was done with solid state equipment. At least those done within the last 30 years or so.

So, if he judged his work by using solid state equipment, how would ss prevent it from getting through to you?

Actually, here we get back to that "musicality" vs. "transparancy" bit. "Musicality" refers to a preference, which is not a bad thing. "Transparancy" refers to an absolute, which can be a tricky thing to back up.

To say that one (ss or tubes) more accurately conveys the engineers intent, you are making a claim for transparancy, or hearing through the recording/reproduction chain to the original event.

When you state that the "engineer's skill was missing", you are alluding that you have inner knowledge as to the absolute truth as to what he/she intended. And, as mentioned before, unless you were in the studio when the recordingwas made, that's an impossibility. Even then, ones memory could be called into question.

So, while you may feel free to say you "prefer" the sound of tubes, you have no reason to say that the sound what they deliver is neither more or less "correct" than the sound of ss.

But, ultimately, I'd say that we both can agree that the engineer's intent is for as many people as possible to enjoy their work. If you feel tubes helps you attain that goal, then enjoy.

[musicoverall]

Well, here's something I can state as an absolute fact: I don't always convey by words what I truly mean to say! :D

When I say that the engineer's skill was "missing" I am speculating, of course. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe what he was trying to convey was a hard sound, a loss of transient speed and smoothness and a sense of audio reproduction rather than the sound of real musical instruments. I could, of course, be wrong.

The first thing I did with my stereo system(s) is maximize the room acoustics, to the best of my ability. The tubes came just before the cable upgrade i.e second to last additon. Still, I don't have the same gear, room, etc that the recording engineer had. But I agree that all of us should use whatever brings us closer to the music - whatever makes it more of a personally enjoyable experience.

[woodman]

Hmm, I'm with Woodman on this one...

..... I haven't heard any Tube amp that had an ability to make a recording sound like "live music" as opposed to just a recording of such. Same with SS, to be honest.

I am a musician, I play alot of live venues...The sweetest amp I've ever heard playing through VR-1's sounded like utter hi-fi compared to being at a live show. I have personally challenged many people to invite me to listen to their systems so I could hear this phenomenon of transforming playback to the real thing. Most back down, the few that don't admit later that no system can ever be as good as a live venue, no matter how exotic the gear. At present time, nothing even comes close.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? Yeah Ken, here are some of my thoughts:

No, you're not "with me" at all. Not until you come to accept the basic truth that auditory perceptions are created by each listener as a direct result of his/her personal ABEs. They function totally independently and with no regard whatever for any scientific facts or "truth"!

I'm also a musician who's played lots and lots and lots of "live venues". In my experience, those venues were more often than not, every bit as problematical (acoustically) as any listening room at home. I can't help but wonder if you're not factoring in the "excitement factor" of a live performance (which is undeniable) into your evaluation of the sonics of the performance venue? My personal preference in music listening is for the reproduction of it rather than the live performance (with rare exceptions).

Finally, your statement that ..... "At present time, nothing even comes close." throws you solidly into the negativity camp of those that I call CONEs - a position that does a disservice to those that fall victim to it, IMO. It strikes me as more than a bit curious and bizarre why anyone would choose to go through their life looking intently for everything that's "not good enough" when the opposite attitude is available to put smiles on your face to replace the frowns. Besides the psychological aspects of it, the statement itself is also patently wrong!. The simple fact of the matter is, that the technologies of sound reproduction today have matured and progressed in a remarkable fashion to the point where they are within an eyelash or two of "perfection". Perhaps it's because I've been intimately involved with audio for nearly 70 years(!) that I'm much more aware of the progress that's been made than most others seem to be.

[musicoverall]

The simple fact of the matter is, that the technologies of sound reproduction today have matured and progressed in a remarkable fashion to the point where they are within an eyelash or two of "perfection". Perhaps it's because I've been intimately involved with audio for nearly 70 years(!) that I'm much more aware of the progress that's been made than most others seem to be.

It must indeed by those 70 years... or something! That close to perfection? To date, you are the one and only person I've encountered, either in person, via the media or via the internet, that has made such a claim. This includes objective as well as subjective listeners, musicians and scientists, anyone! However, none of them have 70 years of experience, either.

Which audio components are within that eyelash of perfection? All of them? If only some of them, which some? Can you be specific, please? Please include examples of perfect speakers as well. I've been searching for just such a component for a long time and I'm very interested in putting upgrades behind me for good. Thanks in advance.

[markw]

... one of the local audio houses was hosting a demo by Tandberg to show off their TCD 310 cassetter deck. they had a chamber orchestra on stage, along with some speakers. They playrd some music and it was etheral. Small venue, close seating, virtually perfect acoustics, the whole yard.

They played a little , they stopped, the guy talked. This went of for a while but there was more than enough music to keep us happy and interested. Nobody wanted to leave.

At one point they were playing, we were into the music and they abruptly put their insturments down BUT... (now here's the punchline) the music kept playing, just as beautifully as it had been all night long. We ALL gasped in astonishment.

So, here we are talking a quarter of a century ago, using a cassette deck, production speakers (I think AR) and electronics and a roomfull of pretty savvy audiophiles.

They had arrived earlier in the week and, in that very room, tweaked the acoustics and set up a recording studio. They recorded, very carefully, the playlist and when we arrived, simply "spliced" in pieces of the recording with the live performance.

Not bad for so long ago, eh?

[E-Stat]

Not bad for so long ago, eh?
Similar to the AR stories from the sixties using AR-3s with a small quartet.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/images3/92351.jpg

Somehow I think I could tell the difference between a pair of 3s and a symphony orchestra. How 'bout you?

rw

[markw]

Somehow I think I could tell the difference between a pair of 3s and a symphony orchestra. How 'bout you?One lonely pair of AR3's? Sure. But, if you add enough speakers and power to effectively to move enough air as the symphony orchestra does, then it might be another matter entirely. Remember, it didn't take a lot of speakers to easily handle the output of the chamber orchestra.

Oh, FWIW, the amps were solid state if I remember correctly. ;)

[Mash]

markw
One lonely pair of AR3's CAN easily handle the output of small groups- say three to six, or so, players. This is why AR and others have pulled this bit of theatrics with small groups and not symphony orchestras.........

The AR dog-&-pony shows might have been mid 1960's, and it is cute that Tandberg pulled the same trick.... who did it first?

Fooling the audience by having the musicians go through the motions of playing their instruments while the audio equipment actually provides the sound simply proves that your eyes will dominate your ears, and that sighted listening tests are therefore bogus. Then too, I think Woodman made some comments about "the excitement of a live performance" which may also apply to these venues.

[theaudiohobby]

wow :) , thanks woodman and markw, I thought my orginal post on the quality of recorded performances vs live went down like a leaded balloon. markw you say the amplifiers were SS, now that is interesting, I wonder what the tube brigade ;) have to say to that.

[E-Stat]

markw you say the amplifiers were SS, now that is interesting, I wonder what the tube brigade ;) have to say to that.
First of all, power amplifiers are only used in the signal chain to drive the cutters for vinyl pressings. And among the best mastering labs in use today like AcousTech, they still do use tube amps for that purpose. Admittedly, legendary mastering wizard Stan Ricker uses custom designed Spectral SS amps for his own cutter. Those amps, however, are not exactly typical. I said earlier there were exceptions.

Studio electronics are line level stages. Unlike power amps, however, virtually all solid state preamplifier stages are class A designs using FETs. FETs are known to better mimic the transfer characteristics of tubes than do conventional bipolar designs. Once again, there are exceptions to the rule. The Passlabs XA series of power amps uses MOSFETs throughout in a simple two stage, single ended Class A design. They are said to be very tube like in their sound because of those design aspects. Their only disadvantage is that 160 watts / channel runs $18k. My tube amps have twice the power and cost half as much.

With the exception of a few amps such as the Passlabs, why would you choose to have other parts of the signal chain less good than the others?

rw

[musicoverall]

... one of the local audio houses was hosting a demo by Tandberg to show off their TCD 310 cassetter deck. they had a chamber orchestra on stage, along with some speakers. They playrd some music and it was etherl. Small venue, close seating, virtually perfect acoustics, the whole yard.

They played a little , they stopped, the guy talked. Thiswent of for a while but there was more than enough music to keep us happy and interested. Nobody wanted to leave.

At one point they were playing, we were into the music and they abtuptly put their insturmants down BUT... (now here's the punchline) the music kept playing, just as beautifully as it had been all night long. We ALL gasped in astonishment.

So, here we are talking a quarter of a century ago, using a cassette deck, production speakers (I think AR) and electronics and a roomfull of pretty savvy audiophiles.

They had arrived earlier in the week and, in that very room, tweaked the acoustics and set up a recording studio. They recorded, very carefully, the playlist and when we arrived, simply "spliced" in pieces of the recording with the live performance.

Not bad for so long ago, eh?

Hmmm... so much for the wow and flutter, noise, and other horrible characteristics of analog! Good thing we "upgraded" to digital - now we won't make those mistakes!

Chamber music would be, I think, easier to replicate than an orchestra or a jazz ensemble. Fairly limited FR. Still, it's an interesting testament. Now if we could only get that today! Didn't Woodman say that audio had progressed and evolved? It appears we've gone backward.

[markw]

First of all, power amplifiers are only used in the signal chain to drive the cutters for vinyl pressings.I'll see your call and raise you a Marantz 8B, A Rotel RB-991 and a NAD 214. All of which are commonly referred to as "power amps" and can generally be found on home systems, (mine in particular) generally between a preamp and a speaker. They serve to increase a low current signal to a level sufficient to drive a tranducer, generally known as a loudspeaker.

But, when I was in the Air Force, we used a similar device, which we referred to as a "final", which consisted mainly of a vacuum tube known as a klystron, which was installed via a chain and hoist. This served essentially he same function but worked in the gigahertz range and optput in the range of 50kw.

I guess we could call this a "power amp" too should we choose, but please be aware that "power amps" are not used soley to drive cutter heads.

[markw]

Hmmm... so much for the wow and flutter, noise, and other horrible characteristics of analog! Good thing we "upgraded" to digital - now we won't make those mistakes!Problem is my ears are still analog and I don't relish the thought of an upgrade here. ;)


Chamber music would be, I think, easier to replicate than an orchestra or a jazz ensemble. Fairly limited FR. Still, it's an interesting testament. Now if we could only get that today! Didn't Woodman say that audio had progressed and evolved? It appears we've gone backward.It's just that you need to use enough of the correct technology to do it. As this "dog and pony" show proved, a pair of speakers with a well recorded piece of music sufficed. And, a cello can go lower than you think when you're up close. As I stated to E-Stat, you don't think they could have accomplished the same task with a larger group given more speakers and power?

FWIW, the last time I was at the Irridium I noticed that everything was amped and that's not really a large venue. But, please note, that in ALL venues, the sound you hear is greatly determined by where you are sitting. We could be at the same event and seated a few feet from each other and each have a different "interpertation" of the sound.

We go to a lot of events here in NJ*, mostly in redone movie theatres (State Theater, Count Basie Theatre, Community Theater, Union County Arts Center), many churches and even some state of the art venues (NJPAC), wherever we can find music, but where ever we sit in these locations, the sould is subtly different from other seats.

*Yes, we do the city too, but we try to keep it local.

[hermanv]

Musicians sit in the middle of the orchestra, what sounds "normal" to them does not sound "normal" to an audience member. Audiophile musicians who try for accurate TEND to build systems that most of us would call overhyped or hot in the treble, this is because that is what they hear when they play with other musicians.

This is neither right nor wrong but it partly explains why different people have different preferences or different definitions of what sounds right. It also goes a long way towards explaining why there is no standard definition of neutral sound.

Backing up several posts there were all tube direct to disk recordings made not that long ago. I have a CD that claims only tubes were used in the recording studio chain, it sounds pretty damn good, maybe it's the tubes, or maybe it's because they made an extraordinary effort. Like everything else there is no absolute right. Its the attention to detail that I think makes for better sound.

[E-Stat]

I'll see your call and raise you a...
Several posts later, I can see how my point was missed. Originally, you said:

I think I can pretty well state with confidence that the original recording was done with solid state equipment. At least those done within the last 30 years or so.

To which theaudiohobby replied:

I thought my orginal post on the quality of recorded performances vs live went down like a leaded balloon. markw you say the amplifiers were SS, now that is interesting, I wonder what the tube brigade have to say to that.

"Original recordings" as you put it are NOT engineered with power amps in the signal path. The fact that power amps are used downstream of the process is irrelevant to answer theaudiohobby's charge.

rw

[markw]

Several posts later, I can see how my point was missed. Originally, you said:

I think I can pretty well state with confidence that the original recording was done with solid state equipment. At least those done within the last 30 years or so.

To which theaudiohobby replied:

I thought my orginal post on the quality of recorded performances vs live went down like a leaded balloon. markw you say the amplifiers were SS, now that is interesting, I wonder what the tube brigade have to say to that.

"Original recordings" as you put it are NOT engineered with power amps in the signal path. The fact that power amps are used downstream of the process is irrelevant to answer theaudiohobby's charge.

rw... was done the day before by that very same group in that very same room, using three microphones going into a small (solid state) mixing console directly into the TCD-310. The power amps used in the playback were solid state.

Basically what this points out is simply that a "live" recording" works best when played back in the same environment in which it was recorded. As Herman so wisely pointed ourt (Blessed are the peacemakers) is there is no (may HP forgive me) "absolute" sound. One may come close to what one believes is his own personal interpertation of the perfect sound but, all in all, it's just a grand illusion.

Or. for some (not I) it might be tens of grand illusions. ;)

[E-Stat]

The power amps used in the playback were solid state.
What do the power amps used in post # 31 (and not used in the recording) have to do with your comments from post #27?


Basically what this points out is simply that a "live" recording" works best when played back in the same environment in which it was recorded.
Agreed. I assisted in a minor way one of the Telarc recordings of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. I understand the concept.


As Herman so wisely pointed ourt (Blessed are the peacemakers) is there is no (may HP forgive me) "absolute" sound.
Harry finds it amazing that so many folks completely miss his point. Obviously, the performance venue affects the final acoustics. It does not, however, fundamentally change the sonic character of instruments. After talking with him about that topic a month or so back, he agreed to respond to a couple of similar comments voiced on AA. I'll let you know when that occurs.


rw

[woodman]

The only thing better than a tube preamp is no preamp.
Electrons flying through a vacuum do better than trying to get through a solid semi-conductor.

Wow ... what startling revelations these are! Truly profound ....... NOT!

[woodman]

It must indeed by (be?) those 70 years... or something!

Of course it's the 70 years that makes all of the difference - no question about it. There's simply no substitute for experience. I learned that basic truth early on in my life (in the 1940s) when I had to make a career change. I was a professional musician during that decade, but after World War II ended, the music business went directly into the toilet. Since I was recently married and an expectatnt father, I needed a new career and in a hurry. So, I enrolled in a school to learn enough about electronics to service television sets. I'd been "playing around" with audio for a number of years before then, but there was no such thing as a career to be found there. I quickly learned (to my dismay) that my TV schooling hadn't really taught me enough ... I had to plunge in and "learn by doing" - which I did for the next 50 some years.


That close to perfection? To date, you are the one and only person I've encountered, either in person, via the media or via the internet, that has made such a claim. This includes objective as well as subjective listeners, musicians and scientists, anyone! However, none of them have 70 years of experience, either.

Obviously, because they lack the perspective that those 70 years put "on the table" is reason enough for them to not see things in the same way as I do. In order to better understand my perspective on this, it's necessary to include relativity in the equation. Everything is relative, and life itself is duality-based ... up and down ... left and right ... hot or cold ... sweet or sour ... light or heavy ... black or white ... loud or soft ... tall or short ... on or off ... in or out ... the list goes on, seemingly forever. It takes one of the two in order to give meaning to its opposite. In order to fully appreciate just how far we've come in audio technology, one needs to have been a participant in the evolution as it progressed.


Which audio components are within that eyelash of perfection? All of them? If only some of them, which some? Can you be specific, please?

Now we come to the most important part of the discussion ... which is perception. With all things being relative, it's no stretch at all to find vast discrepancies in the perceptions that different people report. Even if there was no such thing as "relative" and there was an actual sonic "truth" regarding how something performs, you'd still get the broad variety of perceptions! How could this be? The answer is simple. It's the individual's ABEs that accounts for all of the difference. The magic in all of this lies in the discovery that by merely changing one's Attitude(s), which then alter your Beliefs, you can experience far greater amounts of joy and appreciation for just how good and wonderful audio reproduction can be (and really is).

To answer this question about "which components" - the most accurate answer I can offer is: most of them (excluding loudspeakers of course).


Please include examples of perfect speakers as well. I've been searching for just such a component for a long time and I'm very interested in putting upgrades behind me for good. Thanks in advance.

Speakers are the one component that has yet to reach anything resembling flat frequency response, which is the major attribute that would constitute "perfection". Fortunately, (or unfortunately) human hearing comes up a bit short in this criteria as well. This makes the choosing of speakers such an individual proposition - and controversial to boot. So, sorry ... I cannot offer you a magic bullet to put your speaker upgrading behind you for good. I can offer you this however ... the Attitudes and Beliefs that you choose (yes, we DO choose those for ourselves) can go a long, long way towards giving you the enjoyment that we all say we're looking for,

Hope this helps you

[musicoverall]

Hope this helps you

Actually, it does. I'm not sure I completely agree with all your points but I don't necessarily disagree, either. Food for thought, that much is clear.

Thanks for a well thought out and intelligent post.

[markw]

What do the power amps used in post # 31 (and not used in the recording) have to do with your comments from post #27?Quick answer... Not a dang thing.

Long answer? You are simply intertwining two distinctly different conversations into one that you are taking totally out of context.

Let’s have a mini recap, shall we?

# 26, “musicoverall” makes the statement ”The problem with it is that when my system was SS, some of the engineers skill was missing.”

# 27, my response was to him was. “I think I can pretty well state with confidence that the original recording was done with solid state equipment. At least those done within the last 30 years or so.”

I’ll stand by that from what I recall from those times. As far as I recall, solid state mixers, efx and tape recorders were pretty standard in most recording studios at that time. Those that didn’t convert yet were champing at the bit to do so.

That pretty much ends that thought train, at least as far as my participation went.

# 31. I move on to introduce the Tandberg experiment. I don’t see any reference to power amps, either SS or otherwise here. Do you?

# 32, You try to extrapolate the chamber group into a symphony orchestra and say it wouldn’t work.

# 33. I dispute that and will admit I throw in that the playback chain was ss, just to dig ya a little. ;)

# 35. Now, “theaudiohobby” throws the ss/gs gauntlet down, clearly in reference to the Tandberg experiment and my response to you in # 33.

I think this is where you start to lose it.

# 36 You respond about cutting heads being the only users of “power amps”?

# 38. I question your logic on that here

# 41 Now, here it seems that you’re combining two separate thoughts into one.

Your first statement refers to my response (in # 27) to the statement by “musicoverall” and his com,mplaint about ss not conveying the engineer’s intent.to which I responded “I think I can pretty well state with confidence that the original recording was done with solid state equipment. At least those done within the last 30 years or so.”

Now, you try to tie that to “theaudiohobby”s post # 35 to link the two subjects together and you respond

In the second part of this post, you try to use “theaudiohobby” statement from # 35.

Please note that his reference to SS in # 35 was directly in response to my # 33 theTandberg experiment.

…and you respond with a statement that power amps are not used in the “original recording” process. I do agree, but this was not a subject under discussion and I can’t recall anyone saying they were.

#42 I explain that the “original recording” That I thought you were refering to was the one from the Tandberg experiment. Since the quote you used as the basis for your post was part of that train, I responsed as such.

And this brings us to ths post that I’m responding to.

I hope this clears up the little multi-tasking that has been going on here a little. It can get confusing when you're taking on comers form all sides.

[E-Stat]

Please note that his reference to SS in # 35 was directly in response to my # 33 theTandberg experiment.
Ah. That reference was not as clear to me given your multiple comments regarding SS use. BTW, the original AR live vs. recorded tests used Dyna MKIIIs.

rw

[markw]

Ah. That reference was not as clear to me given your multiple comments regarding SS use. BTW, the original AR live vs. recorded tests used Dyna MKIIIs.I don't remember making too many references to ss but, in any case, Sometimes we all lose the beat. Ya gotta follow the flow and keep in step when there are multiple conversations going on.

Oh, my throw away reference to ss amps in # 33, my reply to your chamber/symphony scenario was in relation to the Tandberg tests since that was my subject. I had no input on the AR tests. That was your baby. Perhaps that was unclear?

I believe the AR tests in the early/mid 60's predated the Tandberg tests, at least this one, by at least 12 or more years. A lot of new tech took place over that time. A cassette deck in the mid 60's was unheard of, much less a solid state one that could stand up to a test such as this was still in the realm of sci fi.

[risabet]

And here's the truth in audio:

--

1. The speakers represent about 90% of the quality of sound you will get from your audio system.

--A speaker takes an electrical signal, moves air to convert it to sound, and then sounds like a real person. Incredibly hard to do well.

2. The source component (CD or LP) is the next most important piece of equipment.

--It takes a piece of plastic with pits in it and converts it to an electrical signal capable of making a speaker produce music.

3. The preamp (or preamp stage of an integrated amp) is next in importance.

--It takes components of varying impedances, voltages, and levels; uses switches and attenuators, and has an amplification stage of its own.

4. The amplifier is the least important part of a system.

--It takes a signal and makes it bigger.

--There are only 3 types of amps: good ones, bad ones, and 'boutique' ones (ones that alter the sound).

--If you're spending more than $500 on your amplifier....you're wasting your money.

5. Fancy cables are the 'snake oil' of modern life.

--Most are designed to have a sound of their own...to alter the signal. This is not the role a cable should play.

--16 gauge multistranded copper speaker wire (quality 'extension' cord) is all you need for resonably efficient speakers.

--Gold plated interconnects from Radio Shack will give you sound as good as any expensive cable.



You know for the most part, this guy seems to nail it.


Common sense would indicate that the proper order of importance is

1. Source first, be it tuner, CD, or turntable (the best IMO) if you don't get the signal off or out of the device whatever you do to it after is simply playing with a defective signal.

2. Amplification, the signal sent from the source must be properly treated by the amplification in order to send a proper signal to the third part of the sysem. The amplifier itself must also be able to control the speaker, starting and stopping it precisely and allowing the speaker to track the music signal. Very few sub $500.00 amps that I have heard can do this with decent speaker at all frequencies.

3. Loudspeakers, these are no better than the signal they receive. If I believed the above post I would spend $3000 on some fine speakers, $1000.00 on a CD player, and than connect them all to a Sansewer (oops, Sansui, receiver). I do agree that the job of the speaker is difficult to do well, reproducing a frequency range fromm 20 to 20,000 hz is no easy chore, add in a dynamic range of 50 to 60 db, and maintaining the proper phase relationships in the signal and you have a devilishly difficult job.

4. The best thing about this hobby is that if you don't hear a difference between components, cables or any other part of a system you are free to save your money. Luckily for me I can hear the differences between components and cables and so I strive to build systems that incrementally approach the sound of unamplified live music.

It is a good thing for all of the cable manufacturers out their that some of us can hear
the differences between cables, both in the signal path and outside of it.

[musicoverall]

Luckily for me I can hear the differences between components and cables and so I strive to build systems that incrementally approach the sound of unamplified live music. .

Luckily??? I consider the people who feel all components sound the same to be lucky! They can save their money and the choices are simpler! :)

As for the "order of importance", I don't disagree with your assessment but I feel the bulk of expenditure for a system should be speakers, simply because they don't do their job as well. CD source components and amplification components do a better job and, whereas they are important, it doesn't require a ton of money to do those jobs basically correctly. I'd much prefer to hear a system with modest front end and amplification components with good speakers than the opposite. It's easier to find speakers to totally muck up a signal than it is to find a CD player to muck it up, IMHO.

[markw]

First off. if the source media is poor, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING will improve it to any great extent. I've got some recordings of roots rock done in the 50's and tome controls can smooth outa little of the roughness but they still suck. Ah... but that music. ;)

But, drop on some good recordings (Mapleshade, Reference Recordings, some RCA Living Stereo or some Columbia/Legacy stuff, etc...) and you're in heaven.

Now, on to he other side. The speakers. Get what moves you. Then, get an amp with enough clean oomph to drive them to levels sufficient to reach that hidden nerve that makes your mouth turn up at the ends and your foot tap and you're in business.

The rest kinda falls into place.

[theaudiohobby]

markw you, good :D, yep thats it, the speakers and the source are of equal importance if either sucks, you are not going to get good music, as simple as that. In the digital age, speakers show much greater variability and there is no universal best, so choose what works best for your ears and pocket ;). Then look for a good amplifier, forget about tubes, ss, digital and all such hoopla, choose what does the job i.e. drives your speakers best and you are up and away with good music.:D

[E-Stat]

First off. if the source media is poor, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING will improve it to any great extent. I've got some recordings of roots rock done in the 50's and tome controls can smooth outa little of the roughness but they still suck. Ah... but that music. ;)

But, drop on some good recordings (Mapleshade, Reference Recordings, some RCA Living Stereo or some Columbia/Legacy stuff, etc...) and you're in heaven.

Now, on to he other side. The speakers. Get what moves you. Then, get an amp with enough clean oomph to drive them to levels sufficient to reach that hidden nerve that makes your mouth turn up at the ends and your foot tap and you're in business.

The rest kinda falls into place.
Ditto to all of that!

rw

[Resident Loser]

...there's the word...rendering all else meaningless, anecdotal, opinion...

jimHJJ(...difference does not equate to higher-fi...)

[FLZapped]

Electrons flying through a vacuum do better than trying to get through a solid semi-conductor.


HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! OMG that's funny!

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

-Bruce
(Just completely wrong)

[risabet]

True, the amplification chain has the "easiest" job to do and thus it is easiest to find competent electronics, the problem arises when one then starts the process of upgrading the speakers. Better speakers tend to present more complex loads with greater reactance, lower impedance, especially at high frequencies, etc. Here is where buying better electronics at the start is a benefit, you can go through 2-3 ugrade cycles with the speakers before you need to upgrade the amps.

On the subject of tubes, yeah, they treat the electrons better, especially at line level. The sound of tubes, and most early tube gear does have a sound of its own, is more consonant with the sound of live music. Modern tube gear is much more neutral sounding and the best is wickedly revealing of changes in source components, cables and imaging.

If you can deal with the heat and regular minor maintenace of tubes go for it. I compromise with a hybrid tube pre and a SS amp.

[Beckman]

I can hear more of a difference in amps than in cd players. I do agree about the $500 thing.

[theaudiohobby]

On the subject of tubes, yeah, they treat the electrons better, especially at line level. The sound of tubes, and most early tube gear does have a sound of its own, is more consonant with the sound of live music.
treat electrons better :eek: grrrr.... :( maybe we should return to the days of the alchemists, the alchemists probably had more plausible explanations :D .

[musicoverall]

On the subject of tubes, yeah, they treat the electrons better, especially at line level. The sound of tubes, and most early tube gear does have a sound of its own, is more consonant with the sound of live music. Modern tube gear is much more neutral sounding and the best is wickedly revealing of changes in source components, cables and imaging.
.

Well, I can't comment on how tubes treat electrons! A little politeness is good, though! :)

The rest of this paragraph mirrors my experience perfectly. I've found that solid state tends to blur the transients and the decay of notes... one of my problems with digital sound is that the decay of notes is actually an instant death! Very un-lifelike... and tubes are so revealing and "live" sounding. I was very skeptical at first until I listened. And my amps look like a cross between something out of Star Trek and something from the documentary of Thomas Edison! Buggardly looking things! :)

[theaudiohobby]

I've found that solid state tends to blur the transients and the decay of notes... one of my problems with digital sound is that the decay of notes is actually an instant death! Very un-lifelike... and tubes are so revealing and "live" sounding. I was very skeptical at first until I listened. And my amps look like a cross between something out of Star Trek and something from the documentary of Thomas Edison! Buggardly looking things! :)

We went through this corner a few posts ago :) :) , didn't we? when markw said


...(the recording) was done the day before by that very same group in that very same room, using three microphones going into a small (solid state) mixing console directly into the TCD-310. The power amps used in the playback were solid state.

How much more life-like can tube amplifiers be if the audience was unable to distinguish a recording from an actual performance ;) , and the power amps for the playback in this case were solid state :eek: .

[kexodusc]

My head is still spinning :)


No, you're not "with me" at all. Not until you come to accept the basic truth that auditory perceptions are created by each listener as a direct result of his/her personal ABEs. They function totally independently and with no regard whatever for any scientific facts or "truth"!
Oh, I'm totally in agreement with that. I haven't heard any system that can make polka sound good. :)


I can't help but wonder if you're not factoring in the "excitement factor" of a live performance (which is undeniable) into your evaluation of the sonics of the performance venue?
This is an excellent point, one I often use myself in such discussions. At a live venue, I dare say sight, sound, touch, and even smelling senses are used, often with some adrenaline pumping, etc...less so at home.


My personal preference in music listening is for the reproduction of it rather than the live performance (with rare exceptions). Really? I suppose there are numerous benefits, specifically control of conditions, that support your preference. Interesting take.



Finally, your statement that ..... "At present time, nothing even comes close." throws you solidly into the negativity camp of those that I call CONEs - a position that does a disservice to those that fall victim to it, IMO. It strikes me as more than a bit curious and bizarre why anyone would choose to go through their life looking intently for everything that's "not good enough" when the opposite attitude is available to put smiles on your face to replace the frowns.

I think my emotional response has been misinterpreted, my fault. I am by no means a negative person, nor do I approach this hobby as a a pessimist. I spend about an equal amount of time listening to music on my system and live in person. I do admit I prefer live music, and, having not heard every possible component combination, I inaccurately said that reproduction does not sound as good as live performance. I should have said in my biased opinion, my system (and almost every other one I've heard) does not sound as good to me. But acheiving the "live sound" if this state exists, has never, ever been my goal when buying audio equipment. Making my favorite albums sound as good to me as possible, withing my budget has.

I think fundamentally, much recorded music does sound different than live music, as it has many luxuries (over-dubbing, effects, post-equalization, etc) live performances do not. At least many of the recordings I listen to certainly do. In many ways, this makes the recording a superior listen (both technically from a musician's take, and sonically).
Trying to force this into some semblance of a live event may be considered "alteration" in many cases, and might be desireable for some, but not for me. If it's meant to sound live, or was recorded at a live show, it should be reflected in the recording, no? Maybe it depends on the fundamental definition of what "live music" sounds like. I imagine everyone's definition is a bit different.



Besides the psychological aspects of it, the statement itself is also patently wrong!. The simple fact of the matter is, that the technologies of sound reproduction today have matured and progressed in a remarkable fashion to the point where they are within an eyelash or two of "perfection". Perhaps it's because I've been intimately involved with audio for nearly 70 years(!) that I'm much more aware of the progress that's been made than most others seem to be.

You are correct, Woodman, I do not have even 1/4 of the experience you do, and just because I haven't heard anything close to "perfection" (whatever that is), does not mean that it isn't out there. That being said, I'm happy enough with what I have now that other than my amateur speaker building and future SS amp projects, which are as much exercises in relaxation as the pursuit of audio perfection, I'm not in any mad search to find audio Mecca.

Just curious Woodman..If you could build one dream system, what would it be?

[woodman]

My head is still spinning :)

Oh, I'm totally in agreement with that. I haven't heard any system that can make polka sound good. :)

Oh, I'm totally in agreement with that ... I'd only add that bagpipes are an even greater challenge!


Really? I suppose there are numerous benefits, specifically control of conditions, that support your preference. Interesting take.

Being present at an "event" as it's taking place does not rank very high on my personal list of priorities - due to the fact that there can be (and usually are) so many negative attributes involved. I'm a huge baseball fan, but I get far greater enjoyment from watching a game on television than I do from being there in person. Similarly, I (usually) appreciate a music performance more when "crowd noise" and the almost inevitable acoustic anomalies that are present nearly everywhere are removed from the equation, and nothing but the pure music remains. Perhaps my personal experiences when playing professionally over the years has contributed more than a little bit to this perspective.


I think my emotional response has been misinterpreted, my fault. I am by no means a negative person, nor do I approach this hobby as a a pessimist. I spend about an equal amount of time listening to music on my system and live in person. I do admit I prefer live music, and, having not heard every possible component combination, I inaccurately said that reproduction does not sound as good as live performance. I should have said in my biased opinion, my system (and almost every other one I've heard) does not sound as good to me. But acheiving the "live sound" if this state exists, has never, ever been my goal when buying audio equipment. Making my favorite albums sound as good to me as possible, withing my budget has.

Now you're changing your tune Ken. If you had stated your preference for live music over recorded in those words, I never would've "misinterpreted" you. But you didn't. You said (and I quote) - "At the present time, nothing even comes close". If that were even remotely true, the experimental "tests" where an entire audience was fooled as to whether they were listening to the musicians on stage in front of them playing, or it was reproduced sound they were hearing, could not have happened. And that was 30 years ago or so. A lot of further progress in sound reproduction has taken place since then.


I think fundamentally, much recorded music does sound different than live music, as it has many luxuries (over-dubbing, effects, post-equalization, etc) live performances do not. At least many of the recordings I listen to certainly do. In many ways, this makes the recording a superior listen (both technically from a musician's take, and sonically).

Amen.


You are correct, Woodman, I do not have even 1/4 of the experience you do, and just because I haven't heard anything close to "perfection" (whatever that is), does not mean that it isn't out there. That being said, I'm happy enough with what I have now that other than my amateur speaker building and future SS amp projects, which are as much exercises in relaxation as the pursuit of audio perfection, I'm not in any mad search to find audio Mecca.

Here's where your wheels slip off the track again, Ken. When you state that you haven't heard "anything CLOSE to perfection (whatever that is)" you are once again contradicting yourself. Earlier in this post you said that you listen about equally to live music and reproduced music at home, and that you prefer "live" over what you hear at home. Fine. No problemo. No argument. No debate. However, IF the music that you hear at home didn't even come close to sounding like "real" music, you couldn't stand to listen to it, IMO. It would have to be "live music" or none at all. Instead, you state that you're "... happy enough with what I (you) have now (in audio gear)". I suggest that you drop the " ... nothing even comes close" comment altogether. First, it's patently untrue, and second - it exposes your personal ABEs for all the world to see.


Just curious Woodman..If you could build one dream system, what would it be?

I just have to pass on that one. The whole concept of "one dream system" is alien to my thinking. I could be (and would be) thrilled right out of my socks with any one of about 15,873 different systems that I could assemble of components from dozens and dozens of different manufacturers.

[kexodusc]

Now you're changing your tune Ken.

Yeah, I guess I am flip-flopping a bit. I wouldn't be the first person to backtrack a bit - nothing wrong with that. Now I remain optimistic, but still as yet unconvinced that a stereo system can fool me into believing I'm hearing a real, live orchestra (though I'll admit, amplified music is probably easy enought do). The "nothing even comes close" tag has been dropped. Please replace it with "show me the money".



Here's where your wheels slip off the track again, Ken. When you state that you haven't heard "anything CLOSE to perfection (whatever that is)" you are once again contradicting yourself. Earlier in this post you said that you listen about equally to live music and reproduced music at home, and that you prefer "live" over what you hear at home. Fine. No problemo. No argument. No debate. However, IF the music that you hear at home didn't even come close to sounding like "real" music, you couldn't stand to listen to it, IMO. It would have to be "live music" or none at all. Instead, you state that you're "... happy enough with what I (you) have now (in audio gear)". I suggest that you drop the " ... nothing even comes close" comment altogether. First, it's patently untrue, and second - it exposes your personal ABEs for all the world to see.

Sorry, Woodman, but that's an absolutely incorrect statement on your part...
"IF the music that you hear at home didn't even come close to sounding like "real" music, you couldn't stand to listen to it, IMO"...I'm not sure on what grounds you base this statement on OTHER THAN your biased opinion.
Given the option between not being able to listen to any music at all vs, a cheap, mono clock radio, I would prefer a mono clock-radio. Given another choice, I'd prefer my stereo system...given yet another choice, I'd prefer the live event. I enjoy all three to varying levels...I can have my cake and eat it too! This doesn't necessarily mean that I perceive these as being equivalent, or even "close".

Surely you aren't emplying a mono clock radio sounds "close" to a live musical performance? Unless you're going to pull out some loose definition of "close" on me. :)

I don't understand why you would suggest I wouldn't listen to home music at all if that's all I had to listen to?

I do enjoy both, just one more than the other. I prefer a larger TV to the one I own, but I couldn't afford anything bigger...doesn't mean I'm not happy with my purchase. I don't own my own concert hall though and couldn't afford to book acts on a whim at my leisure, so there's a need to own my stereo. And I, like you, prefer to listen in solitude at times as well, justifying my use of my stereo.

Hope this clears things up...Thanks again Woodman.

[musicoverall]

[QUOTE=theaudiohobby How much more life-like can tube amplifiers be if the audience was unable to distinguish a recording from an actual performance ;) , and the power amps for the playback in this case were solid state :eek: .[/QUOTE]

I wasn't there so I can't answer. There are too many unknowns. I also have no idea how a different set of cables can sound different from another. I can only comment on my own experiences rather than relay a set of absolute truths.

I find it interesting that this thread is about the "truth" in audio and there are so many different "truths" posted, nearly one different "truth" per post. That must be what makes this hobby so much fun - each of us pursuing our own sonic and musical truths.

[risabet]

treat electrons better :eek: grrrr.... :( maybe we should return to the days of the alchemists, the alchemists probably had more plausible explanations :D .

What I meant was that IMO, tube electronics treat the music with less alteration than does SS. :rolleyes:

[E-Stat]

The whole concept of "one dream system" is alien to my thinking.
I agree. What is not alien to my thinking is simply reporting the one that I have found to be the most pleasing. If there are multiple equals, pick any one. Can you answer that question?

rw

[theaudiohobby]

What I meant was that IMO, tube electronics treat the music with less alteration than does SS. :rolleyes:

good for you risabet, that why the market has a large variety of products, SS, Tubes and hybrids, pick the one which suits your tastes and you are up and away, various products satisfying a variety of opinions. :p :p :p, is everybody's opinion correct? now that is another matter entirely :) :) :)

[Monstrous Mike]

I find it interesting that this thread is about the "truth" in audio and there are so many different "truths" posted, nearly one different "truth" per post. That must be what makes this hobby so much fun - each of us pursuing our own sonic and musical truths.
The most interesting thing in this post and others is that we haven't even gone past step number one, "The Big Truth". And that one is: "Does cable A perform audibly differently than cable B?"

Once that truth is known, then we can argue to our hearts content which one sounds better, whether the price difference is worth it, which systems enhance or diminish the difference, etc.

Until then, audio cables fall into the same category as all the other products that have no scientific proof nor professional backing and rely only on "testamonials" for market penetration. And that's a truth whether we like it or not.

If you ask me, a lot of people are in so deep whether it is money invested or statements claimed in public that they cannot turn back. Very few audiophiles have gone from believing in cable sonics to dismissing that belief and it is my opinion that the reason for that has more to due with human nature than any "truth".

[musicoverall]

The most interesting thing in this post and others is that we haven't even gone past step number one, "The Big Truth". And that one is: "Does cable A perform audibly differently than cable B?"

Once that truth is known, then we can argue to our hearts content which one sounds better, whether the price difference is worth it, which systems enhance or diminish the difference, etc.

Until then, audio cables fall into the same category as all the other products that have no scientific proof nor professional backing and rely only on "testamonials" for market penetration. And that's a truth whether we like it or not.

If you ask me, a lot of people are in so deep whether it is money invested or statements claimed in public that they cannot turn back. Very few audiophiles have gone from believing in cable sonics to dismissing that belief and it is my opinion that the reason for that has more to due with human nature than any "truth".

As I mentioned to another poster with a smiliar point of view, you and I disagree on the subject of cable sonics. I have no problem with that. Why does it seem to bother you so?
Why do you argue a subject that by your own admission is inconsequential to the point of invisibility? Just curious.

[theaudiohobby]

I find it interesting that this thread is about the "truth" in audio and there are so many different "truths" posted, nearly one different "truth" per post.

Not many "truths", but a lot of opinions though :p :) :) :) :) :) :p

[musicoverall]

Not many "truths", but a lot of opinions though :p :) :) :) :) :) :p

My opinion IS the truth! LOL!

You're right, of course. I shall herewith take my opinions on cables where they belong - to the Cable board. I have no lab results to share. :)

[E-Stat]

The most interesting thing in this post and others is that we haven't even gone past step number one, "The Big Truth".
Indeed. The author of the article referenced merely presents his preferences for system weighting for which there is no single truth.

rw

[magictooth]

As I mentioned to another poster with a smiliar point of view, you and I disagree on the subject of cable sonics. I have no problem with that. Why does it seem to bother you so?
Why do you argue a subject that by your own admission is inconsequential to the point of invisibility? Just curious.
The reason why people argue about points like these is that some people hate the promotion and promulgation of false information. Take, for example, the promotion of some beliefs by a certain population: the belief is that by legalizing same sex marriage that society is encouraging and enticing the youth of today into a homosexual lifestyle. Repeated enough times in print and by talking heads, you'd almost think that belief to be true. I realize that a short audio post isn't enough to even remotely convey all that there is about this subject, but I think that you get the idea.

Cable yeasayers have been saying for the longest time that they can hear differences in quality of cables but have yet to demonstrate this ability with a blind test. I will hold one truth to be paramount in the world of audio. When comparing two separate pieces of gear whether they be cables, amps, or whatnot, without a blind test the results are merely useless and trite anecdotes. I know FOR FACT that the human mind can be tricked easily by the mere mention or sight of label. There is no mystique about the audio industry that can mitigate this TRUTH. I've posted several times before to E-Stat how without blind testing, unbiased determinations of whether one piece of gear is better than another ARE IMPOSSIBLE.

There is an easy suggestion once made by markw to test cables or wire or power cords. He had a friend come over every day. This friend would either change the cables or would leave them alone. markw then tried to be able to discern whether any difference could be heard. He couldn't. I tried a similar blind test with my wife where she switched inputs for me. I listened and couldn't tell any difference. Before the test I would have sworn to you that I could hear significant difference between the cables, but afterwards I was extremely surprised at the results.

Why don't you try the above suggestion and come back and let us know what the results are?

[theaudiohobby]

I've posted several times before to E-Stat how without blind testing, unbiased determinations of whether one piece of gear is better than another ARE IMPOSSIBLE.

whao...from one extreme to another.. :) :) , where shall the twain meet ;) ?

[musicoverall]

The reason why people argue about points like these is that some people hate the promotion and promulgation of false information. Take, for example, the promotion of some beliefs by a certain population: the belief is that by legalizing same sex marriage that society is encouraging and enticing the youth of today into a homosexual lifestyle. Repeated enough times in print and by talking heads, you'd almost think that belief to be true. I realize that a short audio post isn't enough to even remotely convey all that there is about this subject, but I think that you get the idea.

Cable yeasayers have been saying for the longest time that they can hear differences in quality of cables but have yet to demonstrate this ability with a blind test. I will hold one truth to be paramount in the world of audio. When comparing two separate pieces of gear whether they be cables, amps, or whatnot, without a blind test the results are merely useless and trite anecdotes. I know FOR FACT that the human mind can be tricked easily by the mere mention or sight of label. There is no mystique about the audio industry that can mitigate this TRUTH. I've posted several times before to E-Stat how without blind testing, unbiased determinations of whether one piece of gear is better than another ARE IMPOSSIBLE.

There is an easy suggestion once made by markw to test cables or wire or power cords. He had a friend come over every day. This friend would either change the cables or would leave them alone. markw then tried to be able to discern whether any difference could be heard. He couldn't. I tried a similar blind test with my wife where she switched inputs for me. I listened and couldn't tell any difference. Before the test I would have sworn to you that I could hear significant difference between the cables, but afterwards I was extremely surprised at the results.

Why don't you try the above suggestion and come back and let us know what the results are?

Sorry, but I don't know the trick of putting quotes in those cool brackets in order to make each of my points coincide with each of yours. So I apologize if my reply is tougher to follow than I'd like.

The promotion and promulgation of false information is indeed disconcerting. How do you know the varying sounds of cables is false information? Because you and a few others tried it once and failed? Sorry, there are too many variables in your tests that aren't necessarily replicated with every other person in the world.

The human mind most likely can be tricked. So you're suggesting that it's tricked each and every time on every single individual??? That is too outrageous. What you're asking me to believe is that no one can ever trust their own senses.

I do not and cannot suggest that cable sonics are true for every individual. I can only report what I hear, personally. If others do not hear the same thing, I have no problem with that. I'm not sure why the opposite should be a problem for you.

As for blind testing, let me just ask you a few questions. Do you perform blind tests on peanut butters? Colas? Fabric softeners? Dog barks? Flower smells? Anything regarding your sensory perceptions? Why or why not? When do you trust your senses and when do you not? That's not to say that I won't try your experiment. But I'm curious as to what you will say if I pass with flying colors! You will likely blame something about the test, will you not? And yet, you'd like me to trust it completely! ;)

[theaudiohobby]

folks,

I re-installed my manufacturer upgraded speakers back into my system this afternoon, fullrange floorstanders, I feel it is necessary to reiterate what woodman said earlier, we are within a few whiskers of perfection :D :D . The SS vs Tubes debate, digital vs. analog are red herrings ;) :) ;) , the technology to recreate accurate sound (wrt to live) is alive and well :D :D :D and available to buy to those interested.

[woodman]

[/i]The promotion and promulgation of false information is indeed disconcerting. How do you know the varying sounds of cables is false information?

Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.


The human mind most likely can be tricked. So you're suggesting that it's tricked each and every time on every single individual??? That is too outrageous. What you're asking me to believe is that no one can ever trust their own senses.

Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.


I do not and cannot suggest that cable sonics are true for every individual. I can only report what I hear, personally.

Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?


As for blind testing, let me just ask you a few questions. Do you perform blind tests on peanut butters?

No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!

[musicoverall]

Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.



Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.



Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?



No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!

As usual, your post makes a lot of sense - a LOT of sense. However, if I might...

I pulled out one of my CD's without looking at it, one of the new CD's I just bought. I'm quite certain it's David Shea, a "new music" (classical, I guess) composer. My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea. In fact, I'm so comfortable with that fact that I don't even need to look at the jewel case. But I will anyway... lo and behold, it IS David Shea!!!!! My senses score again! No blind tests needed.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that cables will enrich your life and fill you with joy. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything!!!! All I can say is that different cables sound different to me... not all of them, but some of them. To my ears - mine alone. If that makes it an illusion... well... it's an "illusion" that makes me just as happy as Skippy peanut butter, Diet Pepsi and the smell of leaves in the fall, all perhaps illusions as well.

So now that leaves me with just one question... how good of a shot are you with that shotgun??? :D

[magictooth]

whao...from one extreme to another.. :) :) , where shall the twain meet ;) ?
I know what you're getting at, but I will stand by my position that sighted = bias = not accurate. From my personal experiences dealing with patients every working day, I will hold this to be a 100% incontrovertible truth. The twain shall meet if ever there is somebody who can demonstrate in a blind test the ability to determine which cable is playing with any sort of statistical significance. Like I said in a different post, I was a believer in cables and other whatnots until I did my own surprising blind test. It's amazing how your own mind can play such tricks on you.

[magictooth]

As usual, your post makes a lot of sense - a LOT of sense. However, if I might...

I pulled out one of my CD's without looking at it, one of the new CD's I just bought. I'm quite certain it's David Shea, a "new music" (classical, I guess) composer. My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea. In fact, I'm so comfortable with that fact that I don't even need to look at the jewel case. But I will anyway... lo and behold, it IS David Shea!!!!! My senses score again! No blind tests needed.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that cables will enrich your life and fill you with joy. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything!!!! All I can say is that different cables sound different to me... not all of them, but some of them. To my ears - mine alone. If that makes it an illusion... well... it's an "illusion" that makes me just as happy as Skippy peanut butter, Diet Pepsi and the smell of leaves in the fall, all perhaps illusions as well.

So now that leaves me with just one question... how good of a shot are you with that shotgun??? :D
Your example is not even remotely representative of what cable yeasayers have to say. Your example is somewhat akin to saying yeah, the trumpet sure sounded different than the violin that time. I don't think that you're getting the point that the naysayers are trying to make. It is NOT the cables that are making the difference, but only YOUR OWN sighted bias that is making you think there is a difference.

If you are happy with your illusions, then you should present in your posts caveats to the reader. The way most yeasayers post presents their findings as fact instead of as anecdotal evidence. There is a huge difference between the two. If you were to put in huge bold letters such as <h4><b>The following is a conceited, trite, and all but useless anecdote from my own personal experiences</h4></b> or <h4><b>I'm too lazy to take a couple minutes out of my life to do proper blind testing because I'm so perfect that I don't need to follow minimal scientific method, but here I present to you as FACT my findings....</h4></b>, then I will for sure be happy leaving you with your illusions. If you don't do that, then you will find naysayer who get angered at the spread of misinformation and lies. As woodman so eloquently put it, if somebody were trying to pawn off to me peanut butter that cost $200 a jar instead of $2.99, then for damn sure I'd want to do some blind testing to determine whether there's a difference.

[magictooth]

The human mind most likely can be tricked. So you're suggesting that it's tricked each and every time on every single individual??? That is too outrageous.

But I'm curious as to what you will say if I pass with flying colors! You will likely blame something about the test, will you not? And yet, you'd like me to trust it completely! ;)
The human mind can be tricked almost every time. Whenever you add bias via sight, there is reason enough right there. There is not a single scientific journal that would accept sighted testing as a valid methodology.

Should you pass, then you will be amongst the first (if not the first human ever) to pass a blind cable test. People no doubt will ask about your methodology should you pass, and I would personally be interested in finding out your methodology. I think in fact that there is an outstanding award in the $20K range if you can repeat your success for somebody. Maybe there's another member who could point you in that direction.

[musicoverall]

Your example is not even remotely representative of what cable yeasayers have to say. Your example is somewhat akin to saying yeah, the trumpet sure sounded different than the violin that time. I don't think that you're getting the point that the naysayers are trying to make. It is NOT the cables that are making the difference, but only YOUR OWN sighted bias that is making you think there is a difference.

If you are happy with your illusions, then you should present in your posts caveats to the reader. The way most yeasayers post presents their findings as fact instead of as anecdotal evidence. There is a huge difference between the two. If you were to put in huge bold letters such as <h4><b>The following is a conceited, trite, and all but useless anecdote from my own personal experiences</h4></b> or <h4><b>I'm too lazy to take a couple minutes out of my life to do proper blind testing because I'm so perfect that I don't need to follow minimal scientific method, but here I present to you as FACT my findings....</h4></b>, then I will for sure be happy leaving you with your illusions. If you don't do that, then you will find naysayer who get angered at the spread of misinformation and lies. As woodman so eloquently put it, if somebody were trying to pawn off to me peanut butter that cost $200 a jar instead of $2.99, then for damn sure I'd want to do some blind testing to determine whether there's a difference.

Well, I'm sorry if I've angered the naysayers! So I will adopt something to add to my posts that I read from E-Stat - YMMV, which I'm told stands for Your Mileage May Vary, which further means that in my system, those particular cables made me believe I heard this and that but you may not. And since my experiences are indeed anecdotal, I shall now remand them to the Cable forum, where they belong. Thanks to all for the interesting information; it's certainly something to ponder. Now I'm off to shovel snow! Or... am I??? I hate shoveling snow so I do hope it isn't another of my blasted illusions! :D

[theaudiohobby]

I know what you're getting at, but I will stand by my position that sighted = bias = not accurate. From my personal experiences dealing with patients every working day, I will hold this to be a 100% incontrovertible truth. The twain shall meet if ever there is somebody who can demonstrate in a blind test the ability to determine which cable is playing with any sort of statistical significance.

For cables yes, but when you start discussing loudspeakers, sources and amplifiers, a blind test is not necessary. Though I agree that blind-testing largely eliminates.the imaginary "subtle" differences that many audiophiles proclaim.

[kexodusc]

For cables yes, but when you start discussing loudspeakers, sources and amplifiers, a blind test is not necessary. Though I agree that blind-testing largely eliminates.the imaginary "subtle" differences that many audiophiles proclaim.

I'd even go a step further...on the issues of amplifiers and CD players, there have been hundreds of test proving that decent built home theater receivers and cd players, operating within their design capacities, are audibly indistinguishable from high-end, multi-thousand dollar amplifiers/cd players in blind tests. Audiophiles don't like this, yet despite offered rewards in excess of $10,000 to the first person to be able to discern between a $200 amp and a $10000 amp in DBT conditions, no one has been successful to date. The audiophile world is looking for a hero here to end this debate, maybe you should try out?

As much as I don't like it, this means something.

I find that hard to believe myself, owning more than a few high-end amps, but I still can't deny the possiblility I imagine what I hear! But if I'm happy, then the price I pay is worth it.

It would seem loudspeakers are the only equipment that can be proven to substantially impact sound. Though, this might just mean more work is required in developing test methods...

Until then, I remain on the fence...coward that I am... :)

[musicoverall]

It would seem loudspeakers are the only equipment that can be proven to substantially impact sound. Though, this might just mean more work is required in developing test methods...

And since I just read from a couple of sources that loudspeakers are indistinguishable (or nearly so) from live music - on this very thread. I can't wait to find out which speakers they are! Soon we will all have the same systems! :D

Seriously, if loudspeakers have broad sonic differences (and they should! - planars vs box vs horns) and blind testing can pick these up but "no one" has been able to tell the difference between any other component in a blind test, might it be true that blind tests are only useful in discerning gross differences and not subtle ones?

[markw]

Seriously, if loudspeakers have broad sonic differences (and they should! - planars vs box vs horns) and blind testing can pick these up but "no one" has been able to tell the difference between any other component in a blind test, might it be true that blind tests are only useful in discerning gross differences and not subtle ones?The blind tests DO work and maybe, just maybe, these greatly touted sonic differences are not as great as some would imagine. Heck, if ya gotta see it to identify it then these arguments kinda lose all validity. So much for using your ears, eh?


I know that this sticks in some peoples craw but, there it is.

[kexodusc]

Seriously, if loudspeakers have broad sonic differences (and they should! - planars vs box vs horns) and blind testing can pick these up but "no one" has been able to tell the difference between any other component in a blind test, might it be true that blind tests are only useful in discerning gross differences and not subtle ones?

Could be...I find that hard to believe though. You'd have to explain why seeing which amp you're using helps you hear better. If a difference exists, you should be able to hear regardless of whether you can see the equipment or not. And you should be able to hear it consistently and demonstrate this.

I think that's missing the point though. Even if you can hear the difference, barely, 6 out of 10 times on a piece of gear that costs 20%, 100% or 10 times as much as another, is it really worth it? Probably to some...But if so, I don't think they can use the words "better" or "more musical" or whatever to describe their equipment relative others, instead they should have to say "barely better at 10 times the cost" ;)

[markw]

Now I'm off to shovel snow! Or... am I???...but from what I've been reading, it ain't snow. ;)

[musicoverall]

I think that's missing the point though. Even if you can hear the difference, barely, 6 out of 10 times on a piece of gear that costs 20%, 100% or 10 times as much as another, is it really worth it? Probably to some...But if so, I don't think they can use the words "better" or "more musical" or whatever to describe their equipment relative others, instead they should have to say "barely better at 10 times the cost" ;)

But to some people, a 2% improvement in sound is worth a huge premium. There's nothing wrong with that, as I see it.

[musicoverall]

...but from what I've been reading, it ain't snow. ;)

Could very well be. When someone places something that needs shoveling on my doorstep, I usually shovel it to make it go away! ;)

[musicoverall]

[QUOTE=markw]The blind tests DO work and maybe, just maybe, these greatly touted sonic differences are not as great as some would imagine. Heck, if ya gotta see it to identify it then these arguments kinda lose all validity. So much for using your ears, eh?
/QUOTE]

Perhaps. But introducing an ABX box introduces more electronics (possibly degrading!) to the signal and quickie back and forth snippets never worked for me, anyway. Isn't that how those tests have been used?

Hey, I'm certainly no expert in this stuff and it isn't as though I'm unwilling to learn new things or too set in my ways. But I remain unconvinced that blind tests are necessary, just as I remain unconvinced that cables are strictly slaves of their LCR parameters. Call me crazy. Ok, I know you will! :D

[markw]

But introducing an ABX box introduces more electronics (possibly degrading!) to the signal and quickie back and forth snippets never worked for me, anyway. Isn't that how those tests have been used?All it takes is a good friend you trust and the willingness to try be honest with yourself. Years ago I got hold of some hi zoot speaker cables and swore up and down to my friend (who lived in the same apartment complex) about it. He doubted it. I was aghast that he could not hear what I so obviously heard!

So, since we worked different shifts, he would come into my apartment when I was not home and (randomly) hook up either my new favorites or my old junky cables. Every day, I was to write down what cables I was listening to. My home, my system, my music, no time constraint or pressure. Just use my ears and let them decide. Of course, I could have peeked but that would not have been Kosher, would it? ;)

After two weeks, I was right about 50% correct or, IOW, I had no idea what I was hearing.

Deflated my audiophile ego, it did...

[kexodusc]

But to some people, a 2% improvement in sound is worth a huge premium. There's nothing wrong with that, as I see it.
Nope, not at all...Lord knows I've spent a bit of money on amps and the likes over the years, and in all likelihood will continue to do so. I think to be an audio enthusiast/audiophile, you pretty much have to accept diminishing returns.

But I'm careful not to make boastful claims of vast superiority of the equipment I chose over others, particularly when it can be very small, and negligible to most (though I slip up often enough). Let's flip that 2% improvement around, that could mean 98% of the time you can't tell it's better...

I'm not adverse to high quality (and expensive) electronics, but rather I'm of the opinion that for most people, you'll get more improvement by upgrading your speakers (or waiting until you have saved more money and can afford to ) than upgrading amplification (unless more power is needed). If you can't wait by all means improve your components.

[musicoverall]

All it takes is a good friend you trust and the willingness to try be honest with yourself. Years ago I got hold of some hi zoot speaker cables and swore up and down to my friend (who lived in the same apartment complex) about it. He doubted it. I was aghast that he could not hear what I so obviously heard!

So, since we worked different shifts, he would come into my apartment when I was not home and (randomly) hook up either my new favorites or my old junky cables. Every day, I was to write down what cables I was listening to. My home, my system, my music, no time constraint or pressure. Just use my ears and let them decide. Of course, I could have peeked but that would not have been Kosher, would it? ;)

After two weeks, I was right about 50% correct or, IOW, I had no idea what I was hearing.

Deflated my audiophile ego, it did...

Interesting. What percentage of correct answers would constitute a positive outcome?

Thank goodness you trusted this friend! Right now I'd be afraid that I'd come home and find CD's missing and a pregnant dog! :)

[risabet]

Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.



Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.



Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?



No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!

Point 1. No one! Unless you have read all of the related literature on this topic you don't know that no one has been able to demonstrate the premise. The subtlety of cable differences may be trivial to you but many of us find just those subtleties to be at the heart of music reproduction.

Point 2. True enough, as far as this goes, we have all seen example of optical illusions, but how many of us have had taste illusions etc.

Point 3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only a handful of people have a deep understanding of Einstein's Relativity equations but they describe the world pretty well. Because only a small minority understand them would you indict the equations?

The problem with absolute statements is that our experience is limited in both time and space, thus we can not justify making comments that are opinions sound like facts. Ours is a subjective hobby.

[markw]

Interesting. What percentage of correct answers would constitute a positive outcome?

Thank goodness you trusted this friend! Right now I'd be afraid that I'd come home and find CD's missing and a pregnant dog! :)We agreed that a hit rate of 80% would satisfy that an audiable difference existed. I didn't worry about a pregnant dog because we fed each other's cats and took in the mail when we were away and my female was fixed. CD's (at least in the audio sense) didn't exist in those days and we regularly shared records anyway.

Hmmmm. ...now that you mention it, Goldenberry always did like him...

[musicoverall]

Let's flip that 2% improvement around, that could mean 98% of the time you can't tell it's better....

Not at all. It means that it's always 2% better sounding. Small improvement but one that's always in evidence. I pulled the number off the wall but it was only for the sake of making a point.

Otherwise, I totally agree with your post.

[musicoverall]

We agreed that a hit rate of 80% would satisfy that an audiable difference existed. I didn't worry about a pregnant dog because we fed each other's cats and took in the mail when we were away and my female was fixed. CD's (at least in the audio sense) didn't exist in those days and we regularly shared records anyway.

Hmmmm. ...now that you mention it, Goldenberry always did like him...

Fixing them doesn't mean they ain't interested no more! My parents female dog humps just about anything, including the air - in a kind of grotesque burlesque. The vet says it's an involuntary action. It's definitely a room clearing escapade in the best Three Stooges routine... "Whooooooooaaaaaaaa!!!!!"

80%, eh? And I doubt 5 trials would satisfy anyone so it looks like 10, minimum. Well, no time like the present....

[kexodusc]

Not at all. It means that it's always 2% better sounding. Small improvement but one that's always in evidence. I pulled the number off the wall but it was only for the sake of making a point.

Otherwise, I totally agree with your post.

This I find impossible to believe...sometimes 2% (or whatever number) better sounding. Simple passages aren't necessarily all that demanding. Some times even low-end gear can reproduce these to perfection, or at least AS GOOD as a better piece of gear.
And I think we can both admit, sometimes a better amp is better at most attributes yet worse at others.
It would be more accurate to say, we sometimes think we hear it being 2% better at some things, though we are unable to consistently demonstrate that we hear it is better .


Yikes, I'm sounding like naysayer...gonna have to sell my Rotel and by a Sony receiver...

[musicoverall]

This I find impossible to believe...sometimes 2% (or whatever number) better sounding. Simple passages aren't necessarily all that demanding. Some times even low-end gear can reproduce these to perfection, or at least AS GOOD as a better piece of gear.
And I think we can both admit, sometimes a better amp is better at most attributes yet worse at others.
It would be more accurate to say, we sometimes think we hear it being 2% better at some things, though we are unable to consistently demonstrate that we hear it is better .


Yikes, I'm sounding like naysayer...gonna have to sell my Rotel and by a Sony receiver...

Ah, I see what you're saying! Yes, you're correct. If it's a 2% bump in a certain area or two, those areas might not be in evidence all the time. Agreed.

I owned a Rotel years ago and really liked it. I compared it to its contemporary NAD and a few others and I thought it came out on top - so I bought it. It looked like a reject from a metal fab shop, though! :) But great detail! It killed the competition. I also owned a Sony receiver... we won't go there! :)

[kexodusc]

Actually, I'm one of the lucky ones as far as Sony receivers go...I bought a cheapy Pro-Logic jobby for my parents that I borrowed in college for a few years. The darn thing powered some old Cerwin Vega's I had at rediculous volumes and though you could cook eggs on it, it wouldn't die.

I've owned a few NAD's in my days, the 3020 and 3140 I still have, just can't part with'em, but my Rotel is on a whole other level in my opinion (of course I can't prove that and I'd probably fail a DBT)...it certainly looks a lot prettier :)
I don't hear anything "bright" in the Rotel at all...Especially beside the Adcoms.
Not as nice as the Parasound I wanted, but no complaints.

[woodman]

Point 1. No one! Unless you have read all of the related literature on this topic you don't know that no one has been able to demonstrate the premise. The subtlety of cable differences may be trivial to you but many of us find just those subtleties to be at the heart of music reproduction.

Everybody knows this to be a fact (except of course those that are plagued with a severe case of terminal denial). If someone were ever successful at "the test", you better believe that the whole world would be summarily informed of the fact ... at least everyone that has ever expressed more than a passing interest in audio, that is.


Point 2. True enough, as far as this goes, we have all seen example of optical illusions, but how many of us have had taste illusions etc.

All of us! We experience sensory perceptions - with any of our 5 senses that are not quite "real" every day of the week! Whatever gave you the idea that our eyes were the only sensory organs that are subject to trickery and deception? Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you - it has no bearing on the truth of it. For instance, I myself have many taste illusions which result in my not eating certain foods ... ever! This phenomenon is not the result of my taste buds being different from everyone elses ... it results from Attitudes and Beliefs about those specific foods that I hold. I don't know where these As and Bs came from, but I know that they are responsible for the distaste that I would experience should any of of those foods find their way into my mouth. If these foods were actually that foul tasting, no one else would be able to eat them either.


Point 3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only a handful of people have a deep understanding of Einstein's Relativity equations but they describe the world pretty well. Because only a small minority understand them would you indict the equations?

You're mixing up apples and elephants here ... we're discussing sensory perceptions - not esoteric science theorems. You try to work ol' Albert Einstein into the equation with the point that few people really understand his "theory" and try to make an analogy between that and the fact that very few people are able to hear the sonic properties of different cables. That simply doesn't fly ... hell, it doesn't even get off the ground. Also, you conveniently failed to comment regarding my final sentence which made the significant point that those that claim to "hear" all sorts of things when "sighted", suddenly lose their magical hearing abilities once the blinders are put in place. Why not? I contend that there simply is no answer to that one other than the oh so obvious one ... that those who "trust their ears" implicitly cannot trust them unless the ears "know" what they're listening to!

[theaudiohobby]

that those who "trust their ears" implicitly cannot trust them unless the ears "know" what they're listening to!

That's a good 'un. :D

[musicoverall]

not[/u] the result of my taste buds being different from everyone elses ... it results from Attitudes and Beliefs about those specific foods that I hold. I don't know where these As and Bs came from, but I know that they are responsible for the distaste that I would experience should any of of those foods find their way into my mouth. If these foods were actually that foul tasting, no one else would be able to eat them either.[/b]]

Hmmm... I wonder about this. I hated liver as a kid and my mother of course made me eat it. So far, your theory holds. But I ate some recently without knowing what it was... it had bacon wrapped around it and I thought it was sausage. Bleah!

Is it attitudes and beliefs or simply a different chemical balance that makes food taste good or bad to us? Whatever... the liver is all yours! :)

[Monstrous Mike]

Is it attitudes and beliefs or simply a different chemical balance that makes food taste good or bad to us? Whatever... the liver is all yours! :)
I would have to say that attitudes, beliefs, prior knowledge, etc. have a profound effect on our ability to enjoy food. A great chef can take a simple dish yet present it in a way that will have you expecting a very tasty meal. You can eat the exact same thing without the presentation and it will not taste as good. I believe your tastes also change with things like the mood you are in, the environment or atmosphere, etc. For example, when I go whitewater canoing, a simple steak and potato cooked over the fire is like heaven.

And think of all the foods that disgust you just by their name: bull testicles, chocolate covered roaches, liver, etc.

There are obviously some chemicals or tastes that will taste bad regardless of how they are dressed up, but I think true taste testing would need to be blind so that only the sense of taste is working and not preconceived notions.

[risabet]

All of us! We experience sensory perceptions - with any of our 5 senses that are not quite "real" every day of the week! Whatever gave you the idea that our eyes were the only sensory organs that are subject to trickery and deception? Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you - it has no bearing on the truth of it. For instance, I myself have many taste illusions which result in my not eating certain foods ... ever! This phenomenon is not the result of my taste buds being different from everyone elses ... it results from Attitudes and Beliefs about those specific foods that I hold. I don't know where these As and Bs came from, but I know that they are responsible for the distaste that I would experience should any of of those foods find their way into my mouth. If these foods were actually that foul tasting, no one else would be able to eat them either.



Your tastebuds reflect the combination of genes that you inherited from your parents. Our attitudes and beliefs have no influence on whether or not we can taste PTC, phenylthiocarbamide, which taste bitter to some and has no taste to others (a simple recessive/dominant trait), or whether or not sodium benzoate taste sweet, salty, bitter, or tasteless. Peoples choices and preferences for foods, whether they like or dislike them, are determined by a combination of factors, primarily genetic combinations that you can't control and cultural factors that can be learned or unlearned. Biology 101

[woodman]

I would have to say that attitudes, beliefs, prior knowledge, etc. have a profound effect on our ability to enjoy food.

That's precisely what I've been trying to get across to those diehards who insist that "I hear what I hear" and that knowing what they're listening to has nothing to do with it.


... but I think true taste testing would need to be blind so that only the sense of taste is working and not preconceived notions.

Precisely, Mike. Preconceived notions (even those that are buried deep in the subconscious) will have an effect on every sensory perception that we experience from our eyes, our ears, our nose, our taste-buds, and our fingers. No one - no matter how vehemently they might try to deny it - is immune from this "fact of life".

Thanks for your backup, Mike.

[kexodusc]

Your tastebuds reflect the combination of genes that you inherited from your parents. Our attitudes and beliefs have no influence on whether or not we can taste PTC, phenylthiocarbamide, which taste bitter to some and has no taste to others (a simple recessive/dominant trait), or whether or not sodium benzoate taste sweet, salty, bitter, or tasteless. Peoples choices and preferences for foods, whether they like or dislike them, are determined by a combination of factors, primarily genetic combinations that you can't control and cultural factors that can be learned or unlearned. Biology 101
Woodman's points stand, there is more than enough evidence about the validity of blind taste tests.
One has to look no further than the cola wars...Coca-Cola's own research on thousands of people determined that 7/10 people prefer Pepsi over Coke when taste is alone is the input. That was the fundamental driving force behind New Coke (still available in some States/Countries), which research suggested tastes even better, still.

Yet sighted tastes tests produce vastly different results.

I think this was more along the lines of what Woodman was getting at, other senses "interfere" with your perception of taste, and therefore can interfere with "the truth".

[Monstrous Mike]

My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea.
No, it is your brain telling you that it is Mr. Shea. Your hearing is only an objective instrument that takes information from the outside world and passes it to your brain for processing.

And the brain is such a complex machine that it can actually discard objective information from the ear or even add information that is not there during its processing. And you would have to be a robot to be able to control this. This is the exact reason that the medical community tests its new drugs and procedures by concealing from the participants what exactly it is that they are taking.

[Monstrous Mike]

Why do you argue a subject that by your own admission is inconsequential to the point of invisibility? Just curious.
Two reasons. Arguing in a civilized manner is stimulating. And even though audio cables is a benign subject, I have come across lots of interesting information during these discussions.

Secondly, I believe that issue of cable sonics can be applied to a much broader spectrum of life. The thought process we use to evaluate and choose and determine preference, etc. in audio is applicable to much more than audio.

As I have mentioned in the past, people still believe in things like toiled water going down a certain way in the Northern Hemisphere or that raindrops are tear-shaped or that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object seen from space.

Other topics along these lines are people that believe that man did not go to the moon. I really get a kick out of the complete dismissal of the overwhelming evidence that they did not to mention that thinking a government could pull that off is really quite incredulous.

The bottom line: I think people can do a better job of thinking about things, being a little more skeptical, asking more questions, verifying stories and myths and in general being independent rather than sheep.

[Monstrous Mike]

... or whether or not taste sweet, salty, bitter, or tasteless.
You are right of course.

Now say I had two foods which were identical except one had sodium benzoate in it. I had both of them on a table marked A (sodium benzoate) and B (no sodium benzoate) and A had the sodium benzoate. I taste both of them and tell you that I can taste the sodium benzoate in A but not B. What value does my test have for you? What would your reaction be?

Well, it should be to make me redo the test, get a licensed tester, remove the markers, have the friend switch the plates around and do it several times. Then the tester can produce a score card. Now, if I picked A 19 times out of 20, you could say the test was positive. Now we could use other people of varying capabilities, we could change the amount of sodium benzoate in each dish, we could use different base foods, etc. Now that's SCIENCE 101.

I don't see any of that in audio so claims of cable sonics are right up there with claims I can tell Pepsi from Coke while holding a can of each in all their blue and red glory.

[E-Stat]

And since I just read from a couple of sources that loudspeakers are indistinguishable (or nearly so) from live music - on this very thread. I can't wait to find out which speakers they are! Soon we will all have the same systems! :D
AR-3s driven by Dyna MK III amps.

rw

[markw]

AR-3s driven by Dyna MK III amps. OK, 5 points ;)

[musicoverall]

AR-3s driven by Dyna MK III amps.

rw

I note that you own neither these speakers nor the amps. Nor do I. I guess "near perfect" live sound from our stereo systems isn't motivation enough. :D

[Feanor]

Common sense would indicate that the proper order of importance is

1. Source first, ...
2. Amplification...
3. Loudspeakers...


"The chain is no stronger than it's weakest link." The order of the links is largely irrelevant.

The weakest link in the reproduction chain is almost always the speaker.

[E-Stat]

I note that you own neither these speakers nor the amps. Nor do I. I guess "near perfect" live sound from our stereo systems isn't motivation enough. :D
Uh, right.

I'm in Portland this week with the wife watching the US Figure Skating championships. While the skating is first class, hearing the music on the Rose Center's PA is excruciatingly painful. Hearing massed violins screech is not my idea of the "live" experience. But according to Woodman, it must be that I just have a bad attitude. :)

rw

[musicoverall]

Uh, right.

I'm in Portland this week with the wife watching the US Figure Skating championships. While the skating is first class, hearing the music on the Rose Center's PA is excruciatingly painful. Hearing massed violins screech is not my idea of the "live" experience. But according to Woodman, it must be that I just have a bad attitude. :)

rw

You should try some blind testing! Sounds like nitpicking to me! :)

[E-Stat]

You should try some blind testing! Sounds like nitpicking to me! :)
Nit picking to suggest that a sports arena PA sounds different than a live symphony orchestra?

We have a very different point of reference for live music.

rw

[musicoverall]

Nit picking to suggest that a sports arena PA sounds different than a live symphony orchestra?

We have a very different point of reference for live music.

rw

Sorry - just trying to use my new-found knowledge of objectivity! Illusions, imagination running amok, that sort of thing. I guess you just put a crimp in that! LOL.

Funny - when I think of PA systems, I think of this old Crown preamp I had the distinct displeasure of hearing several years ago, model number cheerfully forgotten. It made a decent system sound like a PA. Thank goodness all preamps don't sound alike!

Did Mrs E-Stat take home the Gold?

[Feanor]

And here's the truth in audio:...

1. The speakers represent about 90% of the quality of sound ...
2. The source component (CD or LP) is the next most important...
3. The preamp (or preamp stage of an integrated amp) is next in importance....
4. The amplifier is the least important part of a system....
5. Fancy cables are the 'snake oil' of modern life

...
But not true as you move upscale. E.g., from my experience, the amplifier is important and certainly No. 2; it's more important than source for sure.

OTOH, I subscribe to the "weakest link in the change" perspective, and that is almost always the speaker.

[musicoverall]

But not true as you move upscale. E.g., from my experience, the amplifier is important and certainly No. 2; it's more important than source for sure.

OTOH, I subscribe to the "weakest link in the change" perspective, and that is almost always the speaker.

I think it depends on the system. I use tubed monoblock amps which together cost less than half my speakers cost... er... new retail, that is. OTOH, a good friend of mine uses horn speakers and they sound their best when driven by amplification twice as expensive as the speakers.

[risabet]

But not true as you move upscale. E.g., from my experience, the amplifier is important and certainly No. 2; it's more important than source for sure.

OTOH, I subscribe to the "weakest link in the change" perspective, and that is almost always the speaker.

I am still amazed that the many can consider the amp more important than the source, Can the amp replace information that the source fails to deliver? Can the speakers create that missing info? Obviously not! I agree with the the weakest link theory but I accept the hierarchy theory as proposed by Ivor Tiefenbrun (founder of Linn Prod. Ltd), that you can never replace information that is not retrieved from the source, all you can do is leave it the same or mess it up.

[musicoverall]

I am still amazed that the many can consider the amp more important than the source, Can the amp replace information that the source fails to deliver? Can the speakers create that missing info? Obviously not! I agree with the the weakest link theory but I accept the hierarchy theory as proposed by Ivor Tiefenbrun (founder of Linn Prod. Ltd), that you can never replace information that is not retrieved from the source, all you can do is leave it the same or mess it up.

The speakers have the biggest sonic signature - much more so than the source. It isn't that they're "more important" per se.

Let's take a look at your own system. I could score a Parasound for about $100 used but it would take much more than that to purchase your Martin Logans. Are you suggesting that if you bought a $5000 CD player and had $200 speakers that you're system would sound better? Surely not. What do you feel is lacking from your Parasound? If you feel that it's the "weak" point in your system, you could certainly spend more money and "improve" upon it, right? And remember, Ivor was talking about turntables, arms and cartridges - much more difficult to get right than CD players... if a CD player is ever "right", that is!

And I'm NOT knocking your system! In fact, I wanna come over and hear it! What's your beer preference? :)

[E-Stat]

Funny - when I think of PA systems, I think of this old Crown preamp I had the distinct displeasure of hearing several years ago, model number cheerfully forgotten.
That would be the ICK-150. I owned its decent sounding amp cousin, the D-150, about thirty years ago. The Crown dealer where I bought the amp mercifully talked me out of buying that preamp in favor of an H-K Citation 11. That was when I still believed in the value of total harmonic distortion specifications (where ironically it excelled) and the tooth fairy.


Did Mrs E-Stat take home the Gold?
She wishes ! Michelle Kwan won that honor in the short program a little while ago. But, she and I both competed recreationally years ago. That's how we met.

rw

[musicoverall]

That would be the ICK-150. I owned its decent sounding amp cousin, the D-150, about thirty years ago. The Crown dealer where I bought the amp mercifully talked me out of buying that preamp in favor of an H-K Citation 11. That was when I still believed in the value of total harmonic distortion specifications (where ironically it excelled) and the tooth fairy.


She wishes ! Michelle Kwan won that honor in the short program a little while ago. But, she and I both competed recreationally years ago. That's how we met.

rw

Yes, the IC-150! Ick... LOL! I remember the specs were perfect and the sound was perfectly awful. As for biases taking over, I had never heard of it and the guy that brought it over was (as a joke!) saying how awesome it was. I've only been involved in audio gear for about 15 years and Crown was not a name I recognized. To this day, I still have a picture he took of the look on my face as I was trying to figure out how to be polite! Picture yourself sucking a lemon and you'll have an idea. Suffice it to say that my system had never sounded so bad. That Crown was indeed the Magic Bullet, turning good sounding systems into PA's. A PA sound was how I described it to myself during audition.

Well, finishing behind Michelle Kwan is nothing to be ashamed of... people do it all the time! The point is your wife competed. Outstanding!

[woodman]

Hearing massed violins screech is not my idea of the "live" experience. But according to Woodman, it must be that I just have a bad attitude. :)
rw

Au contraire, mon frere ... I have never ever said that you had a "bad attitude". I have only stated that your "attitude(s)", coupled with your "beliefs" have a decisive effect on the sensory perceptions that you experience. And, that those ABEs of yours do not always serve your best interests in the final analysis.

[woodman]

I would have to say that attitudes, beliefs, prior knowledge, etc. have a profound effect on our ability to enjoy food.

There are obviously some chemicals or tastes that will taste bad regardless of how they are dressed up, but I think true taste testing would need to be blind so that only the sense of taste is working and not preconceived notions.

Although you and I are essentially "on the same page", I must disagree with the first part of this last paragraph. The contradiction to " ... some tastes will taste bad regardless" is refuted by what happens in a "stage hypnotist" performance when a hypnotized subject is handed a piece of chocolate and told that it's a piece of lemon - and probably the most bitter and tart lemon he's ever tasted. The subject will then put the chocolate in his mouth - his face will then contort into near terminal "puckering" - frowning and scowling - sometimes tears will even appear and roll down his cheeks! I've also seen it done the opposite way: the subject is handed a piece of lemon and told that it's the sweetest chocolate he's ever put into his mouth and guess what ... ? No puckering - no frowns - no tears - but a big smile from ear to ear. This phenomenon proved to me the validity of the fact that what goes on in our brains have everything to do with what our 5 senses "tell" us.

[E-Stat]

I've only been involved in audio gear for about 15 years and Crown was not a name I recognized.
Ironically for me it was the other way around. I knew well of the name and their high quality. I preferred their "no frills" appearance as opposed to the sexy blue Mac look. I was 17 and was replacing my AR integrated and wanted to move to good separates. Again, it was the Crown dealer who steered me away from the preamp. He also sold Audio Research and Magneplanar which had a profound effect on me later. Crown amps were a very different story. They were among the best sounding amps in that day ('74).


Well, finishing behind Michelle Kwan is nothing to be ashamed of... people do it all the time! The point is your wife competed.
That was many years ago and at a lower recreational level. I'll draw an analogy with audio. I still can land all the single jumps, do an axel on a good day, perform fast scratch spins, bauers, spread eagles, sit spins, and camels. My wife lands doubles and does flying camels as well. To the untrained viewer, what we do looks very impressive. On the other hand, these kids at Nationals perform on an altogether different level. The effort and skill required to land triples is significantly higher than for singles. My point is that the casual observer really doesn't appreciate the difference. I have been asked if I skated at the Olympics before. Similarly, there are lots of good audio components on the market. The number of truly superb ones, however, is much smaller and requires more listening experience to fully appreciate what they can do.

rw

[risabet]

The speakers have the biggest sonic signature - much more so than the source. It isn't that they're "more important" per se.

Let's take a look at your own system. I could score a Parasound for about $100 used but it would take much more than that to purchase your Martin Logans. Are you suggesting that if you bought a $5000 CD player and had $200 speakers that you're system would sound better? Surely not. What do you feel is lacking from your Parasound? If you feel that it's the "weak" point in your system, you could certainly spend more money and "improve" upon it, right? And remember, Ivor was talking about turntables, arms and cartridges - much more difficult to get right than CD players... if a CD player is ever "right", that is!

And I'm NOT knocking your system! In fact, I wanna come over and hear it! What's your beer preference? :)

No, no, no, I'm not suggesting that a $200 pr of speakers with a $5000 CD player will make a system sound better (though I would like to have the CD player), I'm suggesting that if you don't get the information into the system at the start you will never get another chance. No matter how good the speakers, if the information is not their, the speakers can't reproduce it. <p>The hierarchy is important, the signal travels (as we all know) from source through electronics, to speakers. Clearly, a fine speaker will let you hear all the flaws of a cheap CD player, a misaligned catridge,or what have you. An inexpensive speaker will allow you to hear a good CD player, a properly set-up TT or a master tape to the limit of the speakers resolution.

Re: the Parasound, it has a mild case of transistoritis that I'm hoping to tame with an outboard DAC (tubes maybe). Yes Ivor was referring to TT, arms and carts but the principle is the same, if the info is not put in to the system what you do to it afterwards matters not.

Speakers do have the biggest sonic impact, but only insofar as they are what we hear. Every part of a system bears an equal responsibility for the system's sound, I simply believe in the acronym GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

No offense was taken, this is a discussion group, right!

[musicoverall]

New name for an old familiar term! A most disagreeable phenomenon, to be sure!

I don't disagree that the source needs to pass all the information and the signal down the chain can only be made worse, etc. I'm just saying that the source components (as opposed to the source software) have less of a distance to travel to perfection than do the speakers. A lesser CD player will deliver most of the sonic goods while lesser speakers will mask what is upstream, no matter how good it is.

[risabet]

New name for an old familiar term! A most disagreeable phenomenon, to be sure!

I don't disagree that the source needs to pass all the information and the signal down the chain can only be made worse, etc. I'm just saying that the source components (as opposed to the source software) have less of a distance to travel to perfection than do the speakers. A lesser CD player will deliver most of the sonic goods while lesser speakers will mask what is upstream, no matter how good it is.

A marvelous technician and set-up man, he set up the LP-12 better than anyone I've known, unfortunately I've lost track of him, named Michael Frazier refers to SS as trans"piss"tors. I don't necessarily agree. But transistoritis is alive and well. I do agree that lesser speakers will mask what is upstream of them, thus my comment about resolution, this doesn't change the fact that you still need to get the info especially out of the LP or, less so, the CD.

I agree, speakers are the weak link to our ears, that is the nature of a transducer. Thus it is more difficult to get vinyl right (a damned sight more expensive also) than it is to get digital to sound okay.

[thepogue]

Mr Service techno wennie...

;) roflmao....

sorry could help meself brudda...lmao

whew...lol

sorry

Peace, Pogue (Fire-weenie) lol



That sir, places them into the realm of a preference as I already pointed out to Mr. musicoverall. The very idea that tubes are somehow able to do a "better job" at recreating sound has been proven to be nothing beyond a myth. That is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any professional audio equipment using vacuum tubes being employed in any recording studios, radio and TV broadcasting, commercial post-production houses, movie studios, or anywhere else where sound reproduction is dealt with "professionally".



I don't enjoy music by viewing THD graphs ... or, by "listening to" vacuum tubes, or by "listening to" solid state devices either. I enjoy listening to MUSIC that emanates from whatever equipment is doing the reproduction of it, if said gear is doing a reasonable job of recreating it.



Pure, unadulterated hogwash! The only thing that you can rely upon with any degree of certainty with tubed gear is the unreliability of the vacuum tubes themselves. They are inherently unreliable critters. They are prone to idiosyncrasies and all sorts of undesirable behaviors that their solid state counterparts are simply not inclined to exhibit ... ever. I confuse reliability with "wear"? Not hardly do I confuse any such thing. I was faced with the challenges presented to me by vacuum tubes, day in and day out for more than 30 years. Those challenges were not something caused by the tubes "wearing out" - not at all. They were often a case of a given tube simply not being capable of performing the job it was being asked to do. These tubes were not "worn out" or even performing poorly because of usage ... they were simply not up to the task. On the other hand, there were tubes that were functionally "usable", but didn't perform their jobs as well as they could have or should have, due to a plethora of reasons. Perhaps the most glaring difference between tubes and SS devices is the fact that from the day that it is put into service, a solid state device will perform its assigned task at an optimum and unvarying level until it finally dies, while a vacuum tube can (and will) exhibit a wide range of efficiency in dealing with the task it's asked to perform.



I'll thank you to not refer to me as a "repairman". I was an electronic servicing technician, who also saw duty as an electronic design engineer (without the qualifying "credentials"). The term repairman in this context is tantamount to calling an automobile mechanic a "grease monkey".

[A-Audiophile]

And here's the truth in audio:


--Gold plated interconnects from Radio Shack will give you sound as good as any expensive cable.



You know for the most part, this guy seems to nail it.

I have to admit....Gold plated RS Fusion cables beat out many exspensive IC's in my set-up....

[Classical Music Lives!]

Erukian has gotten it right on everything except it is debatable if the preamp trumps the power amp. It depends on how the power amp and speakers interact -OR- if the preamp is highly transparent or not. Neither lousy or excellent components matter much if speakers are not faithful reproducers. Try evaluating the electronics with poor speakers. Audio literarium is choking with 90+% objectivity distortion. Much with good intention but compounded from ignorance, the rest pure hucksterism. The big player is psychoacoustic experience. A good analogy is, did you notice how much better your car runs after a good washing and waxing? We tend to delude ourselves a bit when performing for our imagined audience, it seems to me. Maybe it's in our genes. These battered old ears and a room full of test equipment have taught me that listener's impressions are almost solely based on the loudspeaker. Mostly, I believe, due to improvements in high frequency drivers (tweeters), the younger generation with good high frequency hearing notice many of the subtle differences in recordings and the effects the various media add. Even with my old ears I find CD's to be lackluster in the high end and it surprises me when I hear something that really sparkles. And of course FM has always been somewhat disappointing with its limited bandwith and the detrimental effects of that added contrivence, stereo multiplex. Good thing most of us have mediocre hearing and just enjoy the programming. I still like listening to my vinyls.

[Chas Underhay]

You seem to have come to about the same conclusions as me.


Erukian has gotten it right on everything except it is debatable if the preamp trumps the power amp.

If he means a phono pre-amp then I agree with him, if he just means line stage then I don't.

QUOTE=Classical Music Lives!]And of course FM has always been somewhat disappointing with its limited bandwith and the detrimental effects of that added contrivence, stereo multiplex.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but they sure have a lot of records that I don't have and I can hear them for free.

QUOTE=Classical Music Lives!]I still like listening to my vinyls.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely!