How good are these.....?

[derekwwww]

Are these cheap banana plugs on ebay any good:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=32838&item=5741466379&rd=1

or would I be better of paying more for good ones?

And also is this RCA cable any better then a 'normal' rca cable:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=64593&item=5741457425&rd=1


Thanks

[Beckman]

You will here no improvement in sound quality by using more expensive interconnects/cables/connectors if that is what you are asking.

[musicoverall]

You will here no improvement in sound quality by using more expensive interconnects/cables/connectors if that is what you are asking.

I've heard plenty of improvement in sound quality by using them! I've also heard detriments depending on the application. Which cables have you listened to in order to make such a statement?

To the original poster - I cannot respond because I have not used the products you cited.

[Lord_Magnepan]

Good cables make a lot of improvment. But you must have a decent system to really tell the difference. For good starter cables check out the Wireworld, Kimber and small Cardas cables.

Good luck

[shokhead]

Except for the right gauge speaker wire which will make a difference, i've used good to overpriced cables and heard zero difference but my dog heard alot. She has great hearing. Maybe a 1000W amp,i've never used one.

[Lord_Magnepan]

Seems like your system just doesnt reveal much. I am not saying the differencers are huge, but as a last step it makes some fine differences.

Cheers

[shokhead]

Seems like your system just doesnt reveal much. I am not saying the differencers are huge, but as a last step it makes some fine differences.

Cheers

Could be my modest system but in general,your ears can only hear so much. I'm most likly a bad judge as my hearing is shot from headphones full blast listening to the beatles over and over and over. Car speakers 12" from the back of my head. Concerts of LZ,DP and ELP,very loud. I keep my treble at zero and my bass heavy. Thats my hearing. LOL

[Lord_Magnepan]

LOL.....more power to you !!! :p

There is a difference in cables, but if you dont run real High End equipment (revealing) than you are pretty much fine with good standard cable. And if you dont hear the difference, dont buy it.

People made speaker cable from CAT5 that sound better than 500$ kimber cable :D

[E-Stat]

Are these cheap banana plugs on ebay any good...or would I be better of paying more for good ones?

...And also is this RCA cable any better then a 'normal' rca cable:
My experience is that cables can most certainly make an audilble difference, but ---

One must put any recommendation into perspective. What is the related system? What kind of music do you listen to? How acute is your listening skill? Do small audible differences matter to you? Naturally, the differences will be more apparent on higher resolution systems listening to better recordings, usually of an acoustic nature. For the vast majority of systems, however, those cables you listed should be fine. Or those found conveniently at a local Radio Shack.

rw

[shokhead]

My experience is that cables can most certainly make an audilble difference, but ---

One must put any recommendation into perspective. What is the related system? What kind of music do you listen to? How acute is your listening skill? Do small audible differences matter to you? Naturally, the differences will be more apparent on higher resolution systems listening to better recordings, usually of an acoustic nature. For the vast majority of systems, however, those cables you listed should be fine. Or those found conveniently at a local Radio Shack.

rw

Explain how acute your listening skill.

[E-Stat]

Explain how acute your listening skill.
Listening acuity, like any other skill, takes practice. I can hear far more subtle differences today than when I started this hobby thirty plus years ago. It also helps having a system that is capable of rendering such differences. Both my skill and system resolution have improved over time.

rw

[Tony_Montana]

I can hear far more subtle differences today than when I started this hobby thirty plus years ago.

That is funny since we lose our hearing capability as we grow older. Remember that only children have the best hearing, and it is downhill (among other things :D) from there as far as hearing capability is concern.

[shokhead]

I thought you sit there and listen and hear what you hear and dont hear what you dont hear. LOL Man,i'm messed up. I know.i know,i hear that. During my hearing test,i cant tell if its the sound in the headphones i'm hearing or the ringing in my ears i have 24/7. Thats why i keep my treble at zero.

[E-Stat]

That is funny since we lose our hearing capability as we grow older. Remember that only children have the best hearing, and it is downhill (among other things :D) from there as far as hearing capability is concern.
Hearing and musical discernment are two completely different things. Or do you believe that a typical 10 year old "hears" exactly what a seasoned musician does?

rw

[E-Stat]

I thought you sit there and listen and hear what you hear and dont hear what you dont hear. LOL Man,i'm messed up.
Well I guess that's how Britney Spears approaches singing. :D

rw

[Beckman]

Which cables have you listened to in order to make such a statement?



Please explain to me the physics behind hi-end cables/interconnects. All it has to do is transmit a 20 to 20kHz signal a few feet. CAT5 cables have to transmit signals on the order of Megahertz hundreds of feet and CAT5 cable onlt costs .08
per foot. Explain to me how one can improve the sound quality by upgrading cables/interconnects when the signal is not distorted or attenuated an audible amount (0.4 dB at 20kHz for 12 AWG zip cord) when using cheap 12 AWG zip cord or radioshack interconnects.

High end audio cables/interconnects are a GIMMICK.

There is NO science behind hi-end cables/interconnects or PROOF that there is an audible difference.

People just "think" they can hear a difference.

Hi-end cables are a placebo.

It doesn't take a special cable/interconnect to transmit audio signals.

[markw]

Hearing and musical discernment are two completely different things. Or do you believe that a typical 10 year old "hears" exactly what a seasoned musician does?

rwNo. The 10 year old probably hears more. Now, wether they "key in" on the same sounds as a seasoned musician is another story.

[E-Stat]

No. The 10 year old probably hears more. Now, wether they "key in" on the same sounds as a seasoned musician is another story.
That, too! :)

a·cu·i·ty (-ky-t)
n. Sharpness, clearness, and distinctness of perception or vision.

rw

[FLZapped]

Listening acuity, like any other skill, takes practice. I can hear far more subtle differences today than when I started this hobby thirty plus years ago. It also helps having a system that is capable of rendering such differences. Both my skill and system resolution have improved over time.

rw


Really? How do you know, been tested and graded?

-Bruce :p

[jneutron]

Listening acuity, like any other skill, takes practice. I can hear far more subtle differences today than when I started this hobby thirty plus years ago. It also helps having a system that is capable of rendering such differences. Both my skill and system resolution have improved over time.

rw

What a load of crap....:-)


Hi E-stat..Happy new year...you too, FLZ...

Hmmmm: check this out...some num-nuts over at AH spoutin junk....(me)...happy reading.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=38929#post38929post38929

Cheers, John

[musicoverall]

Please explain to me the physics behind hi-end cables/interconnects. All it has to do is transmit a 20 to 20kHz signal a few feet. CAT5 cables have to transmit signals on the order of Megahertz hundreds of feet and CAT5 cable onlt costs .08
per foot. Explain to me how one can improve the sound quality by upgrading cables/interconnects when the signal is not distorted or attenuated an audible amount (0.4 dB at 20kHz for 12 AWG zip cord) when using cheap 12 AWG zip cord or radioshack interconnects.

High end audio cables/interconnects are a GIMMICK.

There is NO science behind hi-end cables/interconnects or PROOF that there is an audible difference.

People just "think" they can hear a difference.

Hi-end cables are a placebo.

It doesn't take a special cable/interconnect to transmit audio signals.

Even if I could explain the science behind cables, what good would it do? But, again, I ask - what cables have you used and listened to in order to come to the conclusion that people only think they hear differences? With what components?

[E-Stat]

Really? How do you know, been tested and graded?

-Bruce :p
Welcome back. Knew you couldn't stay away for a while. Howza' radio business?

One of Woodman's favorite themes is the value of experience. Perhaps he can 'splain it to you!

rw

[E-Stat]

Hmmmm: check this out...some num-nuts over at AH spoutin junk....(me)...happy reading.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=38929#post38929post38929

Happy new year to you. Keep workin' the research side. One of these days you'll be able to explain what we're hearing.

rw

[Resident Loser]

...only you probably wouldn't like the answer...

jimHJJ(...I mean the collective "you"...nothing personal...)

[jneutron]

...only you probably wouldn't like the answer...
jimHJJ(...I mean the collective "you"...nothing personal...)

I do not take your answer personally...do not take mine that way either....

Happy New year.


Now, to business...first, I assume you read the link and will respond thusly...if not, perhaps you should..

Lateralization exists..to deny such is illogical.

The extend of one's ability to discern direction is simple, and easily characterized. To measure and analyze it is trivial..I expect the distribution to be gaussian in nature, and I personally can localize to about a foot width at ten feet. I make the assertion that with training, that can be improved..We are discussing 10 uSec left to right delay times.

The reproduction of a virtual source within the space between two transducers is easily shown...all of us have done so.

Mathematically, it is also a trivial exercise to show how the virtual image is shifted by delaying one channel with respect to another.

Since you did not address any of this, you either are ignoring it (at your peril), did not read it, or do not understand it...I will explain further if needed.

The only issue that is left? How can a simple wire cause these delays??? And, how can the inductance of a speaker wire cause DIFFERENT interchannel delays, which is what is required to alter imaging virtual source.

I submit: There are no audio power amplifiers in existence that can handle temporal accuracy with low impedance loads to the 1 to 10 uSec level for random, multifrequency signals.

I submit: Nobody has attempted to measure current slew error in an amplifier driving a low impedance reactive load, with accuracy approaching 1 uSec within the frequency range of 500 hz to about 12 Khz, the region for which lateralization data exists.. And, furthermore, most of the people on this planet do not understand what it takes to do it correctly. (I do not suffer from that condition).

I submit: Audio reproduction technology (low impedance high current stuff) as you understand it, does not even come close to reality when it comes to lateralization....your understanding (which is exactly what I was taught 30 years ago) is almost three orders of magnitude slower than what is required for lateralization at the 25 milliradian level.

I submit: The statement "it can be explained, only you wouldn't like the answer" is, not unlike the type of response I expect from that "moderator" guy on the other forum. It is a response that I will not accept quietly anymore(as you may have noticed).

Either engage the technical issue, or get off the bowl...your response doesn't float my boat, is in no way technical, and serves no technical purpose.

As I told Dan B...the year is 2005, and I have decided to be just a tad more, shall we say, assertive. I will not allow the science to be held hostage to personal grudges. No more.

Again, take no offense, as none is meant..

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

...if you switch over to one of the alternative display modes, you will see my response was directed to E-stat and not you(specifically OR collectively)...

If you are aware of that fact and have simply taken issue with my not-so-subtle injection of sarcastic neo-classical wit into your scientific abstract, my apologies...

I will get around to reading your missive at some point...I take no issue with your position and look forward to perhaps learning something from it.

jimHJJ(...Happy New year...bite me nonetheless...)

[E-Stat]

I submit: There are no audio power amplifiers in existence that can handle temporal accuracy with low impedance loads to the 1 to 10 uSec level for random, multifrequency signals...

I submit: Nobody has attempted to measure current slew error in an amplifier driving a low impedance reactive load, with accuracy approaching 1 uSec within the frequency range of 500 hz to about 12 Khz, the region for which lateralization data exists.. And, furthermore, most of the people on this planet do not understand what it takes to do it correctly. (I do not suffer from that condition).
Oh, you mean like my full range electrostats that present a reactive load that falls below 4 ohms across four octaves?

rw

[jneutron]

...if you switch over to one of the alternative display modes, you will see my response was directed to E-stat and not you(specifically OR collectively)...
As I am discussing the scientific methodology being established to measure accurately, issues which are central to the cable debate, your response, while directed at E-stat, by nature, certainly does include me.. (that's a fancy way of bypassing the fact that I didn't realize you posted to him...:-) When I tried hybrid mode or thread mode all I got was a blank screen.


...If you are aware of that fact and have simply taken issue with my not-so-subtle injection of sarcastic neo-classical wit into your scientific abstract, my apologies...
I am thoroughly aware that I didn't understand what you just said...ya gotta be gentle with me, I'm not that good at english...


...I will get around to reading your missive at some point...I take no issue with your position and look forward to perhaps learning something from it.
jimHJJ(...Happy New year...bite me nonetheless...)

Bite me nonetheless?????? Youze talkin ta me???

Cheers, John

[Beckman]

Even if I could explain the science behind cables, what good would it do?

You would be able to see past the high end audio cable/interconnect nonsense, and in the process you would save a lot of money.

High End Audio Cables = Placebo

[E-Stat]

You would be able to see past the high end audio cable/interconnect nonsense, and in the process you would save a lot of money.

High End Audio Cables = Placebo
I think I've discovered your problem. Audio systems require hearing, not seeing. :)

rw

[corwin99]

I used to be a cable non-believer because i had tried so many different cables, and nothing seemed to make a difference... then one day i got a new amp, and decided to try a passive preamp i had built with it... i switched a few cables, because the one i was using wasn't quite long enough and placed the preamp in an awkward position... i used a longer cable and suddenly the sound changed.. i was like huh??.. it became much brighter and highly detailed. I didn't quite know what to do... and at first didn't realize it was the cable that had done it.

When i change the Resistor in my Preamp from a Holco to a Caddock or an Audio Note tantalum, most people don't question that the sound changes, and when i change the Capacitors in my Preamp from plain old Phillips this-or-that Polyester caps to Hovland Musicaps or Auricaps or Multicaps or what have you, most people also don't question that there is an audible improvement, however why do people always question that there is a difference when you use different cables? I mean, a solid copper connector compared with a nickel plated connector are going to sound different..... compound that with the fact that you added a Bybee Slipstream Quantum Purifier and all the conductors are pure silver and you have quite a difference between that and your run of the mill radio shack cable.

You can prove that there is a difference in conductivity between nickel and silver and copper, and you can prove that different dielectrics cause difference levels of signal loss, so why not difference in performance of cables?

[magictooth]

I think I've discovered your problem. Audio systems require hearing, not seeing. :)

rw
Heh, that's ironic that you believe that audio systems require hearing and not seeing. I've posted in two separate threads a direct question to you, E-Stat, asking why you feel that sighted testing is somehow <i>the</i> testing method of choice instead of blind testing. That's what I would call hearing and not seeing....

[musicoverall]

You would be able to see past the high end audio cable/interconnect nonsense, and in the process you would save a lot of money.

High End Audio Cables = Placebo

And in the process, I would lose some musical detail. If I wanted that tradeoff, I would have stuck with cheap cables.

Again (and again), what cables have you tried in order to determine that high end cables are nonsense and a placebo? And in what systems?

[Beckman]

Audio systems require hearing, not seeing. :)

rw

Couldn't agree more, why purchase flashy expensive cables that don't improve sound quality. ;)

[Beckman]

And in the process, I would lose some musical detail. If I wanted that tradeoff, I would have stuck with cheap cables.

Again (and again), what cables have you tried in order to determine that high end cables are nonsense and a placebo? And in what systems?

Does it matter what cables I have tried? If I say I have tried every after market cable with the worlds most refined stereo and can hear no improvements in sound quality you would say I have bad hearing. The fact still remains: 12 AWG zip cord does not attenuate an audio signal an audible amount nor does it cause any audible distortion (unless you can hear a pin drop while a 747 is taking off). I suggest you read this article and come to terms with the fact that the improvements you know you can hear are in your head.

http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

[musicoverall]

Does it matter what cables I have tried? If I say I have tried every after market cable with the worlds most refined stereo and can hear no improvements in sound quality you would say I have bad hearing. The fact still remains: 12 AWG zip cord does not attenuate an audio signal an audible amount nor does it cause any audible distortion (unless you can hear a pin drop while a 747 is taking off). I suggest you read this article and come to terms with the fact that the improvements you know you can hear are in your head.

http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

Yes, the improvements I can hear are in my head since that's where my ears are located! ;)

It does matter what cables you've tried, and what systems, and what music and in what rooms. Otherwise, your comments are theory and opinion, nothing more. My opinion is based on experience and it differs from yours. I have no problem with differences of opinion. Why does it threaten you so?

Thanks for the article. I'll read it now.

[musicoverall]

I suggest you read this article and come to terms with the fact that the improvements you know you can hear are in your head.

http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

The article wasn't about cables - it was about the Placebo Effect. I found it particularly interesting that placebo is not universally accepted as fact or, more accurately, it's being challenged. Hrobjartsson and Gotzche sound like the kind of scientists the world needs more of - the kind that challenge the status quo. That's how science advances, no? And I see that Dr John C Bailar III states that now the proof needs to be supplied by those making the REAL claims - those that proclaim the Placebo Effect is at work.

To sum up, I don't think the article you supplied does a very good job of supporting your position, at least not as anything suggesting actual proof. It does, however, show that there is a body of current belief that would suggest that cable sonics are the result of placebo. It also shows that that theory was challenged in 2001. I did enjoy reading the article, though. Thanks!

[jneutron]

The fact still remains: 12 AWG zip cord does not attenuate an audio signal an audible amount nor does it cause any audible distortion.
Hmmm..

I didn't recall him saying anything about attenuation, nor did he say anything about audible distortion.

What he said was "musical detail". You (a generalization, not just you personally) made the assumption that musical detail meant amplitude based distortion.

I do not believe the two of you are talking about the same thing.

Cheers, John

[shokhead]

I'm glad my experience is cheaper. Good old RS stuff works good for me.

[jneutron]

I'm glad my experience is cheaper. Good old RS stuff works good for me.

I personally do not care much for RS stuff, as I have had quality issues in the past with the parts, like diodes, 1/4 jacks, etc. But have, on occasion, purchased from them recently without any problems.

Of course, I had an old 22wpch realistic receiver I purchased in '73, and abused it for 20 years without even one failure..go figure.

I go with the provided 50 cent cables that come with my purchase for my ht setup at home, I use 90 cent PE stuff for my "play", I use 12/3 extension cord in neon colors for my mobile pro apps, with neutrik 4 pole speakons as terminations. Cheap, high quality, works in the app...

The build quality of the el cheapo stuff ain't the best, so I'd recommend at least some quality stuff, but for what I do, expensive provides no additional benefit for me.

I will however, recommend gold plating, especially for 1/4 jacks..as nickel plated ones tend to give me intermittents. And, real cheap RCA's, I will crimp them on occasion because they tend to lose the ground integrity. For less knowledgable or experienced users, getting a better RCA is certainly worth it for long term contact integrity.

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

Couldn't agree more, why purchase flashy expensive cables that don't improve sound quality. ;)
I wouldn't and don't. I do, however, purchase cables that do improve sound quality. Albeit just a bit, but enought for my investment.

rw

[Beckman]

My opinion is based on experience and it differs from yours. I have no problem with differences of opinion. Why does it threaten you so?


Your opinion makes me feel insecure about my opinion. Nobody wants to admit they are wrong. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. :(

[Beckman]

What he said was "musical detail". You (a generalization, not just you personally) made the assumption that musical detail meant amplitude based distortion.

I do not believe the two of you are talking about the same thing.


What is musical detail? What does it mean?

[E-Stat]

Heh, that's ironic that you believe that audio systems require hearing and not seeing. I've posted in two separate threads a direct question to you, E-Stat, asking why you feel that sighted testing is somehow <i>the</i> testing method of choice instead of blind testing.
Quite honestly, I don't know exactly to what you are referring. I did a search and reread several interchanges between us. My guess is that you are either misreading my comments or reading something into them that is not there. I will be happy to respond to any specifics.

rw

[risabet]

You will here no improvement in sound quality by using more expensive interconnects/cables/connectors if that is what you are asking.

The differences caused by cable choices range from subtle to obvious. The more revealing, not expensive, though they tend to go together, the system the more audible the differences become.

The listening acuity of the listener develops over time. The longer one listens to reproduced music in the home, the more refined one's ability becomes to hear differences in systems.

Can all poster's give a list of their systems?

[risabet]

What is musical detail? What does it mean?

An example of musical detail is the subtle vibrato of a violin that adds a sense of warmth and space to the performance. Less revealing systems tend to gloss over or blur subtle details, ambiance clues, and other low level parts of the performance that add a sense of realism to the recording. E.G on the album (vinyl) Ella Fitzgerald's "Clap Hands, Here Comes Charlie" Verve V/V6-4053, the size of her voice is clearly dimensioned and placed in space. On a good system you can hear what appear to be subtle distance changes between her and the mic.

[E-Stat]

Can all poster's give a list of their systems.

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/966.html

As if anyone hasn't already figured it out already, I am partial to full range electrostats. After twenty seven happy years of Acoustats, I am finally replacing them with Sound Labs U-1s to be delivered later this month. :)

rw

[musicoverall]

Your opinion makes me feel insecure about my opinion. Nobody wants to admit they are wrong. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. :(

Agreeing to disagree is cool! And you don't have to feel insecure. How're ya gonna score chicks??? I use fancy cables! :)

[Beckman]

Can all poster's give a list of their systems?

Myryad Z140 Integrated Amp
Cambridge Audio D500SE CD Player
Infinity IL40's
Infinity IL100s Sub

[E-Stat]

Agreeing to disagree is cool! And you don't have to feel insecure. How're ya gonna score chicks??? I use fancy cables! :)
You and I discuss cables because we find them capable of making meaningful differences in our system(s). I continue to marvel at the effort exerted by some here who find them to have no significance. Call me crazy, but I expend zero effort writing about those topics which I find inconsequential.

rw

[markw]

Can all poster's give a list of their systems?

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/1606.html

[sacrasm mode]
I certainly hope this meets your approval.
[/sacrasm mode]

[E-Stat]

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/1606.html

I see you are a fellow planar fan. I have likewise have spent countless hours optimizing the placement of my speakers as well. :)

rw

[markw]

To maximize their benefits, ya gotta place 'em correctly other wise it's not worth having 'em.

Of course, this is true for all speakers but when planars are positioned in that "magic" spot, a whole new world opens up. But, with planars, the rewards are so great that it canot be ignored. In fact, if this is not done, they can sound worse than monkey coffins, what with that reflected soundfield from the rear.

I got into planars in '99 what I took Magnapan up on their offer for the MMG's @ $500. Once they broke in, it was only a matter of time before the decision to ttrade up was made.

IMNSHO, They do need a sub to fill in the very bottom end, though. I found the best way to mate my sub to them was to simply split the preamp's outputs, send the full range to the 1.6's (since they are polite enough to simply ignore what they can't reproduce, no high pass was needed) and set the low pass filter on the sub to around 45 - 50 hz.

[musicoverall]

You and I discuss cables because we find them capable of making meaningful differences in our system(s). I continue to marvel at the effort exerted by some here who find them to have no significance. Call me crazy, but I expend zero effort writing about those topics which I find inconsequential.

rw

If I call you crazy, it'll have to be about another topic! I totally agree. I can assure you that if there is a Council on South Central Cambodian Koala Bear Feces, that they will never hear argument one from me, even if I visit their zoo! :)

[markw]

I can assure you that if there is a Council on South Central Cambodian Koala Bear Feces, that they will never hear argument one from me, even if I visit their zoo! :)...and you think WE throw some messy arguments in your face. ;)

[shokhead]

You and I discuss cables because we find them capable of making meaningful differences in our system(s). I continue to marvel at the effort exerted by some here who find them to have no significance. Call me crazy, but I expend zero effort writing about those topics which I find inconsequential.

rw

So if some of us have used costly cables and wires and could not hear or see any difference to warrant the price,we are nuts because you can?

[jneutron]

What is musical detail? What does it mean?

Ah, a good question..I will start with an optical example for clarity.

1. Build a half wall of translucent white glass. Make it 10 feet wide, 3 feet tall, on top of a 3 foot half wall of sheetrock.
2. Sit on one side of the glass, 10 feet away. Arrange it so your eyes are exactly 3 feet off the ground.
3. Darken the room.
4. Put a 1000 watt floodlight on the other side of the wall. Arrange the setup so the bulb is two feet off the ground. This arrangement allows you to see only the light incident on the glass, the vector from your eyes to the bulb goes through the sheetrock, so you cannot tell where the light actually is with respect to the wall.

OK.

First, put the light 20 feet away. You will ascribe a specific brightness to the white spot on the wall.

Now, move the light closer, with it aimed at the center of the glass wall. As the bulb gets closer and closer, the wall becomes....brighter, and apparently more focussed.

If you were to measure the optical intensity and plot it, you would find that as the light gets closer to the wall, the peak goes up, the sigma goes down, but yet, the integral (area under the curve) remains the same..there is no change in energy total. And yet, one would state that the image is brighter because it's peak is higher..

Now, consider the acoustical equivalent.

We use lateralization to determine the location of the sound. What happens if the acoustical virtual image of an instrument is laterally affected by the electronics? Consider the equation for magnetic loop coupling...it scales with frequency..more precisely, increases in direct proportion to frequency. The worst part of that is, the induced error term is a cosine term, lags the main by 90 degrees. And this term is the most difficult one to measure, as the main effect of a cosine additive term to a sinusoid is the time shift of the zero crossing, NOT the ampitude. Hence the incredible difficulty in measuring it using standard parts, test setups, etc...FFT's are not sensitive to it either..

Next...why would one consider error induced time lag to be insensitive to frequency? It will be quite frequency sensitive. I have experienced lateralization errors affecting the virtual imaging in my stereo..because I have an 11 band eq (home brew), I do not have the ability to set it exact channel to channel. Phase and amplitude are hugely non repeatable. It is rather weird, trying to get a monophonic signal, female vocal, to image in the exact center of the speaker field. By level adjust, I can get the bulk of the vocal smack dab in the center of the field, but I am not able to get the sibilance to be exactly with the vocal..it was to the right. Using the eq, I could get the sibilance to move, but trust me, the overall sound was not a pretty "sight".

So, for me, I consider detail as follows: The ability of the system to accurately place an instrument or voice at a specific angular location within the virtually constructed soundfield, and that all of the frequency components of that instrument appear to come from the same location in space. And, it is my contention, that if a system is changed such that it brings the virtual image together with respect to frequency, that the image is interpreted as being "brighter".

In excess of two years ago, I lamented online about the lack of scientifically engineered definitions for all this..this is one case.

For your perusal...the attached graph shows the nefarious nature of cos based summation..the blue line is sine theta..the red line is cos theta..the resultant summation is the yellow one..note that even though the cos term is 10 percent of the origional, you see that the peak value did not increase much at all..but yet, the waveform now clearly lags the origional signal..Note also that all measurements of the yellow signal will show ZERO harmonic distortion...nada thing...

But if this happens to only one channel, we will "see" that time shift.

At this point in time, there is no measurement technique established to even attempt to look at this...yet..I will change that.

Cheers, John

[E-Stat]

... when planars are positioned in that "magic" spot, a whole new world opens up. But, with planars, the rewards are so great that it canot be ignored. In fact, if this is not done, they can sound worse than monkey coffins, what with that reflected soundfield from the rear.
I agree with you completely. My current Acoustats are even pickier because of their tendency to beam. I use a tape measure, string, and a laser device to assure absolute consistency in their placement. Mine are about eight feet out into the room.


I got into planars in '99 what I took Magnapan up on their offer for the MMG's @ $500. Once they broke in, it was only a matter of time before the decision to ttrade up was made.
I've got a few years on you to foster my love for planars. Bought MG-IIs in 1975. Drove them with an Audire power amp / H-K Citation 11 preamp, Esoteric Audio ICs (yes, they sounded better to my ears than the Audio Technicas and Beldens they replaced back then) and "powered" subwoofers. Actually the subs were internally tri-amped Braun LV-1020s the Maggies replaced with the other drivers disabled. Then moved to the Acoustat X in '77. Later upgraded to Monitor 4s and eventually to the 2+2s I've used for the past twenty years.

While I'm still a Maggie fan, I've not heard the 1.6s. I only read high praise about them and of their incredible value. Most recently, I heard 20.1s driven by some very nice electronics (yes, wired with Nordost Valhallas :)). Simply breathtaking. They possess the best planar bass I've heard. While they don't have quite the "wow" factor of the massive Alons, I find them to be somewhat more coherent.


IMNSHO, They do need a sub to fill in the very bottom end, though. I found the best way to mate my sub to them was to simply split the preamp's outputs, send the full range to the 1.6's (since they are polite enough to simply ignore what they can't reproduce, no high pass was needed) and set the low pass filter on the sub to around 45 - 50 hz.

I have a love-hate relationship with subwoofers. It's just so difficult getting them to blend seemlessly with planars. I ran powered subs with my Acoustats for a couple of years until I got higher powered amps. I likewise used a similar low pass setting, but did high pass the 'stats to get more headroom. While the subs arguably went lower, qualitatively they were not as satisfying to these ears. Mine tended to blurr the sound of the skin of concert drums and basses. I do understand that a tradeoff to the smaller Maggies vs. the 20.1s is somewhat higher bass response.

rw

[E-Stat]

So if some of us have used costly cables and wires and could not hear or see any difference to warrant the price,we are nuts because you can?
Why do you say that? On the contrary. I've never tried "converting" or ridiculing those who have found no benefit. To each his own. I share the benefit of my experience and let folks draw their own conclusions. You will never find me make equivalent comments to these:

<i><b>You will here (sic) no improvement in sound quality by using more expensive interconnects/cables/connectors....

People just "think" they can hear a difference.</i></b>

rw

[Resident Loser]

...per omnia secula seculorum....as have all the rest...

Cables are inconsequential...arguing against the promulgation of certain "mythologies" isn't...

jimHJJ(...two-cents deposited...)

[musicoverall]

So if some of us have used costly cables and wires and could not hear or see any difference to warrant the price,we are nuts because you can?

See E-Stat's response above. He wasn't saying that and neither was I. I was saying, as I believe E-Stat was, that if we couldn't cost justify cables with sonics, we wouldn't feel the need to discuss it as it would be pointless. Nothing to discuss.

[E-Stat]

(...two-cents deposited...)
Big surprise. May you enjoy(?) your effort.

rw

[E-Stat]

Nothing to discuss.
Unless of course, you find the need to "save" people from their own senses with derogatory comments. ;)

rw

[magictooth]

Quite honestly, I don't know exactly to what you are referring. I did a search and reread several interchanges between us. My guess is that you are either misreading my comments or reading something into them that is not there. I will be happy to respond to any specifics.

rw
E-Stat, OK here it is again. I wonder if you've ever done blind testing on your own system? I feel that there is a lot of garbage as well as a lot of good science in the audio business. The only thing that I feel very strongly about is the use of blind testing.

I previously related a story about a patient who swore that this cold medicine that could be bought in the US was the absolute best stuff and that Neo-Citran (the Canadian brand) did absolutely nothing. The last time he went down, he loaded up on the stuff. When we compared the labels, there was EXACTLY THE SAME ingredients. They were probably manufactured in the same plant, but labeled differently for the two separate markets. On another note, I can't even begin to remember how many people have told me that Advil takes away their pain, but Motrin doesn't do a thing (and vice versa). These two cases are clear examples of people deluding themselves by SEEING instead of EXPERIENCING.

When the yeasayers present their audio experiences as "truth" or "fact" - which is indeed what they are saying when they say, "high end cables make a difference end of story....", I have to question whether they've actually done any real testing of their equipment. If you are so confident that there is a difference let alone an improvement, then what do you have to fear with a simple blind test? I went into blind testing of my audio equipment with an open mind and was extremely surprised at the results. For people who have so much time and money invested in the hobby I find it astonishing that they won't even take the time to set up a proper test/audtion.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat, OK here it is again.
Here is what again?


I wonder if you've ever done blind testing on your own system?
No.


If you are so confident that there is a difference let alone an improvement, then what do you have to fear with a simple blind test?
Nothing. I am neither a reviewer nor presently in the market for cables. If I were to conduct such a test, it would be for an extended period of time, not for two minute snippets. Neither would I introduce any additional components into the signal path not presently used in my system.

Not to dismay, though. Last month a friend brought over his Kimber Palladian power cords for a listen. Through (sighted) tests, I could detect a small difference in soundstage and articulation. He offered to leave them with me for a while. I told him I would like to do so after I get my new speakers which should be at the end of this month. I'll give you an honest appraisal then.

rw

[musicoverall]

Unless of course, you find the need to "save" people from their own senses with derogatory comments. ;)

rw

I haven't felt that need lately! :)

BTW, I'm also a Maggie man. I had the luck of... of... well, someone who's REALLY lucky when I found a used pair of 20.1's at a price I could afford. I, too, would love to wire them up with Valhallas but I just can't afford to. The really sad news is that the Valhallas spoiled me for the rest of their line, including the SPM. So I'm still auditioning at this point. Sorry to say I'm not going to engage in any double blind testing - too much of a PITA. I'll just have to rely on my own fallible senses.

[musicoverall]

Ah, a good question..I will start with an optical example for clarity.

1. Build a half wall of translucent white glass. Make it 10 feet wide, 3 feet tall, on top of a 3 foot half wall of sheetrock.
2. Sit on one side of the glass, 10 feet away. Arrange it so your eyes are exactly 3 feet off the ground.
3. Darken the room.
4. Put a 1000 watt floodlight on the other side of the wall. Arrange the setup so the bulb is two feet off the ground. This arrangement allows you to see only the light incident on the glass, the vector from your eyes to the bulb goes through the sheetrock, so you cannot tell where the light actually is with respect to the wall.

OK.

First, put the light 20 feet away. You will ascribe a specific brightness to the white spot on the wall.

Now, move the light closer, with it aimed at the center of the glass wall. As the bulb gets closer and closer, the wall becomes....brighter, and apparently more focussed.

If you were to measure the optical intensity and plot it, you would find that as the light gets closer to the wall, the peak goes up, the sigma goes down, but yet, the integral (area under the curve) remains the same..there is no change in energy total. And yet, one would state that the image is brighter because it's peak is higher..

Now, consider the acoustical equivalent.

We use lateralization to determine the location of the sound. What happens if the acoustical virtual image of an instrument is laterally affected by the electronics? Consider the equation for magnetic loop coupling...it scales with frequency..more precisely, increases in direct proportion to frequency. The worst part of that is, the induced error term is a cosine term, lags the main by 90 degrees. And this term is the most difficult one to measure, as the main effect of a cosine additive term to a sinusoid is the time shift of the zero crossing, NOT the ampitude. Hence the incredible difficulty in measuring it using standard parts, test setups, etc...FFT's are not sensitive to it either..

Next...why would one consider error induced time lag to be insensitive to frequency? It will be quite frequency sensitive. I have experienced lateralization errors affecting the virtual imaging in my stereo..because I have an 11 band eq (home brew), I do not have the ability to set it exact channel to channel. Phase and amplitude are hugely non repeatable. It is rather weird, trying to get a monophonic signal, female vocal, to image in the exact center of the speaker field. By level adjust, I can get the bulk of the vocal smack dab in the center of the field, but I am not able to get the sibilance to be exactly with the vocal..it was to the right. Using the eq, I could get the sibilance to move, but trust me, the overall sound was not a pretty "sight".

So, for me, I consider detail as follows: The ability of the system to accurately place an instrument or voice at a specific angular location within the virtually constructed soundfield, and that all of the frequency components of that instrument appear to come from the same location in space. And, it is my contention, that if a system is changed such that it brings the virtual image together with respect to frequency, that the image is interpreted as being "brighter".

In excess of two years ago, I lamented online about the lack of scientifically engineered definitions for all this..this is one case.

For your perusal...the attached graph shows the nefarious nature of cos based summation..the blue line is sine theta..the red line is cos theta..the resultant summation is the yellow one..note that even though the cos term is 10 percent of the origional, you see that the peak value did not increase much at all..but yet, the waveform now clearly lags the origional signal..Note also that all measurements of the yellow signal will show ZERO harmonic distortion...nada thing...

But if this happens to only one channel, we will "see" that time shift.

At this point in time, there is no measurement technique established to even attempt to look at this...yet..I will change that.

Cheers, John

No one could possibly compete with this. I'm completely amazed. Thank you for sharing this.

[E-Stat]

I haven't felt that need lately! :)

BTW, I'm also a Maggie man. I had the luck of... of... well, someone who's REALLY lucky when I found a used pair of 20.1's at a price I could afford. I, too, would love to wire them up with Valhallas but I just can't afford to. The really sad news is that the Valhallas spoiled me for the rest of their line, including the SPM. So I'm still auditioning at this point. Sorry to say I'm not going to engage in any double blind testing - too much of a PITA. I'll just have to rely on my own fallible senses.
Sweet. The 20.1s were my second choice behind Sound Labs U-1s. As for me, I use JPS Labs Superconductor + cables. Far more affordable than Valhallas. But then again, what you heard was simply your imagination run wild. ;)

rw

[Beckman]

For your perusal...the attached graph shows the nefarious nature of cos based summation..the blue line is sine theta..the red line is cos theta..the resultant summation is the yellow one..note that even though the cos term is 10 percent of the origional, you see that the peak value did not increase much at all..but yet, the waveform now clearly lags the origional signal..Note also that all measurements of the yellow signal will show ZERO harmonic distortion...nada thing...

But if this happens to only one channel, we will "see" that time shift.

At this point in time, there is no measurement technique established to even attempt to look at this...yet..I will change that.


WOW!
So you are basicly saying that it is not just the frequency response of a system, but the phase response, and the frequency response with respect to the phase response that causes these affects in sound quality that are not allways clearly descirbed. I would still think that (and I am sure you and others would agree), amplifier and speaker qualities have the biggest effect on this and upgrading or changing speakers, or an amplifier is the best way to improve sound quality.

[risabet]

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/1606.html

[sacrasm mode]
I certainly hope this meets your approval.
[/sacrasm mode]

Not a question of approval, knowing what you listen to helps me evaluate the comments you make. No judgement is attached to my knowing!

[musicoverall]

Sweet. The 20.1s were my second choice behind Sound Labs U-1s. As for me, I use JPS Labs Superconductor + cables. Far more affordable than Valhallas. But then again, what you heard was simply your imagination run wild. ;)

rw

Do JPS Labs cables make decent reins for my runaway imagination? :) I'll have to check those out. As for the Valhallas, they deserve every compliment ever written about them. Naturally, they cost more than my amp! Grrrrrr.......

P.S The 20.1's would have been far down my list had they not been relatively cheap, being used models. Not familiar with the Sound Labs so your full report is eagerly anticipated... several months after you get them so you'll have time to optimize their placement. My biggest complaint with planars!

[E-Stat]

Do JPS Labs cables make decent reins for my runaway imagination? :) I'll have to check those out. As for the Valhallas, they deserve every compliment ever written about them. Naturally, they cost more than my amp! Grrrrrr.......
I'd love to compare the two directly in my system. Perhaps I can cajole HP to bring a short pair with him on one of his Atlanta visits to JWC. The Superconductors make very good reins as they are incredibly stiff ! - the result of the shield being a solid copper tube around the conductors. Bend them to a shape and they stay that way ! Because of that I had to ballast my dainty attenuator box with sand or it would tend to stand up. They use locking WBT connectors for a tight fit. As for sonics, the first thing that comes to mind is blackness. At first listen, they sound dark. Almost as if they are rolled off at the top. But they're not. With extended listening (not two minute quick comparisons), I find that the lack of grain allows more detail to shine through. Upper percussion is sweeter with more apparent decay. Triangles and xylophones linger more. I found a similar benefit, albeit at the other end of the frequency spectrum, with the use of bass traps in my room (I use eight). At first, there seemed to be less bass. Actually, there was less in the way of peaky upper bass. With those tamed, I could more clearly hear the lower fundamentals. Naturally, YMMV.


P.S The 20.1's would have been far down my list had they not been relatively cheap, being used models. Not familiar with the Sound Labs so your full report is eagerly anticipated... several months after you get them so you'll have time to optimize their placement. My biggest complaint with planars!
Well, I believe the 20.1s are one of the truly great speakers around. Sound Labs, like my Acoustats are full range electrostatics but are designed very differently. Whereas my speakers are made up of multiple flat panels, the SLs use a single curved diaphragm. Their approach to taming the natural resonance issue is by using multiple, differently sized sections that control the diaphragm. Since they are of a newer design, they use toroidal trannies. Likewise, I would not have considered the U-1s had a deal on a refurbished pair not surfaced. Actually, the only original part of them that will remain is their massive steel frame. At this level of speaker performance, one has to pick nits to find fault with the 20.1s. As with all Maggies, they sound their best at higher levels. The Soundlabs hold their resolution better at lower levels. Since they are a full range design, I find them be somewhat more coherent. There is no apparent difference in sonic character as you find between the ultra fast ribbons and the more massive magne-planar mid and bass drivers. Here again, I would be most happy with the 20.1s.

http://www.soundlab-speakers.com/u1.htm

rw

[musicoverall]

I'm still auditioning cables and I'll check those out. My venerable Audioquests certainly aren't slouches but I've listened to rather a lot of cables that do more things better.

I do tend to listen to music loud and you're correct - the Maggies really shine with a bit of judicious volume boost. They really do deserve some Valhallas. Who knows - perhaps I'll find a used pair someday at a price I can live with. So far, no one seems to be selling. I guess their imaginations have run away for good! ;)

[magictooth]

Nothing. I am neither a reviewer nor presently in the market for cables. If I were to conduct such a test, it would be for an extended period of time, not for two minute snippets. Neither would I introduce any additional components into the signal path not presently used in my system.

Not to dismay, though. Last month a friend brought over his Kimber Palladian power cords for a listen. Through (sighted) tests, I could detect a small difference in soundstage and articulation. He offered to leave them with me for a while. I told him I would like to do so after I get my new speakers which should be at the end of this month. I'll give you an honest appraisal then.

rw
markw had a suggestion that is easy for you to do and that would not introduce any additional components. He had a friend come over everyday and this friend changed the power cords or left them the same. He then tried to see if any difference could be heard. Why don't you try the same? I think that this method overcomes all of your objections listed above. There are no extra components, and you can listen to that part of your system for as long as you like. If one day is too short a time frame you can ask your friend to swap out cords every week instead. It simply remains for you to follow through with the blind test.

I hate to be so blunt, but an honest SIGHTED appraisal is completely meaningless. All the honesty in the world will not help if it based on a foundation of misinformation and lies. I hope that you will follow through with a blind test of the above power cord.

[jneutron]

WOW!
So you are basicly saying that it is not just the frequency response of a system, but the phase response, and the frequency response with respect to the phase response that causes these affects in sound quality that are not allways clearly descirbed. I would still think that (and I am sure you and others would agree), amplifier and speaker qualities have the biggest effect on this and upgrading or changing speakers, or an amplifier is the best way to improve sound quality.

I personally, do not worry about the soundstage my system presents..I worry about simple distortion, frequency response, how loud I can play it, how durable it is, and how light and small I can make the cabinets without being hugely detrimental to sound.

So for me, SOTA in measurement and design is entirely sufficient..and what you say is entirely correct for my use.

If I spent my listening time looking for the virtual imaging of the system, I would consider all amp design as crap, all speaker wire design as crap, all test equipment as crap, and certainly, all the speakers I've made...

SOTA in audio test does not address the problems of lateralization, and as far as I know, all the amp design guys are just tossing "crap" against the wall, and hoping something sticks..they are randomly tweaking...tweaking...tweaking...identifiable by the term "I listen with my ears"...they believe they are understanding the problem, but they don't.

I detailed a bit more at AH, so I won't repeat here...but what is needed is for the designers to actually learn what it is we hear in stereo. The engineers and designers aren't stupid, they just don't understand the problem. Once they learn it, they will fix it..

This situation reminds me of the episode of MASH, where everyone is looking for the chopper on the horizon, and it arrives behind them...

Oh, BTW...the light model I described?...Think of it this way: on the other side, instead of one white bulb, use two spots...a green one, and a red one..when they are side by side, the spot is yellow. But if you move the green sideways, the image we see stops being yellow, and developes a distinct red side and a distinct green side, with yellow in the middle..we visually interpret the image as blurring, or de-focussing, but easily visible is the differing color fringes. Now convert this visual to an acoustic one...color denoting frequency..you can see that the virtual origion of the source has become, to use some buzz words, de-focussed, blurred, less musical detail. And all it takes to do this acoustically, is tens of microseconds of interchannel sloppiness.

WE DON'T LOOK FOR THAT TIMEFRAME...WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTS, because we concentrate on 20Khz fidelity, on a per channel basis.....

My goodness, if we were that shoddy at my place of work, there'd be no superconducting accelerator machines...I'm just happy to be here, to see the level of accuracy they use here....I am learning so much..

Cheers, John

[Bill K Davis]

Children have more brain cells , and are extremely sensual. As we get older our sensitivity lessens till were dead, and completely insensitive. This is why you might want some magic dust. Does acid jazz mean there are adults running around on acid?

[mwheelerk]

Please explain to me the physics behind hi-end cables/interconnects. All it has to do is transmit a 20 to 20kHz signal a few feet. CAT5 cables have to transmit signals on the order of Megahertz hundreds of feet and CAT5 cable onlt costs .08
per foot. Explain to me how one can improve the sound quality by upgrading cables/interconnects when the signal is not distorted or attenuated an audible amount (0.4 dB at 20kHz for 12 AWG zip cord) when using cheap 12 AWG zip cord or radioshack interconnects.

High end audio cables/interconnects are a GIMMICK.

There is NO science behind hi-end cables/interconnects or PROOF that there is an audible difference.

People just "think" they can hear a difference.

Hi-end cables are a placebo.

It doesn't take a special cable/interconnect to transmit audio signals.

I buy good cables, not excessively expensive, anywhere from $100 to $150 per 1.0 meter set. First I buy them for the quality of construction. My experience in selling some fairly expensive electronic products is that cheap cables (poor connections) can sink the ship.

I would be careful in describing "better sound" as a result of "better cables". Cables add nothing to the sound or the quality of sound. What they do is take away from the sound and the idea of better quality cables is to do less damage, not to add something better but to take less away from the signal, allow less interference from EMI and RF etc.

I can hear a difference between some cables, not all cables and not all to the same degree. Some differences are subtle, some are not, some don't exist. I thiink the benefits of a good cable are more noticeable in video output than audio.

Do I have any scientific facts to back up the claim of hearing differences? No I don't. I just have years of experience in practical applications both in hobby interest in audio and visual systems for home electronics and in business where I can see the practical benefits of well constructed cables systems not improving things, but DOING LESS DAMAGE, TAKING LESS AWAY.