• 01-01-2005, 04:58 PM
    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.
  • 01-02-2005, 04:43 AM
    markw
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicoverall
    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.
  • 01-02-2005, 09:34 AM
    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.
  • 01-02-2005, 03:49 PM
    woodman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kexodusc
    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.
  • 01-03-2005, 05:28 AM
    musicoverall
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by woodman
    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.
  • 01-03-2005, 06:47 AM
    markw
    Well, back in '78 or so...
    ... 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?
  • 01-03-2005, 07:13 AM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markw
    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/recordi...ges3/92351.jpg

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

    rw
  • 01-03-2005, 07:37 AM
    markw
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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. ;)
  • 01-03-2005, 09:13 AM
    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.
  • 01-03-2005, 09:47 AM
    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.
  • 01-03-2005, 12:46 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
    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
  • 01-03-2005, 01:01 PM
    musicoverall
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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 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.
  • 01-03-2005, 01:02 PM
    markw
    Are we all on the same page here?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.
  • 01-03-2005, 01:10 PM
    markw
    Oh , the tech is there. Believe it.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicoverall
    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. ;)

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicoverall
    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.
  • 01-03-2005, 02:01 PM
    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.
  • 01-03-2005, 02:27 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markw
    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
  • 01-03-2005, 02:46 PM
    markw
    "original recording" in this case...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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. ;)
  • 01-03-2005, 03:59 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markw
    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?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markw
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markw
    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
  • 01-03-2005, 04:02 PM
    woodman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    Wow ... what startling revelations these are! Truly profound ....... NOT!
  • 01-03-2005, 05:23 PM
    woodman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicoverall
    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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).

    Quote:

    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
  • 01-03-2005, 05:33 PM
    musicoverall
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by woodman
    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.
  • 01-03-2005, 05:46 PM
    markw
    Talk about a classic non-sequiter
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.
  • 01-03-2005, 06:18 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markw
    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
  • 01-03-2005, 07:29 PM
    markw
    no problemo.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    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.
  • 01-04-2005, 06:34 PM
    risabet
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.


    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.