The "Cable Cooker" is the best I have used and it does, speaker, interconnects and power cords with superb and noticeable results. Generally, more open, dynamic, detailed and faster. Highly recomnmended! |
Today was the day, I was finally going to get this cable thing figured out. After been told by an accomplished recording engineer here at AudiogoN that cable makes no difference either scientifically or in any measurable way, I thought I'd look into what his pears thought. To do this I went through some of the recordings I personally find to be well recorded with above average sonic achievements. I found some extremely enlightening results. First I looked at what the Engineers at Chesky, both Bob Katz and Billy Pilgrim have been using in there recording procedures. I have come to the conclusion that Chesky is actually a puppet corporation of George Cardas's. I was amazed to find that Cardas cables and interconnects are used on all the Chesky recordings I own, oddly no reference to Radio Shack or standard 12Ga spool wire. Knowing this was a fluke and a subsidiary of a larger company I simply moved on.
Next on the review list was Groove Note, surely they have no affiliations. Well I was surprised to find that Michael C. Ross, recording engineer for Groove Note was using Audio Quest cabling. This seems easy to under stand in that we all know Audio Quest gives all the recording studios cabling for free, that explained to me why so many mid-fi studios I looked at also were using Audio Quest. It was at this exact moment that I realized Audio Quest is the "king pin" in the hi-fi conspiracy. Audio Quest, Audio Tekna, Audio Magic, Audio Prism, Audio .... All these companies are mere fronts for the great audio empire run by some as yet undetermined organization with the sole purpose of brainwashing naive audiophiles. At this time I was sure the C.I.A. and organized crime had moved on from the Kennedy assassination to audio, I knew this to be true until I found Keith O. Johnson from Reference Recordings was using M.I.T. cabling, this seemed odd to me, how could a company as respected as RR remain on the outside of the great conspiracy?
Still with no answers I went to the Mapleshade label. This was a no brainier, Mapleshade was surely using Mapleshade cabling. After all they make and sell cables so they wouldn't use another brand, right? Wrong! Pierre Sprey the engineer for Mapleshade used Audio quest and Maple shade. Man, another front corp. I then read the information in the Mapleshade (Wildchild) disk of a fantastic Rasta band *Midnight* "Ras Mek Peace" and a description of the never ending process Pierre went through trying to get the best possible sound. Twice he talks about trying different cables and interconnects, and further discussed using a "weird new silver double-tube wires" on the tape machine that added half octave of base responce. I further learned that they were also using Omega Mikro interconnects in the system. How odd it seems that the one known cable maker is using three or four different brands.
These people, in my opinion are the leaders of the industry and they have all found cabling important enough to list in there bio, and yet "the great engineer" of AudiogoN sees no benefit.
In Architecture the majority of the Architects I know I would not seek out for advice. I know in other businesses that meritocracy is the norm, greatness takes creativity and risk taking. There are bad Doctors, bad Lawyers, bad store clerks, you name it. I hate to say it 70242.241, but I believe you may be just another very average engineer and maybe are not in any position to lecture to us about the state of the art of audio. So for now good-by, J.D. |
JD, you been busy. Most excellant post, my friend. I must say that you're getting much better at your stand up since your last attempt! Very enjoyable! |
Thanks Angela, I have a bit more now to add. I just spent about a half hour looking through the M.I.T., Cal Poly and Stanford research programs. I recommend any of you who have a true interest in the science of the art to please spend some time at the very well written M.I.T. site. If a certain area of research is of interest to you, I know from personal experience that a quick note to the proper professor will give you direct information.
In my short research I've been able to find out that there are some scientists (I'd call M.I.T. fairly informed) who are taking some of the issues of dielectrics, wave technology along with measurements of such quite seriously. I think the people who have knowledge and interest of engineering may find this a great read.
The following are some direct pastes of web pages followed by the address to further reading:
"The proposed program is to develop and apply dielectrometry technology to non-destructive testing of materials and systems. Interdigital frequency-wavelength dielectrometry can be used to measure stratified distributions of dielectric permittivity and conductivity of insulating materials. The complex dielectric permittivity is directly related to other material properties, such as moisture content, temperature, concentration of impurities and additives, density, aging status, etc. The analysis of spatial and temporal variations of these properties lends valuable insights into physical phenomena that take place in materials, electric power apparatus, and civil infrastructures; provides instrumentation for system monitoring and diagnostics; and can be used for optimization of design and performance characteristics." http://web.mit.edu/lees-lab/www/full/frames/index1024.html
"The proposed research is for the continued analytical, computational, and experimental study using optical tomography measurements of high voltage insulation, conduction, prebreakdown and breakdown characteristics in dielectrics. The methodology uses electric field induced birefringence (Kerr effect) with an improved sensitive optical measurement system and a new advanced mathematical formulation that allows calculation of electric field magnitude and direction in any electrode geometry from optical intensity measurements. Because the physics of high voltage charge injection and transport, prebreakdown and electrical breakdown are not known for most metal/dielectric systems, the electric field distribution cannot be calculated from knowledge of system geometries alone. Optical measurements provide a direct approach to determining electrical constitutive laws and learning the physics of the electrical breakdown process and so offers a research methodology for major advances in increasing the breakdown strength of dielectric systems."
http://web.mit.edu/lees-lab/www/full/frames/index1024.html
for general knowledge:
http://www.mit.edu
Finally I went to the Kimber Kable web site and looked at there library. The following is the opening paragraph of there library listing.
Over one thousand volumes exist in the private library at Kimber Kable. A comprehensive library resource is critical in developing and manufacturing the finest products. Cable manufacture requires significant expertise in many disciplines; plastics, metals, plating, extruding, machining, soldering and magnetics, to name a few. In addition the cable must be tested and evaluated which requires knowledgeable expertise in acoustics, electronics and test instrumentation. The final link is the correlation between tested results and subjective impressions, access to previous research in this area is very important. Products that are developed with a great library resource are much more likely
to be technically advanced, more cost effective and consistently manufactured.
What I found here was just how little the "experts" here at AudiogoN understand. Listen to there statements, then look here to see all they chose to ignore. It's amazing, and I'd like to say most of use are one hell of a lot closer to understanding audio than the quite vocal few who have been asked to change there approach. Enough said, I hope some of us take the time to learn from this knowledge available and continue to update each other. Maybe a "research" section of the site would be helpful. Have fun reading! J.D. |
Jadem6, Just to throw a little more oil on the fire, you state "To do this I went through some of the recordings I personally find to be well recorded with above average sonic achievements." I believe a more accurate statement would read "To do this I went through some of the recordings I personally find to sound good on my system."
I think this is THE huge variable in how systems are evaluated. We tend to use the same recordings to evaluate various components. For instance, I may have a recording that has been deemed to have excellent bass. Perhaps it is a little bass heavy, but on some systems this is just the ticket to sonic excellence. Using this recording, I would judge more neutral systems to be bass deficient.
For this and other reasons, I advocate spending most of your budget on components, and saving the big "cable question" to the end when you are putting on the finishing touches and have a system of sufficient resolution to make these megabuck decisions.
Happy listening |
Sound jugement Bruce, in my opinion. |
Bruce,
Just so! That's exactly how I've approached it. Am currently looking for a sufficiently resolving IC for CD to pre/pro, having found good ICs between amps and pre. Of course, I should get help because 702 has told me the rules of physics and Ohm's law no longer apply. (Hadn't you heard, 702, that Ohm's law had been repealed after an aroused citizenry was mobilized?) Yep, we're all in wonderland now so you'll have to guide us. Bring on those charts and graphs. |
Great points Bruce. First I'm in 100% agreement that cables are a tweak, not a base component. Once the system is created, then is the time to try cables and I.C. to bring out the last potential from the equipment. Assuming that was completed, I'm wondering if you take bass for instance. A recording that sounds tight and full on your system may be the sum correlation to the cables used during the recording process and the cables used on your system. I am wondering if a cable with a strength in bass such as the one used on the tape machine by Mapleshade, combined with a cable in your own system that also accentuated the bass. Would the net result become too much base? Then taking that same recording to a system that didn't accentuate the bass might make the overall result extremely pleasing. Food for thought, and maybe an explanation of why some pieces touted as great reference recordings can be lifeless to some. |
Bruce: Nice post. I will soon be in a position where the final addition or tweak to my system will be the speaker cables. I am satisfied with my (very) reasonably priced IC's and will just have to find a pair of speaker cables that sinc with the rest of the system as well as outperform my budget Kimber Kable. I also just finished emails with another member "off" forum in which we discussed the importence of our systems sounding good to very good on a variety of source material. This is something that often gets left to the way side and is one reason that I have had to reject some of the hyper detailed cables for use in my system. If Mitch Ryder does not sound half way decent, then the piece of equipment is not for me. |
Jerie: What's your obsession with other people's gear? Is it evaluating performance by nameplate?
Jadem6: Please tell me what testing you find superior to DBT. If you can't tell me, perhaps you don't have a point to make?
Albertporter: And in what way am I not dedicated to music? Man, last week, Easter week, was my busiest time of the year musically.
I find solace in performance. And knowing and learning how to improve performance, the better to reproduce musical recordings. Knowing and learning involves understanding the technology, which involves the messy involvement with numbers and measurement and testing and experimenting. What's wrong with that?
If you've listened to recordings, attended concerts, gone to films, seen a Broadway show, or watched TV in the past 20 years there's a good chance you've heard some things I've been a part of developing.
Jadem6: I cannot question your ability to cut and paste. Certainly dielectrics have different properties. Knowing how they apply to audio cabling is key, and that's where you need to brush up, if possible. The purpose of a signal cable (IC or speaker) is to convey audio, in the form of electrical signals, from one component to another. The ideal cable will not affect the signal. Any cable will, though, because we are dealing with real properties of resistance, capacitance, and inductance. However, it's not at all difficult to make cable in such a way as to absolutely minimize the effects on the audio, although some people like high-capacitance cables that roll off the highs (because cables that don't would sound too "bright"). And it's not very expensive to do so, either. But there's not a lot of profit margin in selling cables inexpensively to the unsuspecting. |
Will someone please conduct some tests? All we need is an electron microscope (one of you must have access to one) and some copper samples.
1. Have one control sample, one sample that you apply a signal to for 30 days, and one sample that you subject to mechanical stress followed by applying a signal for 30 days.
2. Get an image of what each sample looks like before the tests.
3. Get an image of what they look like after the tests.
Did the crystal structure change in any of them? Did orientation of crystals change? Did the magnitude of angles at crystal junctions change? Did the gaps between crystals change?
I'll be the first to admit I've heard some cables that sounded bright at first, but then "broke-in". But I'd like to see if anyone can find real evidence of such phenomena. |
702, you are obviously coming from different side of the business. Our request for you to discuss your choices in equipment is to determine whether you actually listen to music.
If you are blessed to hear exclusively live performances, then that is just wonderful ( for you). The rest of us must contend with the parts and pieces that make up our systems in a never ending attempt at perfection. You continue to dismiss anyone's opinion that offers their experience as to the performance differences in cables (or whatever). The problem is that you never try to enter into our world, where we are trying to make it right with the tools we have at hand.
Perhaps at your place of employment numerical data is the only truth you need, as it allows your projects to pass or fail, becoming self fulfilling in your experiences. I have no clue as to what role you actually play in the audio community, as you are vague about that as well.
I do know that If you continue expressing your data only point of view, and never touch on the hard knock experiences of making your music system work, you will never get any converts. You are undoubtedly Intelligent and strong willed, but you obviously lack experience in the specific areas we are discussing at this site.
My comments about your lack of dedication to music refers to your insistence (particularly) of ABX testing. You never discuss the pleasure of new software, or the real life choices you have had to make to get your system right. You make it appear that you are not involved in our labor of love, but rather for the love of the scientific aspect, and the shelter it seems to provide you. I can never relate to someone who enjoys the numbers more than the experience of making long term choices that evolve the music toward greatness.
I have a true story to relate. My best friend spent much of his youth, racing cigarette boats. These are the ultra high speed variety, powered by large auto racing engines. One Sunday during a competition, he and his mechanic had spent two weeks prepping the "perfect' engine for their boat. The dyno tests proved that it had the most horsepower possible, the hull was the perfect design for the weight and drive system, and they had worked out the exact fuel mixture for the temperature and humidity. They felt absolutely assured that their work of art would sweep all the competitors aside.
The very first run, with perfect execution in every driving skill, they met with severe defeat. His mechanic charged over to the competitors boat, and returned with a report. "That guys engineering is absolute crap, he is using the wrong fuel injection, his camshaft is not the right grind for that engine, and drive train is a mismatch for the hull."
My friend just stared at him silently for a moment, and then replied, "Why don't you go explain all that to him, maybe he will give up and go home instead of sticking around here kicking our butt all day."
Often, the guy that keeps experimenting, focusing his experience, and continuing to discover and educate himself as to what works, wins the prize. Numerical data is just a guideline, it is not a substitute for long term listening, or the free exchange of ideas among those trying to solve the problems of musical reproduction. |
In an attempt to add to Albert's well made points. First, in this labour of love I have learnt that faithfulness to the music is not measured well by any of the measures used in electrical engineering. We will all agree that "no distortion of the original signal" is what we want to achieve. But what we find is that most real speakers in real rooms have levels of measured distortion that are an order of magnitude greater than the distortion of a competent amp. And yet, I find that the kind of distortion introduced by an amp does far more damage to my musical enjoyment than do the distortions of most speakers. This may lead on to the conclusion that there are some forms of distortion that are worse than others, or to be more specific, that say 1% of 2nd order harmonic distortion is more benign than 0.1% of 9th order harmonic distortion. And such a finding (albeit subjective) would be very valuable. But this conclusion can only be arrived at by a mixture of measurement and listening. Without the listening part 702, your numbers are just numbers with no meaningful reference point in reality. Without listening, how do you know what level of distortion is acceptable, and how do you know whether that level is more or less acceptable depending on what type of distortion is involved, and how do you know whether a halving of distortion is meaningful or whether it needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude, or just 10%, to be meaningful for a listener. Your numbers create the illusion of some linear relationship, and some ability to sum those numbers, that I believe does not exist for a listener trying to enjoy music in the home - and you cannot prove me wrong on this point - except perhaps by listening. Second, my experience of ABX tests is that people hear the obvious tonal balance differences only, when listening for the short periods involved with ABX testing. But the distortions that cause an audiophile to tear his or her hair out and go on wild binges on the current cable of the month, are those less obvious ones, that emerge from a deeper familiarity, and a growing unease with the music making (or destroying) qualities of a piece of equipment. I would never trust an ABX test to select a piece of equipment - the suggestion is laughable - and maybe Albert has it right, that you just don't have enough listening experience with high-end audio gear to realise how laughable it is. |
Albert and Redkiwi,
Both of you have made very sensible, intelligent posts. Mr 702, however, worships at the altar of numbers and you're not going to budge him.
Albert- your story about the racing boat reminds me of my checkered past when I was involved with fast cars. Cant' remember how many times two cars had identical bhp, torque curves, and drivers of the same physical mass. Yet when pitted against one another, there was always a winner. The hardline data types would say it should have been a dead heat every time. But it never was. Why? Obviously there was more going on there than the pure numbers would suggest.
Can we bury this already dead horse?? |
The problem now Albert and Redkiwi, Seldon and Sean on another post is that what ever this guy comes up with for equipment, assuming he does, will not be trusted by me. How after all this time can I believe he owns the equipment he'll say? His points have been make over and over, now he's come back with the same points, no new insight. His bed was made long ago, if we want to discuss his issues, let's start figuring ways to substantiate our findings, not for this guys sake, but to help study other products. First step is to stop giving this guy the value we have by simply not responding. I read through his posts last night on a number of topics, all the same crap. I will not waste my time talking to him any further and I suggest the same until he has something to offer. The ultimate insult to me was on the "Audiogon Recordings to die for" post. After so many great posts, all he was able to add was support to one disk. It was too much to ask that he add his own favorites to the thread. I hope it prides him in being the only blemish on that thread, maybe Audiogon will help by removing his worthless statement. |
A $ (or euro) 0,02 "burned" vs. raw cable, blind testing experiment.
Unanimously, "burned in" cables sounded better overall: slightly more musical (I use the word as proposed in the posts following Detlof's thread on the subject), also, thicker bass, smoother vs strident highs, better imaging.
Story: Prompted by Sean's thread & the plethora of fascinating posts (thank you, all), I convinced the local Nordost dealer & two other audiophiles to conduct a blind A-B listening test. Dealer provided the cable info below.
Test cables: Nordost Quattro fil (IC). Burn-in: dealer's german machine (clearaudio?), allegedly 1 week + normal use, 1 week. Control cables, 4fil out of the box.
Test cables used between pre & power.
System parametres:
"Burnt-in" (dealer) quattro fil IC, spm ref speaker cables.
Sources: Clearaudio ref TT/Insider. Symphonic Line Reference CDP.
Amps: Symphonic Line Kraftquelle pre, RG7 power (also "burnt-in" according to dealer). A-Physic Avanti speakers.
Music excerpts: P Floyd "The Wall" ("...we don't need no educAItion..."), LP / Mahler 5th, Barbirolli (intro, ofcourse: those winds...), CD / Meet Me in London, Naim CD ("Caruso" with a female voice.)/Chesky's "Golden Ears" (Vivaldi's flute concerto, intro to 1st flute solo)
The 3-strong "panel" had 10 points assessment sheets, too, prepared by one who is a contributor to a local audio mag. (We tried to do this, seriously...)
What else? I had a great time playing audio reviewer, listened to the excerpts religiously and repeatedly for 4 hrs. It'll take some time before I listen to this stuff again (desintoxication).
Ofcourse, this was an informal experience that I thought of sharing with y'all as a small token to the posts above.
Cheers, Greg |
My sincere thanks to Redkiwi and the others here that are as obsessed with the music as I am. I was afraid I would open this thread tonight and see a big bloody battle again. It is SO nice to see familiar names and sensible data posted on this subject. |
I have to agree with Albert. Aside from a few posts that aimed for the jugular, i think that we were able to confirm at least ONE thing and do it reasonably civil. Most of the "regulars" agree and those that didn't agree still don't.
As an electronics tech, i can somewhat understand where some of these folks are coming from. It is hard for those that are "technically minded" and "electronically educated" to basically "renounce" or "dismiss" all of their education and background. As such, they will probably continue to believe as they do until they are shown differently or experience "changes" for themselves. I know that i used to think that a lot of this stuff was all "hogwash". First hand experience is HARD to deny, especially if the differences are quite obvious.
The funny thing that i find about all of these "wire debates" is that the "average person" simply listens and makes observations for themselves. While they are "uneducated" as to brands, specs, etc... or what to expect from specific models or designs, they can typically identify differences quite readily in MOST comparisons. On the other hand, those that are "electronically educated" seem to denounce any differences. Is it due to "preconcieved notions" ??? You can't say that this is the case with the "average person" as they have NO background or ideas as to what to expect from brand x or brand y. They simply have to go by their own judgement and what they experience first hand.
While i know that the "purists" will say that sighted tests mean NOTHING, i do not share that opinion for the above reasons. As such, i think that most people want to use what works or "sounds" best in their system, regardless of brand or design. If we are "normal" citizens, finding the best performer at the lowest price is something that we would all strive for. If that truly were the case, we would all own Pioneer, Technics, Fisher, etc... if it DID perform the same or better than many of the other brands that we do use. Seeking something "better" is what led us away from most of those pieces into the the components and cables that we use today. As such, we have "learned" much along the way in terms of hands & "ears on" experience. Like those that are "electronically educated", we are not about to throw away OUR "education" in these matters without being shown something different first-hand. We are simply the other side of the same coin.
On that "note", i'd like to say thanks to all for voicing an opinion and i hope that you enjoy your music and systems. Whatever they may be.... Sean
> |
Hi Sean. I am going to make one "picky point", that is meant to add to your post rather than negate it. And that is that I disagree that the techs have to "renounce" or "dismiss" anything except their assumptions. For a true scientist, all you have to do is accept that there might be more than you currently understand, or that maybe you haven't applied your existing knowledge to what is really going on.
I have two daughters aged 7 and 9, and keep reminding them of a "SECRET". That secret is that the biggest fool in the world is the person that believes he/she knows everything. Beliefs are very useful things to have, but just like the shoes they grow out of so regularly, that they need to always be ready to grow out of their beliefs too. |
Hear-hear, Redkiwi: Short and unrhubarbily to the point. Cheers, |
|
Red, the VAST majority of Engineers and Techs that i know are FAR from being "scientists". They only know what their books and teachers taught them and that's where most of their "education" stopped. That is why many of the products that we have today are the way that they are: VERY limited and not real flexible. They look good on paper but are not practical or realistic in real world situations.
Part of this is because "adaptability", "practicality" and the "hands on approach" are not taught in schools anymore. They simply give you the basics and shove you out into the working world. Hell, most of the time if you can pay your tuition and show up, you will graduate. Who cares if you really know enough to do the job !!!
As such, it is up to the "techs" and "engineers" to do TWO things. Apply what knowledge they have AND learn more as they go along. Since many engineers simply do a design and do not get to put the actual end product through its' paces in actual field use, they don't have the "hands on" that many "commoners" have to deal with on a daily basis. Since they get very limited feedback on the design from the end user ( if ANY at all ), they assume that their "creation" is near perfect. As such, they learn to live by their "textbook" education and the limited feedback that trickles back to them from management. Anything else that does not conform to their limited point of view and desktop experiences is strictly considered to be "heresy", "snake oil" or "impossible". They've closed their minds, eyes and hearts to the opportunities and knowledge that confronts them on a daily basis.
To those engineers and techs that are NOT like this, KUDOS to you for breaking the mold. To those that this offends, maybe it's because it hits too close to home. Sean
> |
702 sez, among other tings: "If you've listened to recordings, attended concerts, gone to films, seen a Broadway show, or watched TV in the past 20 years there's a good chance you've heard some things I've been a part of developing." so *that* explains why there's etched highs, unnaturally forward midrange, over-boosted mid-bass, compressed dynamics, flat soundstage in so much commercial audio... ;~) sorry, couldn't resist; doug s. |
I have a question for the type of engineer to whom Sean is giving Kudos.... When you have designed an amplifier that has very low harmonic and intermodulation distortion, no transient imtermodulation distortion, low noise, stable under all loads, flat frequency response, low phase shift, in other words when all the specs are great; what kinds of things do you think about changing when you decide that it doesn't sound very good? |
THANK YOU Steve for posting this question. While i don't have time to respond right now, BELIEVE me, i WILL when i get back from work tonight. Sean
> |
Anyone know where to buy a DuoTech?
I seem to remember hearing that they don't make them anymore, but maybe someone out there knows... |
Afrk: Sorry I have no answer for you regarding DouTech. Music Direct has Mobie in stock, but insists on list price. I was able to order the Mobie from AudioNut @15% discount, but it's backordered. No big savings, but M.D. acted so snobbish on the phone that I couldn't stomach the attitude & went to AudioNut instead. G&D transforms will sell directly to the consumer, FYI. |
Audiofrk, I have a Duo-Tech and a Mobie. While the Duo-Tech is more versatile in terms of what you can hook up to it and "burn in", I prefer the Mobie.
As to Steve's question, what else would a "good" engineer do when something doesn't "feel right" even though it is functionally perfect ? They "tweak" and "re-engineer" !!!
By this, i mean altering components by make, model or specifications, re-arrange component & wire layout, try various voltage and bias levels, etc... Call it "circuit evolution", "upgrading", "modifying", etc... but it takes place EVERY day. They do this until they feel comfortable with the results and then send out the unit for production.
Those that DON'T take the time to refine and perfect their products are simply the "whores" of the industry and out to make a quick buck. This is why we have "off the shelf" companies like Pioneer, Kenwood, Technics, etc... and "refiners" like many of the "esoteric" or "specialty" brands. This is not to say that crooks and shysters don't abound in either circle, some more than others.
For reference purposes, let's go back to a piece of "audio history". We'll use the Perreaux PMF series of amps. The PMF-2150 was the first production stereo amp to use Mosfets for output devices. By doing further refinement using the same basic output circuitry but "finessing" the overall design, Peter Perreaux was able to DRASTICALLY alter EVERY aspect of the amp. He played games with the power supply, voltage & bias levels and lay-out of the parts. His "re-design" of the same basic circuit ( same type and number of output devices per channel as the original 2150 ) was called the PMF-3150.
As such, the 3150 performs NOTHING like the 2150. ANYONE that has listened to these two amps within the same system will testify to this fact. ANYONE that looks inside the amps will easily be able to see their similarities due to the majority of parts that were retained. At the same time, they would also notice the differences due to those same parts being configured quite differently within the chassis. Besides ALL of that and what is most important to YOU, the units also MEASURE very differently. Same chassis, majority of the same components, very similar designs in terms of schematics but quite different performance overall.
This brings us to another point. Since most "basic" audio designs have already been done, all that is left for most companies to do is to "tweak" or put THEIR "signature" onto an existing topology, circuit or design. As you are well aware, there are only a "few" folks that are truly "stretching" the audio design "cookbook". With that in mind, most of these "new models" are simply refinements and improvements to "tried & true" models. As such, some of these "new models" do sound MUCH better than the originals even though they might MEASURE poorer or make use of parts that share the same exact "parts values". As such, we've come a LONG way even though much of it "appears" to be the same. Sean
> |
Sean - If I were a designer with a design that was as technically perfect as the state of the art would allow and yet some audiophiles complained that it "wasn't right" or wasn't musical or wasn't lifelike here's what I would think about trying.
First, I would consider injecting noise into the output. Now, no one likes noise during the quite passages so I would make it a smart noise injector that varied its output with with volumn and perhaps energy in the high frequencies. The noise spectrum would probably not have lower frequencies - one would have to experiment. The circuit would recognize testing conditions and not operate. I suspect that noise gives music an airy lifelike quality that many like.
Next, I would lower the damping factor. As the damping factor lowers the amplifier begins to get involved in the music. Lower damping factor may or may not have a pleasant effect, so, a damping factor control knob could be an attractive feature. From a marketing standpoint I would give it a name something like "Voicing".
I would also experiment with increased harmonic distortion. I don't know if it is possible to increase lower harmonic distortion without increasing itermodulation distortion. IM creates unnatural frequencies and is always unpleasant. Harmonic distortion on the other hand is what music is all about. All musical instruments owe their sonic character to harmonic distortion of the fundamental. Just the right kind of harmonic distortion could, I suppose, make an amplifier seem more musical. |
Stevenmj: I believe that most of what you mention has already been used in past and present designs (both tube and SS). You may want to go through the Tweaker's Asylum at AA and see what you can find on these concepts. I suspect that the "air" that you mention is really a type of re-verb that is most noticeable in quite a few tube designs which incorporate low to zero feedback and which may also stem from the types of tubes used in the designs (many small signal tubes types are somewhat microphonic, even those that test well, and may add to this sense of air/reverb). There are also quite a few tube designs in which you can "dial in" the feedback, though I am not aware of any SS designs with this feature off hand. Once again I am not a technical person, just your average theorist. |
Stevenj, I cannot tell if your post is in jest, or you are sincere. If you are suggesting that lowering and raising the damping factor with a switch is a joke, I can assure you that it is not.
Controlling an amplifiers damping factor is not novel. The Wolcott Presence amplifiers have had this feature for two years. The user has easy access to a toggle switch for both high and low position, and a rotary knob that adjusts within each range. Adjustment of these controls provides performance changes that are not only easy to hear, but at the discretion of the listener.
The man who invented this product is an engineer who values specifications, but is also aware that the reproduction of music is an art as well. If it is of any interest to you, the switch changes the positive control feedback voltage internally, without affecting the load to the output transformer. |
albert, i have a suspicion that stevemj's post *was*, in fact, in jest. ironic, that, as you show, it's actually what smart designers *do*. seems to me they know something *isn't* "technically perfect", as stevemj purports, if it in fact cannot accurately portray *the real event* of live music. regards, doug s. |
doug - I wasn't jesting. I was just musing. I'm not up to date on amplifier designs. So, it is interesting to hear that some of what I mentioned has been tried. There was an amplifier some time ago called "Ampzilla". It sounded different. The trick that amp's designer had used was to set the damping factor to one. Typically, this will increase the low end. With the advent of cheap powerful processors there maybe a lot of interesting possibilities. The processor looking at the music and dynamically fiddling with the an amplifiers characteristics. I'm gonna think about this a little. |
Steve, funny you should bring up Jim Bongeorno's GAS Ampzilla. The reason that amp developed such a cult following in 1976/77, was because of just that reason (not because of the apes in the ads). It was highly listenable and had some very judicious tradeoffs that juggled between transient detail and a rounded loose and whompy bottom. Sounds like that Damping factor of 1 to me. Trying very hard for the tube sound again. Terrible amp for running electrostats even though it did handle low impedance loads very well. Why was that the case? dont know.
One thing I can say though, is that the ingrediants for good amp sound have remained the same for years.
1) Little use of negative feedback
2) Stiff Power Supply that can supply the current required to make the amp a TRUE voltage source regardless of load. The importance of the Supply can't be stressed enough. Its a fact that no amp can is gonna be better than the stuff travelling down the supply rails. I am not an EE, just what I have observed over time that has proved consistently true.......Frank |
frap - I enjoyed hearing your take on the Ampzilla. I'm not a EE either but I have had the luxury of working with several. Here are a few things I've learned that relate to power supplies, voltage sources and damping factors. You may already be familiar with this.
It is a high damping factor that makes an amp a true voltage source. Damping factor is the measurement of change in output voltage as load impedance varies. In the case of the Ampzilla as the speaker impedance climbed from say 8 ohms to possibly 30 ohms at resonance (closed box), the output voltage of the amp increased. You got to have more bass without feeling guilty about using the tone controls :-) Naturally there is a price to be paid, two actually. One, the speaker impedance doesn't always change in a favorable way. This is probably why the electrostats sounded bad. The amp is changing the frequency response based upon speaker impedance. No one will argue that even tiny changes in frequency response are not easily detected. Second, when a dynamic driver overshoots or rings (as they all do) they generate a correction signal that acts like a shock absorber to dampen the overshoot. If an amp has a low damping factor much of this signal is lost. This may be the whoopyness you refer to. If you want to fool around and see what your amp would sound like with a lower damping factor, hook you speakers up with 24 or 27 gauge wire. Even that may not get the DF as low as the Ampzilla.
As I understand it, in SS amps stiff power supplies are a benefit to the designer but not to the listener. Suppose you want to get all the power you can from your output transistors. In that case you design a rock solid (expensive) power supply that parks the power supply voltage near the maximum voltage the output transistors can handle. As transistors got better it became possible to have a higher voltage spongy (less expensive) power supply. It would sag and deliver the rated power of the amp and under music conditions operate at higer voltages and deliver greater power to the speakers than a stiff supply of the same RMS rating. I'm not sure but it may be that this technique doesn't work so well with tubes. I think the tubes are biased to operate at a particular voltage and to have the power supply bouncing around one or two hundred volts could screw up the amps performance. |
Stiffly regulated supplies in SS power amps typically DO NOT do well with low impedance loads, large changes in dynamics, severe impedance swings, peak power output, etc... UNLESS the amp is built like TWO tanks with a MASSIVE power supply reserve. The supply and regulators would have to be MUCH larger than an unregulated supply to achieve similar results under dynamic conditions. As such, it would cost about as much as a tank to build something like that.
Given that most people do not have the budget for such things, most "common" SS amps will perform best in an unregulated design with the "killer regulation" or "stiff" supply reserved for "price no object" and "esoteric" designs. As to which design sounds better ( tight regulation, moderate regulation or no regulation ), there are proponents in every camp that are quite vocal.
Tubes, on the other hand, typically don't pull much current and need higher and stable voltages to work best. As such, building regulators for a reasonable amount of current for tube use is much simpler and cost effective than building the monster circuit that would be required for a beefy SS design.
As to damping factor, that is determined by the output impedance of the amp vs the overall load impedance of the speakers. Given that fact, damping factor changes AS THE LOAD CHANGES. If you look at specs for amps, they will state the damping factor at a very SPECIFIC impedance for this very reason. As such, damping factor will ALWAYS be higher as impedance of the speaker is increased.
This is the very reason that tubes, which typically have a higher output impedance, don't do well with lower impedance loads. The damping factor is pretty low and the speaker can now "modulate" the load that the amp sees with greater ease. As such, you get less bass control with a reduction in definition.
Steve's suggestion of using tiny wire WILL alter the damping factor of the system, but not with the results that he speculates at. Putting more resistance at the output of the amplifier in effect RAISES the damping factor of the amplifier. You haven't raised the output impedance of the amp itself, you've raised the load impedance that the amp sees. Since bass requires higher current levels to reproduce than high frequencies do, the smaller gauge wire and higher series resistance will produce a much thinner, leaner and "taught" bass simply because current flow has been "choked". This is NOT due to a "reduced damping factor" as explained above, but due to lack of overall bass output.
Now compare this to an amp with a low damping factor and your results would be the opposite. Low damping factors are typically associated with an increase in round, mushy bass that rings. In effect, the tonal balance has now become warm and full, not thin and lean as would occur with the "thin wire" substitution recommended above. Sean
> |
Sean - I think you are right that the output voltage of the amp will be more regulated with the small wire. However, I believe the voltage at the speaker terminals will not. Instead of small wire just imagine that an 8 ohm speaker has an 8 ohm resistor in series with it. Now half the amplifiers output voltage will be dropped across the speaker. AS the output impedance of the speaker falls less voltage is dropped across the speaker. As the speaker impedance rises the voltage across the speaker increases. The speaker is no longer connected to a voltage source. As seen by the speaker the 8 ohm resistor trashes the damping factor of the amp.
Low impedance loads are a problem for all amps that are not designed for them. Even springing power supplies optimized for 8 ohms will deliver enough current to smoke output devices if the impedance falls low enough. The designer either has to use more output devices and drivers or provide an effective protection circuit that limits the current vs. time the output sees.
Frap - I didn't mention the connection between damping factor and feedback. Basically, the more feedback the higher the damping factor. SS amps have higher damping factors and lower distortion because more feedback can be used. It is difficult to wrap much feedback around a tube amp because of the output transformer. Output transformers are a designer's nightmare. One of the transformer's problems is the unavoidably large phase shift at low frequencies. This will turn negative feedback into positive feedback if very much is used. |
Steve, mostly all of the mid to late 70s high power SS superamps used tons of negative feedback. Whatever benefits derived from excessive amounts of it,were all negated by the God awful sonic results. The spec sheets were always the same; i.e. incredibly low static distortion figures at very high power...damping factors up in the hundreds!!! and low slew rates (remember when slew rates were the most important specs?). The tank amplifier that Sean was referring to, was, for sure, the Mark Levinson ML-2. There was simply no better made SS amp in that era. |
Steve, your example takes things to an extreme. How much "small gauge" wire would you have to run to increase the line loss to the level that you mentioned ??? I took and measured appr 20' of 21 gauge wire. This would be equivalent to a 10' run of cable to and from the speaker. Series resistance was less than 0.3 ohm. While a smaller wire would be higher in resistance and a longer run would also contribute to this, it would take a LOT of wire to produce even just a FEW ohms of resistive loss.
Even with that in mind, i'm NOT discounting your theory that various speaker cables DO alter the load that the amp sees. As such, the amp CAN respond differently to specific impedance combinations that it is presented with due to different speaker / speaker cables / cable lengths required in various installations. As such, you have only helped me to prove that wires CAN sound different and ARE completely system dependent due to the stability of the circuit driving it.
THANKS for the help in clarifying this situation, as i never knew you had it in ya..... : ) Sean
> |
Sean - I used the 8 ohms just to make the example easier to think about. I'm not sure but a damping factor of one may be similar to the results with an 8 ohm resistor. You won't get any naysaying from me about phenomena that can alter the frequency response. |
How is it then that i remember you as being one of the "wire is wire" crowd ? Am i mistaken ? Sean
> |
Sean - I believe our ears are very sensitive to changes in frequency response. If something can be shown to effect frequency response it is a valid subject, as, of course, are many others. What I don't believe that many audiogoners do, is that there is something intrinsic in the molecular structure of the metal itself that alters the sound. It's that "silver has a laid back sound" kind of talk that drives me nuts. (People seem to not undertand that it is an electrical and not a sound signal traveling the wire). Since cable manufactures have no explanations for why one cable sounds better than another, they promote psuedo scientific explanations. I have an email from a manufacturer with just this kind of nonsense in it.
While I am ranting, let me tell you a an experience I am having with my new B&W Nautilus speakers. I hooked them up and got ready for something wonderful to happen. They sounded so bad to me I thought, hmmmm I must have gotten them out of phase. Wouldn't be the first time. I checked. Nope not out of phase. So I listened for a while and well the accuracy seemed very good. I listen for a few days and they sounded better but I'm still troubled. So I check the phase with a battery. Yep, they are in phase, at least the woofers. It's a couple of weeks now and they seem to have some bass now, it seemed totally absent at first. They are used speakers so "burn in" isn't involved.
Have I discovered a new phenomenon?... Speakers have to get used to their new suroundings before they begin to sound OK.... Or is it perhaps that the complicated, imperfect blob of protoplasm that I am is changing and the speakers are performing exactly the same as they did when first connected. |
This post is in two parts, first part to express my opinion that yes cable "burning" does have an effect as I have experienced at my local dealer a direct comparison of a virgin cable and one that had been given some +100 hours of "burning". I noticed more spatial detail amongst others. The second part going partially off topic and I hope not being too confrontational I wish to direct a question at the above post from stevemj. My question to this stevemj being what are your thoughts regarding electrical and sound signals in so much as they are both forms of energy and are therefore subject to external disturbance and/or alteration of energy fields, particle path motion patterns, etc.? We could even go on to ask questions concerning the interaction and alteration of energy fields that may be present in our own molecular makeup and could this form part of the listening experience which even you have aluded to in your post? What say you? If you would care to email me I may be able to direct you to further written matter that could help redress the imbalance caused by your relentless quest for facts and figures to boost your apparent belief that we mere mortals do not measure up to your contradtitory ramblings and that the feelings and emotions we experience whilst attempting to enjoy and appreciate our hobby are misjudged, misguided, akin to the alchemists search for fools gold, whatever. Jo. |
Albertporter: I can't control what you infer from what I write. If you want to infer that I love numbers more than music, go ahead, it can be your own little alternative to reality.
My insistence on ABX testing is to determine what, if anything, sounds different between two devices, systems, etc., in strict terms of what can be heard, and not influenced by marketing hype, pretty appearances, pricing, ego, etc. With essentially side-by-side comparison, it can resolve even fine distinctions more reliably than can sequential absolute evaluations of the type you advocate, which is prone to false detection of non-existant differences through bias, suggestion, or even fakery. Note also that ABX testing, as I had described earlier but it apparently didn't sink in, has nothing to do with numbers, measurements, or specs. Also contrary to Redkiwi's misunderstanding, ABX testing is not limited to short listening periods, but is at the listener's own discretion. Laugh if you like, but you're the one buying $$$$ cables and can't prove they improve anything.
Sedond: If that's what you want to believe I've contributed to audio, go ahead and believe it. Again, reality does not follow what you or I or anyone imagines, however desperately synthesized.
Sean: Resistance in series with an amplifier output does NOT raise the damping factor; it lowers it. The resistance of the speaker wire is parasitic and can be considered part of the output impedance. In particular, it will decrease the amplifier's ability to absorb the back EMF from the woofer. It will also cause a voltage-divider phenomenon, in which frequency-dependent variations in the speaker impedance cause its frequency response to become more irregular. |
702.... I must have missed the posts letting us know what cables you have tried with what equipment. If you could post that again, that would be great. I haven't been able to find that post. Thanks. |
Here again 702, I must follow in the footsteps of no money and second his request. Apart from that, even if that will get me minus points, I am glad that your back. I would wish though, that you would be more open about your listening habits, your preferences and the gear you like and listen to. Regards, |
I'm going to burn a set of my cables tonight and after the smoke clears I will do some blind testing with my dog. He is too stupid to recoginize which of my cables are expensive burned-in cables and which are the Walmart Brand. I have a CD with just cat noises that drives him crazy which I can play. I'll monitor his response to the cat CD with the expensive designer cables and then try it again with the Walmart Brand and get back with you guys on the results. |
Kevperro, please do get back with us and post which cables are the "cats meow." I also suggest that once your have played all the cat sounds that you can stand, try "Furry Sings The Blues," by Joni Mitchell. |
While your at it, might as well listen to the rest of "HEJIRA" could be the lady's best album ever. |
Whoever gave me double negative 2s for this one, really does need a life. |
