After wading through mountains of claims, technical jargon etc. I'm hoping to hear from some folks who have had experience with good, neutral, reasonably priced cables. I have to recable my entire system after switching from Naim and want to get it right without going nuts! Here is what I'm looking for and the gear that I have:
Looking for something reasonably priced-i.e. used IC's around $100-150. Used speaker cable around $300-400 for 10ft pair.
Not looking for tone controls. I don't want to try to balance colorations in my system. I'd like cables that add/substract as little from the signal as possible.
Looking for something easily obtainable on the used market i.e. that I can find the whole set up I need without waiting for months and months. I guess this would limit you to some of the more popular brands. Without trying to lead you, here are some I've been considering:
I totally agree with Jond's recommenation of the new ILLUME' interconnect by RS Audio Cables. The new design of connectors by Eichmann really impresses me. I have owned cables costing 2-3 times more than the ILLUME' but feel this cable has brought my system to a higher level than any interconnect I have owned before. The ILLUME' is a teflon coated,twisted silver wire with a very nice looking jacket. The Eichmann silver plugs (RCA's) are made of a hard plastic with the only metal being the plug that goes in the input/output and a small silver stub for return. For $150/meter the ILLUME' is a freaking steal! The Silver Eichmann plugs retail for $25/each alone. Eichmann also offers a copper plug for $10/each. Reportedly,the Eichmann plugs are very easy to install on existing interconnects. I wouldnt bother though.The ILLUME' is a great cable. The focus,clarity and bass are superb.
Dodgealum, Look into Virtual Mode cables, www.virmode.com. I've used many different types, far too many to list, and have settled with these. For what you are looking to spend on used, Brad can set you up with new. Good-luck, Rodge
To offer closure, in order to achieve the same EM shielding as a typical conductor, carbon must be 500 to 1000 times thicker than such conductors. From this factual statement, one may observe different designs and see how their claims reconcile with physical facts. For example, one may look at PAD products and notice that while they take an 'unconventional' approach to shielding, the design is consistent with their chosen material properties (i.e. it is a *significantly* thicker cable).
Again, this is not to trash or bad-mouth any particular manufacturer, but it is an honest attempt to reconcile product claims with basic physics.
"attempting to reconcile claims with physics is not bad-mouthing"
Tell that to the guys that cry every time you try to discuss "scientific facts" vs their "bold claims". Manufacturers that sell snake oil don't like facts or bright lights that expose them for what they are. After all, didn't you know that physics has no place in "high end" audio. Physics went out of date years ago : )
As far as shielding goes, the main factors are depth, coverage area and materials used. As you mentioned, one can smother a device in a given material, but that doesn't mean that material doing the smothering is actually effective as a shield. Then again, one can also use much less of another material, and if properly placed, achieve phenomenal results in terms of shielding.
These factors can be put to work for us though IF we know how to manipulate the variables properly. That is, some materials are quite effective at blocking RF but are near useless at base-band frequencies. Since we don't want our AC signals "contaminated" with RFI, and at the same time, we don't want to interfere with the normal rise and fall of the current induced magnetic field that occurs at low frequencies, it IS possible to have the best of both worlds. I'm not saying that one can do this with carbon or any other specfific material, i'm just saying that a "less efficient" shield isn't always "useless" under specific situations. Think about this as it is something that many manufacturers / DIYer's overlook. Sean >
Fair enough, Sean (though attempting to reconcile claims with physics is not bad-mouthing).
My first order understanding of shielding is akin to a Faraday cage (I have yet to see one made out of carbon). Or more precisely, shielding is a function of a material's skin depth, which - while a decaying exponential inside the material - is driven by the material's conductivity and permeability (for a given frequency). Therefore, how does an inefficent conductor act as an effective shield?
Mprime: Don't start bad-mouthing carbon or a certain manufacturer will start crying "foul" and calling you names.
It is possible that the carbon does act as a shield and at the same time, is less intrusive due to the lack of conductivity & magnetic properties. As i've mentioned for many years now, shielding is beneficial IF properly applied. Most shields are NOT properly applied. Minimizing the amount of shielding while still offering a small amount of "blocking" via the carbon might be a reasonable trade-off between a lower noise floor and a lack of dynamic amplitude related smearing. Sean >
While I can appreciate an enthuiastic review of an excellent product, the following statement is pure hokum:
"Unfortunately, the SRIIs are so revealing and transient rich that the metal shielding elevates record noise and blurs timing, etc. relative to the Empress ICs. The new carbon shielding is non-metallic/non-magnetic and serves the same purpose but with extremely superior results."
Effective EM shielding uses effective conductive materials; carbon is not an effective conductor.
I would suggest the excellent performance of these cables is due to some other physical property of the design (excellent conducting material, novel conductor geometry, etc.).
The Empress Phono Interconnects are the finest cables made. I have upgraded from the SRII cables. The Empress uses the same internal wiring; however, the shielding common to virtually all Phono ICs is a metal type shield. Unfortunately, the SRIIs are so revealing and transient rich that the metal shielding elevates record noise and blurs timing, etc. relative to the Empress ICs. The new carbon shielding is non-metallic/non-magnetic and serves the same purpose but with extremely superior results. The Empress removes all of the noise inherent in common shielding designs and provides the SRII wiring to sing music sweeter than I have ever heard. This is a revolutionary change in phono cable sound. Grover and Michael have invented the ideal phono cable (and I=ve tried dozens of brands and types over the years). Analog is king with the Empress. (Digital remains the queen of sound with the Empress unshielded ICs, it can=t outdo analog). My friends come over and salivate at the sound of my system since I upgraded to Empress cables (although they always enjoyed Grover=s ICs before). My wife agrees that her rock records have the best vocal sound she has heard recorded or live. It=s difficult not to listen for hours into the night. My advice is to purchase the line stage to amp ICs first, then the analog (if you have it), then another pair for CDs. I also purchased Empress ICs for my Alesis Masterlink CD burner-unbelievable, great CDs from all analog sources.
I feel I am providing a necessary service to all you audiophiles and music lovers out there reading this. You will feel that the biggest bargain you have made is in purchasing the Empress ICs. You will change your equipment before you will change these wires. I am an amateur musician, music lover and audiophile (without the high end gear pretensions, quality always over snob appeal).
Caveat Emptor, a truly bad recording will be just that much worse sounding with the Empress Phono ICs - you can hear the electronics used in recording and cutting records, the ICs are that revealing. I heard bad cutter head amps and noisy microphone pre-amps revealed on previously okay sounding records. Now they show how bad they really are. On the bright side, most of my 17,000 LPs sound good to great. Average sounding records which may have restricted dynamics, highs, lows, etc. are just that much more interesting with better timing, openness and transients to reveal the essence of the music. Good music is just that more interesting and musically involving.
Check the thread at: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=30116
I have no affiliation with Grover Huffman but have personal experience with his cable products. They are in my opinion unbeatable for the price and have bettered a number of better known products costing much more.
Yet another bit o' information regarding ribbon cables-
We've had some discussion of Alpha-Core and Magnan upthread. I didn't realize until recently that Audio Magic (the folks who also make the 'Stealth' power conditioners) manufacture silver ribbon cables (both speaker and interconnect).
Not cheap, but generally on par pricewise with equivalent Alpha-Core silver products.
I'll refer anyone interested to the Audio Magic website-
I just received the latest 'Cable Company' newsletter, which mentions that Audio Magic is introducing their new 'TriniumXL' ribbon interconnects- some kind of copper/silver/gold alloy ribbon.
Might be a good time to keep an eye open on closeouts of older/used products.
As always, FYI and FWIW. I haven't heard any of these in a system.
Tom: This is a very interesting subject, but it would probably be best off in it's own thread. While speaker cables are involved in the amplifier / crossover / speaker interphase, we are getting WAY off topic here. Sean >
Sean the speakers I currently use have series wired crossovers. Every signal feed this type of design would have to be sent to the drivers unlike a parallel design which I think dumps unused signal to ground.Unused signal would then be feed back to the amp and must create some type of noise or aberration, deleterious to music..Tom
Tom: What you bring up is a good point and something that most people never really think about. I have often wondered about the effects of "everything on one side of the line" type crossovers in the past. I have discussed this with my Brother at times, but we've never actually taken any type of measurements on stuff like this.
While most will argue that "it's an AC signal, so the amp sees the same load regardless of what polarity the crossover is on", that is only true of a Class A amp. That's because the Class A output stage is conducting both sides of the AC waveform. In comparison, a Class AB amp would typically have different types of output devices conducting each individual half ( positive and negative ) of the waveform being reproduced. As such, the Class B amp would see a non-linear load due to having all of the crossover components on the positive leg of the waveform whereas the negative leg has a shorter signal path with a reduced parts count / reduced reactance level to deal with. The ideal thing would be to divide the parts count evenly between both legs, providing both halves of the waveform with a reasonably common load.
Given the differences in electrical characteristics of the various devices used for each "rail" of the amps output polarity, it's no wonder that most amps, which are low level AB circuits, demonstrate different measurements ( levels of electronic stability ) and sonics into various loads. This could be part of the reason why Class A amps tend to sound "more cohesive" and less "disjointed" than Class B amps and do so more consistently with different loads. That is, a Class A output stage is always conducting and sees all of the load whereas an AB output stage sees half of the load without equal levels of the crossover network's reactance equally distrubuted between them. I would think that such an approach would help an amp to offer better stability into a wider range of loudspeakers AND reduce non-linearities in the amp when recovering from overload / momentary saturation.
There's a LOT to think about in the question that Tom brought up and the response that i just posted. I've never really seen anyone go into depth on the subject and it may help to explain a lot of things that are somewhat "unexplainable". That in itself is food for thought on a whole 'nother topic / thread.
None the less, maintaining a consistent nominal impedance for the entire circuit should theoretically ( and in my experience ) produce better results. The fact that most all of my amps operate in Class A for a longer than average period of time may also help things out. Others that have high bias AB or "pure" Class A amps are also in the same boat. Amps running in low level AB or straight Class B would probably be more susceptable to the aforementioned problems with "one polarity" crossovers coming into play. If you're wondering how this specific scenario applies to your system, if your amp idles anything below VERY "warm" to the touch with no signal applied, your amp is not a high bias unit. That would make it either a very low level AB amp or a straight B. This assumes that you're not running some type of "high efficiency" aka "switching amp", which typically idle cool as a cucumber.
With all of that in mind and as most that have read more than a few of my posts should know, i typically prefer "direct drive". That is, amplifier / speaker cable / driver with the crossover duties being taken care of upstream of the amplifier electronically. This removes the aforementioned "problem" out of the equation along with resolving all kinds of other situations. The difference between "direct drive" aka using a good quality electronic crossover and using the same amps / speakers with passive crossovers between them is pretty staggering to say the least.
Rooze: I see nothing wrong with what you want to do. Before buying anything else though, drop me an email with the specifics of what you need. I have some smaller sections of MI-1 that i may be able to help you out with. No promises though as i have to dig it up and see how much i have. I purchased some cables that were damaged and ended up trimming some short sections off during the repair. This "might" be enough for what you need to accomplish your desired goals.
Taking that a step further though, couldn't you just have Goertz build some inductors with the values that you needed with longer leads coming in and out of the inductors themselves? This would leave you with even fewer connection points and a more direct signal path. I don't know if you had considered this, but it would be the simplest and purest way to achieve your desired goals.
As far as "break-in" goes with this cable, i think it is more a matter of your ears adjusting to what you are hearing than the cables themselves "changing parameters". After all, you've only got one conductor per polarity with minimal amounts of a high grade dielectric. There's not much potential for the cabling to shift around internally, altering the impedances and / or the dielectric to change spacing or density, etc...
Out of curiosity, did you receive / install the Zobel networks? Sean >
Sean, I hope you are still watching this thread, I had a quick question, which is just barely on topic! I'm doing an internal rewire on Maggie 3.6's and also replacing caps/inductors. I'm looking round for good hookup wire to replace the cheap crappy stuff that Magnepan use. Since I'm using Goertz speaker cables (these are still breaking in, but are sounding a little better each day), I thought about using similar cable internally. I spoke with Goertz and they can custom make a single conductor version of their MI 1 cable, which is similar in design to the heavier guage MI3. It's quite pricey, at $264 for a 50' spool. Can you see any potential downside in using this kind of cable internally. I actually think it would be quite easy to work with, they sell a 'notching tool' that cuts a notch out of the end of the wire and turns it into a spade connection!...talk about minimizing soldered joints. Would appreciate your expertise to hopefully help me avoid a potentially expensive and time consuming blunder.
Sean with most speakers out there having their crossovers dangling on the positive leg of the amplifier and nothing on the negative side of the amp would you not think this imbalance is more of an issue than the cable impedance seen by the same amplifier? Tom
Psychic & Audiofankj: The reason that i didn't "jump" on the offer to check these out is that i currently have four out of five systems down and torn apart. The only one that is running is my HT system, which is XLR based. On top of that, i've got all five speakers pulled apart for crossover upgrades and am using other speakers temporarily. As such, i can substitute these cables into this system, but it wouldn't really be an apples to apples comparison between an RCA based cable and balanced cables. On top of that, the speakers that i'm using aren't exacly a good match for this system, but it at least gives me tunes and movies for now.
Yes, i can "cobble" at least one of the other RCA based systems together, but it will be nothing that i'm used to and won't be nearly as "dialed in" as i'd like. Yes, i can get a "feel" for what these cables do, but it wouldn't be a fair trial of their potential.
For sake of clarity in case you're wondering how i could have so many systems down, i damaged one of the speakers in my office system, possibly to the point of no repair.
I sold / traded my amp in my tube system a while back. No other tube amps on the premises. Want to build my own tube amp for this system, but it will have to wait until i can get some of my other projects caught up.
I have the speakers in my bedroom system pulled apart for crossover upgrades. As with the speakers in my HT system, i'm letting all of the caps "form" and then selecting them one by one i.e. the cream of the crop once they are fully settled in. This involves charging the caps up to or near rated voltage, letting them discharge naturally and then cycling them up to voltage again, several times over. From there, i can check to see which are discharging faster than others ( due to higher dielectric losses )and compare their measured values in terms of matched values. Yes, i buy TONS of extra caps for any project, which allows me to pick and choose as needed.
My main system is down due to problems with my midrange panels. I'm thinking of scrapping them, but don't know if i want to attempt rebuilding them or if i'm going to try and replace them with something else i.e. a commercial offering.
Yes, i'm doing more work on the gear than listening lately. Given that i've also got a PA system that i'm building for a local band in my free time, my own personal projects are coming about even slower than normal and i'm not exactly "fast" to begin with.
Flex: Great post. Thank you for presenting another well thought out and reasonable summary of the situation.
Psychic: I agree to a certain extent. That is, much of the technology that we have today was derived through scientific research conducted for military purposes. If it didn't come from the military, it came from deciphering alien technology : )
Twl: standardizing input and output impedances on components wouldn't be hard to do and / or drastically compromize the sound quality of any given design. This would be a HUGE step forward and get rid of many of the variables that account for the difference in sonics with interconnects that many encounter.
As far as standardizing speakers, that would be a good one. No real way to do that as far as i can see. While you could have standardized impedances, etc... i think that the designers would be more worried about meeting the certification specs in terms of input impedances and levels of reactance rather than achieving the best performance possible. As you mentioned, speakers like this might be good for those that want a "plug & play" system, but would probably not be best suited for those seeking optimum performance. Sean >
I just want it all to make me happy, as well as the few friends I have who stop by to listen with me. Lightening Rods under musical instruments make it all stand up.Tom
I agree with getting affordable good sounding cables too. I'm not rich, and like good sounding gear.
I think that alot of the sentiment spoken here is based on the desire to have the advantages of megabuck equipment at mass market prices. I'm all for it.
In other markets, there has been some "standardization" protocols used for connection technologies. Maybe that is what some of us would like to see here. Like all speaker loads could be required to exhibit the same impedance, current draw, phase shift, and other characteristics, before they could be approved for "standardization". Also, all amp output stages would have to have similar characteristics that are optimized for driving the "standardized" speaker loads. Cables could then be "standardized" to provide the proper criteria for connecting these "standardized" amps and speakers.
Unfortunately, this kind of standardization generally results in mediocrity of performance, but nice interconnectivity and price. When performance innovations are considered, they may not fit into the standardization pattern, and performance seeking audiophiles could then purchase non-standard audio equipment at their own risk(and pleasure).
This way, the mass market, and lower end audiphile market could have great interconnectivity and flexibility, with decent performance guaranteed by the "standards committee". Any piece of gear with the "seal of approval" could be counted-on to work well with other gear exhibiting the "seal of approval". Other gear "outside the box" and not exhibiting the "seal of approval" could be purchased by more seasoned audiophiles who wish to go beyond the norm, and experiment with high-performance products at their own financial risk.
With both types of products available to consumers, nobody is "boxed in" to any one form or the other. They are free to buy the "standardized gear" and be assured of a good level of performance. Or they could spend alot more and get what they want to have without any restrictions by the standardizations.
Perhaps this is what is needed.
But, without standardization, there are too many variables to make very realistic predictions exactly how any given product will perform with other products. We are expected to know that my little 2 watt SET amp will not work with a pair of Apogee Scintillas. But when it gets more subtle, it becomes more difficult. Maybe this is even some of the fun in assembling an audio system. And the variety is part of the game.
We all want a Ferrari for the price of a used Yugo, but that ain't gonna happen. If we boil all this down to the essence, it is that we want a particular cable because it sounds like we want it to, but we don't want to pay the guy that makes it what he wants to charge us. Unfortunately, that's life. If all we wanted was just some cable, we'd go down to Home Depot and buy the 14ga extension cords and cut them up and use them. But we really don't want that, do we? Not really. What we want is the ultimate megabuck cable for $12.95. It's just not realistic. In all markets, the better stuff costs more, and the really hot stuff costs alot. If you really want it, you'll have to pay for it. And if you can't pay for it, then you'll have to settle for what you can. Or, if you actually think that there isn't any real technology in these cables, you can try to make some yourself. If you get a good sounding cable put together, you can start up your own company and find out how much it really costs to do this on a corporate scale, with labor costs, inventory costs, taxes, plants, warehouses, insurance, marketing, advertising, dealer margins, etc, and why they cost what they do when you can only sell a couple hundred pairs a year(if you're lucky).
I have news for you, Flex! Academic research is focused at war technology and making money, not truth. I graduated from one of those *famous* universities that have vines growing on their building walls outside and have self appointed themselves as a "league". The National Semiconductor Facility is there--cofunded by the governement and private industry. The list goes on and on...it's just a big facade.
Hear, hear Flex. If we don't know what we don't know, let's learn some of it! At the end, the ears are the judge, but we can get better at this through research.
I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of Sean, Tommywall and others above. There is a huge need in my view to finally get some of this cable craziness over with and down to a set of rational scientific models that are testable and verifiable. $6000 power cords are simply an unsustainable bubble, and despite the audibility of differences, I start agreeing with the many who become disallusioned and contemptuous toward audiophiles.
There is enough knowledge and data to do a research program that would sort out many of the questions and assertions above. No theory will account for every case or describe all of the fine detail, but you should certainly be able to get the main points right - cables are not black boxes. That includes the contributions of line impurities, filters, and break in.
Any valid studies have to be done as peer-reviewed white papers; it is the ONLY way they will be respected or accepted. Further, given the true complexity of electromagnetic field theory and electron flow models, it is pretty certain that anyone doing such work needs to have academic help or have advanced background themselves.
Despite all of the arguments about the importance of ears and preferences, I predict that if a series of good papers came out documenting the best construction techniques and best approaches to power handling, most audio design would follow along quickly.
My point is not to say that engineering doesn't count. My point is that the sonic results AT THE EARS and in IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SYSTEM BEING USED is the ultimate "test".
As I have been involved in the cable business on the sales end, I have seen many situations where very expensive cables have fared poorly and were replaced with inexpensive cables, and vice versa. In all cases, the cables had good anecdotal reputations in other systems. Nothing is perfect in every application. The fairest method is offering a trial period for the user to asess the performance in his/her system context, for his/her preferences in sound. We do this, and so do some other cable makers.
In some cases, what we thought "should have been better" was not better in the views of the user. Was the user wrong? No. The user must decide for himself what he/she likes or dislikes in conjunction with their other components.
It is impossible to say that any particular cable will be preferred in any particular system. Too many variables involved, including user preferences which cannot be predicted.
When someone calls me to try our cables, I never say that our cable will be sure to beat out whatever else they are considering. I only say that our cables are very good, and stand a good chance of being the best ones that they audition. If this doesn't turn out to be the case(with them as the sole judge), they can send them back for a full refund within 30 days. I don't know how to be any fairer than that.
DISCLAIMER: I work for a company that manufactures audio cables, vibration control devices, racks, stands, audio electronics components, and speakers. All have a 30-day money back, 100% satisfaction guarantee.
As a bystander... are you just going to try the damn cables and see what you think Sean? Free trial is free trial, your potential time lost is your potential time lost, however the possibility of finding a path to better sound is why most of us are here.
Oh, look. Everyone got together and worked things out. Very nice! A couple days ago, I was certain that some kind of 'everyone gets a timeout, and if you all play nice after that, maybe some milk and cookies too' post would be called for.
Actually, there are some thoughts that came to mind during the episode above that might make a little more sense to interject now-
1) While I'm as frustrated as anyone else by Robert's tendency to talk around design points rather than be specific, I can completely understand why he's doing it. Any way you look at it, the 'cable business' has extremely low barriers to entry. Basically, any Tom, Dick and Harry can decide to become an audiophile cable manufacturer by making a few phonecalls to Goodfellow, Alfa/Aesar, etc. for 'interesting' wires as well as to McMaster-Carr etc. for 'interesting' tubing, etc. Spend a little additional money on shims, threading devices, soldering, online ads, commisions for a few shills, etc. and you're in business.
NOTE: I'm not saying that the above actions will allow someone to make good cables, nor am I insinuating that folks who get into the business do no more than the above (or all of the above, particularly where the shills are concerned)- I'm just pointing out that from an economic perspective, it is an easy, and relatively unencumbered thing to do. You don't need to license a huge number of patents from entrenched industry players, you don't need to spend a small fortune in startup research and engineering, and you don't need to establish a large, complex business organization.
The point I'm driving at, and may eventually get to, is that for a small player to divulge its strategy or trade secrets in such a business environment is suicidal. Anyone doing so is likely to get eaten from above (the 'shark' attack) if their product offers new technology that a big established player has easy access to, and can appropriate. At the same time, anyone doing so is likely to get eaten from below (the piranha swarm) by a bunch of hungry small competitors who have just had their job made easy for them.
Basically, someone like Robert has no choice to be cagey, unless they are willing to spend very significant amounts of time and money generating an intellectual property strategy and securing patents on whatever new design or technology they have come up with. Successful execution of a patent takes multiple years and costs somewhere between $5k and $10k- not small potatoes for a small business. Then, there is the entire aspect of defending a patent from infringement...
Even if someone were to try protecting their technology by patents, the bar is very high for anyone to successfully patent anything in the cable area, since so much has already been tried, or discussed. This prior art will ensure that any patent is likely to be so narrow that 'workarounds' are easy to develop.
This gets us back to the option of being cagey and playing the cards close to one's vest. Justifiably annoying for those of us interested in the science and engineering of what is going on, but the only reasonable course of action for someone in the business. Personally, my hat is off to Robert for communicating at all outside of the realm of advertising copy.
2) Sean, a couple of quick points on dielectics- your comments on teflon are good as far as they go. However, if dielectric constant is the only thing that matters, one can do much better by simply using air (or a vacuum, for that matter.) Of course, this is difficult to implement, although I've seem a couple of examples of folks building cables with positioning pieces that 'suspend' a wire in the middle of a plastic tube.
Practically speaking, foamed dielectrics are the better way to go- teflon (in its various flavors) polyethylene, polypropylene etc. all can be foamed to yield mostly-air matrices with a fair bit of mechanical integrity, with much lower (bulk) dielectric constants than pure teflon itself.
I can see a few drawbacks to this approach- even if the foam is closed-cell (i.e., the trapped bubbles don't connect physically), a foamed dielectric will be a much poorer barrier layer for a conductor- surface oxidation will be faster. Then, there is the issue of homogeneity on the necessary size scales- if bubbles are too big/too small, then the conductor will see local variations in dielectric environment (low for actual bubbles, high for the plastic bubble walls) that are significant in audio frequency signal propagation.
On the other hand, teflon itself isn't a very good barrier for oxygen permeation- having it there is better than being exposed to air directly, but the rate of gas transport through the teflon isn't insignificant. If one really wanted a barrier layer, then poly(chloro-flouroolefin) polymers are significantly better (however, their dielectric constants are higher). To get to the point where no oxygen reaches the conductor, one needs inorganic barriers such as a glass layer (again, this would be a higher dielectric constant material, but a few microns of coating will suffice).
In all likelihood, I'm barely scratching the surface here- there are probably lots of additional tradeoffs that I'm not even aware of.
It boggles my mind that someone would design a cable with a plasticizer-containing coating. Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge in the area knows plasticizers move around, degrade, and are freqently reactive with other kinds of materials. The same goes for a lot of UV stabilizers and anti-oxidants present in plastics- once they work their way out of the plastic, they can attack metals. Silly, silly, silly.
3) Twl- I think I agree with the specifics of everything you said upthread, but come to a different conclusion- when you say,
'You can't "spec" or "measure" your way to audio nirvana,'
I have to agree on the experiential level. Where I disagree, or perhaps emphasize things differently, is in being upfront about inadequate measurement techniques. (You mention this as well- I view it as a really central point.)
As I mentioned above, an in-depth look at the technical literature where one would expect to find information about cable measurement and measurement techniques, reveals that there isn't really much there! (Please, someone correct this impression if I'm wrong!)
That being the case, I'm willing to bet my $3 in disposable income that whatever measurement techniques are being used aren't sufficient to reveal the physical processes behind how cable properties affect the human auditory organs, much less how the psychoacoustics work. There are a lot of currently un- or under-investigated connections to be made.
Sean did an excellent job upthread in categorizing cable properties and how they can degrade specific parts of an electrical signal- I'd love to see it formally detailed someplace, preferrably in a peer-reviewed technical journal. Still, going from there, there are many additional gaps until one reaches an understanding of how any one of us experiences 'audio nirvana'.
Until I find those gaps investigated and understood, I'm not willing to concede that 'good measurement' and 'audio nirvana' aren't ultimately the same thing. It's just that the good measurements, and ultimately the predictive models one can derive from them, don't currently seem to exist in any systematic form. (Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong!) Simply throwing in the towel and saying 'it can't be scientifically explained' ends up in the same place as medical quackery of various sorts- nobody with a rationalist bent or any appreciation at all of human intellectual development wants to end up there.
I agree Albert. After reading a thread like the one that Trelja started and thinking about the other disasters and turmoil that is taking place in Florida and other places around the world, all of this is petty bullshit. My heart goes out to those people suffering through those situations and i'm sorry for not having my priorities right. God Bless Us All... Sean >
Twl: You should contact Berning, Lowther, Sonoran, etc... and see if they just threw parts together at random till they got something that worked and shoved them out the door or if they actually did some R&D with test equipment to arrive at the level of performance and sonics that they desired and you seem to enjoy so much. You're applying a level of logic in the venom that you spew my way that you're not applying to those that made the products that you so love.
Just because one understands or desires to understand how & why a product works doesn't mean that one can't enjoy the music that it makes. Quite the contrary in fact. Knowing how it works can help one to attain even better results through making more informed decisions as to the suitability of components to achieve one's desired goals. As a side note, many of your analogies are quite flawed, but i won't bother pointing out why. I think that the above sums up my point of view well enough.
By the way, i'm glad to see you back, even if this is the manner in which you choose to return. Before you became a Star Sound clone, your responses were always cogent and helpful. I hope that you've brought some of that back with you now. Sean >
Well Sean, are you going to borrow the cables or not? Five sets and a whole month should be plenty for doing your analysis (dont' cut them open). There's nothing wrong nor it means any loss of face by actually liking them. You could even drive to Robert's place and have a beer with him! If he invites me I'll drive to LaPorte this weekend before moving to Florida...I would like to hear his new demo room.
I think the cables will be a paradigm shift.
Robert, I have never made any claims of being mentally sane. It's not mentally sane to have mini-monitors with 4 inch woofers play at loud volume *hardcore* salsa recordings of full blown, 20+ musicians' orchestras. Yet, somehow it is possible. RX8man had a paradigm shift when he witnessed the Fania All Stars playing in my living room. It's not supposed to be possible...
Good, wholesome foods have crap in them. After chewing, digestion starts and the crap comes out the other end!
Ernie: Dielectric Absorption ( DA ) takes place to a far greater extent as frequency rises. This makes it a non-linear distortion because it doesn't absorb all frequencies at the same rate.
As such, one can turn the drawbacks of DA into an actual asset by taking advantage of this knowledge. That is, by allowing the low frequencies ( 60 Hz AC waveform ) to pass unhindered, and by absorbing a greater ratio of signal as frequency rises, one has developed a form of a low pass filter. This has been achieved at reduced cost and complexity due to the use of lower grade dielectrics without the added expense or drawbacks of any extra parts or active circuitry. Granted, the effects achieved through careful application of DA is NOT going to be a sharp slope or even a linear slope, but it will be beneficial none the less.
Where lower grade dielectrics run into problems is with "seepage". Many cheap dielectrics "bleed" i.e. their plasticizers are leeched out of the jacket and contaminate the conductors. I'm sure that some of you have seen this before i.e. taken apart a cable only to find a dark, smeary contaminant on the surface. The contamination process can be sped up via stress to the cable i.e. running it beyond its' thermal limits, mass exposure to UV rays, etc...
In this regard, Teflon is a much better dielectric. That's because it's more stable and can take a lot of heat. The way to get around the lack of stability and "bleeding" of plasticizers in order to achieve "Teflon-like" stability is to use a more stable dielectric AND keep ambient and operating temperatures low. By doing your homework, you can find a relatively stable dielectric that retains a higher DA. In order to keep thermal operating temperatures down, you can use multiple conductors to share the load. By sharing the load, internal coulomb friction is reduced and operating temperatures are kept to a minimum. The fact that many lower grade dielectrics are less rigid than Teflon also means increased flexibility with less potential for microphonic transfer of energy.
Another advantage to this approach is that multiple conductors for each given polarity means that you can now use specific geometries. These geometries reduce the radiation of EM ( Electro-Magnetic ) fields and at the same time, are not nearly as susceptable to RFI and EMI. This means that your power cord can now be placed closer to your signal carrying cables with less potential for sonic degradation AND your power cord has less of a chance of acting like an antenna for incoming signals. Yet another benefit is that certain geometries will lower the inductance of the cable, allowing the AC to feed the component on a more timely basis.
As a side effect / additional benefit of lowering the inductance through the use of specific geometries, you also increase the capacitance of the cable. By distributing the capacitance over the length of the cable, you in effect end up with a very mild parallel line filter. Devices like Audioprism Quiet Lines and the home-brew devices that Magnan recommends, etc... are all capacitively based parallel line filters. While the distributed capacitance of the power cord using specific geometries will not be as effective as the lumped sums of capacitance as found in the "plug in" filters mentioned above, every little bit helps.
As you can see, there is a method to the madness that goes into making a well rounded, thoroughly thought-out product. Most of this is based on the proper application of technology. That technology was gathered through various testing methods. By compiling the test results and properly interpreting them, one can pick and choose between the specific positive and / or negative attributes that each product / material brings with it. If done carefully, the end result is an organized presentation of those calculated strengths and weaknesses to achieve the desired goals.
As i've said before, nothing that we are doing here is a mystery. The only part that is a mystery is why more manufacturers don't make use of the information & technology that is available to them. The fact that most audiophiles aren't aware of all of the facts pertaining to various products allows these manufacturers to keep the public in the dark and charge the prices that they do. In this respect, most of the cable manufacturers and other parts of the high end audio industry fear an educated public. That would mean that their profit margin was gone, except for those that remained gullible enough to believe all of the marketing hype. Those that actually looked into and understood the facts pertaining to the situation / product at hand would no longer be at the mercy of those that are peddling snake oil.
All of that is why i post the things that i do. The more that you know, the more effective your decisions will become. Sean >
Robert: Many of the points that you bring up are valid. On others, i could respond point by point and waste my time, your time and that of anyone else that read it. Rather than do that, i'll keep it short and respond to two statements that you made: ---------------------------------------------------------- "Now come on Sean. You accuse me of writing a novel. I said what you said above here with less words! What I said was:
Purity has to do with the level of impurities. We all know that I think. Q has to do with levels of types of impurities.
You forgot to mention that you did this AFTER posting four "novels" with no such information in any of them. Had you responded to the questions that were asked in an easy to read and respond to form, most of this would have never taken place.
As to the second comment, i'm surely NOT a liberal. Nor am i a CONservative. I'm a socialist, hence my concerns for the average citizen i.e. audio enthusiast. While "liberals" want to give the property of others away in order to "take care of the masses", socialists believe that everyone is responsible for taking care of themselves and earning their own keep. That's why i try to make the masses aware of the facts & figures involved in the equation. That way they can formulate their own educated answers to the questions and decisions at hand. Some will absorb that information right away and respond accordingly, probably saving themselves time, money and frustration in the process. Some will disregard and make their own decisions, with some of those decisions and actions being mistakes. Some of those that initially disregarded the facts & figures may come to realize that the information provided was of greater value than they initially though, but that would be at a later date, explaining why & how they made the mistakes that they did.
As i've said before, i'm planting seeds. Some seeds will grow, some will be stomped on, some will be carried away by the birds and deposited elsewhere, possibly taking root at a later date in an unexpected place. Obviously, i'm not the perfect farmer and the harvest represents that fact. My methods in some areas are quite lacking. As such, some will nurture those seeds, some will pull them up by the roots and others won't know whether they are a plant or a weed.
Another problem is, i think that i've been planting roses. That's because much of the beauty that i strive for has been marred by the thorns that i've left behind. As such, i apologize for the occasional hurt that those thorns have caused and hope that the beauty of the bloom that comes to flourish more than makes up for the damage done.
Thanks all for putting up with me. To those that recognize my motives and have tried to steer me back on course when i've veered, i appreciate your honesty and effort. This includes those that i've had words with too, as i know that at least some of their concerns were fair and just.
Boy, it sure is refreshing to see some other people taking the beating, and not me, for a change.
Maybe a good suggestion would be for everyone to get rid of their speakers altogether, and replace them with oscilloscopes, so we could all watch the happy waveforms of our favorite music dancing on the screen, and continuously analyzing the distortion products, instead of listening to music.
Now that sounds like fun.
I can just imagine the Audiogon posts then: "How come my oscilloscope shows more distortion product when I use speaker cable B, than A?" Or my favorite: Should we really be using speaker cables on our oscilloscopes, or would it be better to use oscilloscope cables instead?" Or: "Does anybody else like to watch steady-state test tone wave patterns?" Or, the ever-popular: "Where can I get a cheap cable that will show good waveforms on my 'scope?"
Somehow, I manage to get enjoyable listening, even without ever hooking up a single piece of test equipment to my system. Do I need a 12-step program to release me from the errors of my ways? Or maybe I should have said a "12-step function selector switch?" :^)
Optimistically speaking though, maybe someday our testing methods will include actually listening to the music. That would be a great day indeed. I find it rather humorous that the only testing method that "does not count" is listening with the human ears in your own listening room. And that there is "no error" in testing regimes, and all error is in the ear or perceptions of the ears, because science is god and cannot be wrong, or more accurately, wrongly applied.
Technology is a means to an end, nothing more. That "end" is listening to the music. If the technology does not improve your listening enjoyment, or even detracts from it, then it is useless. Getting a perfect scope pattern, if it doesn't translate into better enjoyment, is not the goal.
You can't "spec" or "measure" your way to audio nirvana. Audio nirvana is an emotional place which is provided by the emotional content of the music. There is no "emotional content meter" available. Good luck with your other meters.
You can "extrapolate" specs all you want, and try to "presume" that "this" measurement will mean "that" level of enjoyment, but in the end it is "in the ears" and "in the emotions", my friend. That, you cannot measure with a meter, you can only experience it, and THAT is "where it's at".
You can take 2 audio tubes that measure and spec exactly the same, but may come from a different manufacturer, and they sound noticeably different. Why? Do we want to dissect these tubes, and perform sub-atomic testing, so that ultimately we can learn that "matter" and "energy" and "space" are all actually "one", and we have no idea what is at the basis of it all? Maybe you do. But I don't. I want to hear a nice sounding audio system that stirs my soul with music.
What if you found 2 different cables that had all the same measurements exactly, and sounded different? What would you do then? I'll tell you what you'd do. You'd have to accept that your measurements are incomplete, and flawed in concept and application, and that they only tell you rudimentary things. Then, you'd be starting out on the same road that many of us started on long ago. It's in the listening.
Phew! Sean, Robert, thanks for the eye-exercises. Sean, just gotta disagree with your statement re the inappropriate use of Teflon (or other low DA insulation) in PCs. Whereas one would think that bandwidth constriction is useful for AC propagation, accomplishing it via "dirty dielectrics" is NOT beneficial. As with signal cables, the empirical evidence (our ears) DOES indicate that here too Teflon "sounds" more transparent, less "phasey", etc. No, I can't explain it. But hundreds of A'goners who use my cheap Teflon-insulated PCs agree. OK, maybe it's the geometry, shielding...whatever. But at $40-70 who cares? Thanks for the Goertz analysis. Ern
There is no tension Sean, your comments are a welcome addition to Audiogon. I always stop and read your posts when I see your name.
I am not much on tech specs, more of a gear for the sake of music guy. When a combination works (for whatever reason) I am delighted to be that much closer to the music. Perhaps some day there will be a way to measure all this and we can build a perfect system as easy as buying a fast computer.
Okay Sean, we're past novel. We're talkin' volume here.
I just went back and re-read my original post and tried to look at it through different eyes. I think some of it appears too self serving. I'm okay with what I said but honestly, I think I could have said some things in a more helpful manner for others. Example:
...I'll only say this: our customer satisfaction (no return policy exercised) has been 96.8% of our total sales. We're shamelessly proud of that.
I could have said (in my thousand words or more style):"...to perhaps establish a bit of credibility to what I'll share we believe are some important things when searching out excellent cabling, our customer satisfaction Blah, Blah Blah..." I'm still shamelessly proud of the stat because it validates what we believe and how it's contributed to enthusiasts enjoyment of their music but maybe I could have said it in a manner that pointed to my intent to be helpful.
Since I've discovered this Quote tag thing here, I'm gonna go nuts with it.
Sean wrote:
When asked specific questions about this, you defaulted. I don't know if you did this hoping that others might enter the fracas and draw attention away from the situation or for someone to tell me to shut-up and play nice. Only problem is, i don't think that there's anyone coming to your rescue and others have finally realized that you don't get honest answers by "dancing around" the subjects being discussed.
You seem to make pretty substantial leaps from reality to fantasy sometimes. C'mon Sean. Did you read what I said? It wasn't a deflection and it wasn't a "rescue" tactic. I said:
Sean, In regards to your question, I would naturally love to splat what I've learned here and puff myself up (or not) but let's do this: Let's see if another manufacturer will take the opportunity to address some of the purity/quality issue. As of now, Ridge Street is the only one I'm aware of that concerns themself or makes a point about this issue. Not full fledged rocket science but it seems to be one of those details that no one is noticing and thereby giving due attention to.
If no one chimes in I will but I won't divulge it fully since it's something we address and part of what sets us apart from what others are doing.
I didn't say "er...uh...Oh Look! My toast is burning! I gotta go!"
Sean wrote:
Maybe i'm wrong here and you might be a nice guy and all, but telling stories about how things should work and explaining why they do or don't and what makes your product different based on verifiable facts & research is what i was expecting.
Not all the universe revolves around Your expectations and when it doesn't, it doesn't mean it's worthless for everyone because it doesn't meet your criteria.
Sean wrote:
Psychic built you up as someone that could do all of the above, but i've seen no evidence to support his beliefs or expectation.
I can't help what my friend has built me up as. To me, I'm just Bob. But I do appreciate his confidence in us. So, since you've "seen no *evidence* to support his beliefs or expectation (whatever that means)" does that mean he's nuts? Wait, don't answer that. I don't condone or support some of his ways of approaching things whether it's on our behalf or somebody else's but once I'm able to wade through what I consider some of his crap, I've found he does have more than a clue to what works and sounds good. Do you really need that much " evidence" before you do or try something? Are you so suspicious that you only allow accepted facts to dictate what is safe to do or try? Sean, I would really like to imagine not but there's that perception. As a very intelligent man I believe you to be, I can imagine you were a smart kid too. Maybe even a smart baby. Did you refuse your Gerber's until it was dissected and analyzed. I bet not. And look...here you are still alive and kicking!
Sean wrote:
As far as other manufacturers "jumping in", i wouldn't hold your breath. The mass majority of other cable manufacturers ( there are a FEW exceptions here ) are afraid to "lay it on the line". That's because they can't explain / don't understand what it is that they are trying to sell us.
Really Sean. What a small world you must live in. C'mon! That certainly could be (and probably is) one reason why some of the mass majority of Mfg'rs don't "jump in" but it's not THE reason as you make it sound! Other reasons could be for the likes of you...LOL!, time, or perhaps they don't feel the need to explain what they do because their product has proven itself to be good. Maybe they feel that to subject themselves to what they consider unreasonable is a waste of time. There could be all kinds of reasons that you or anyone else, not being all-knowing, Omni-present or Omnipotent, don't know anything about.
You imply that the mass majority of Mfg'rs don't understand anything about what they're trying to sell us. I've never seen a successful business who didn't understand nothing! Even if some Mfg'rs can't explain / don't understand everything about what they offer but it certainly serves peoples needs or wants, should they pack up their ball and go home? I have a close friend who used to be in the utility industry. He told me once that it was really amazing to him how clueless too many important people (including himself) were about how or why certain aspects of our utilities work. I got right on the phone and called my utility company and told them to shut me down. Gas and electric! I didn't want their service until they knew exactly and perfectly everything they were doing. NOT!
Sean wrote:
They build cabling, have cabling built to their spec or simply use off the shelf parts and hide the internals. They do most of this based on what they think will get the job done, be cosmetically desirable while returning a handsome profit on their time and money invested. That's primarily because marketing hyperbole is all that is expected out of them.
You make that sound like that's evil without exception! Are you a liberal....LOL! That's a viable approach. It's not one we ascribe to or how we do our cabling but some companies do and they have happy customers! Are those customers stupid?
"That's primarily because marketing hyperbole is all that is expected out of them." So what? You make it sound like people get possessed when they see marketing hyperbole. Maybe some people do, I don't know...LOL! I bet you approve of marketing, just not the hyperbole. Me too. Understand though that not all marketing is hyperbole. Regardless, I think most people are aware of at least some of the hyperbole. It gets their attention (which is hyperbole's, wrong or right/ethical or not, main purpose) and sometimes, by exercising their freedom, they Choose a given product for whatever other meritable reasons...not always because of the hyperbole and sometimes what you may consider hyperbole isn't. Personally, I try to take personal accountability for what I hear or read and I find a lot of marketing offensive to my intelligence and emotions. Nevertheless, there are times I get past all that and find a useful product that makes a positive difference for me. Is that wrong?
Sean wrote:
When it comes down to it, most speaker cables being made today lack the design integrity to do the job "right" (ed.). So rather than open their mouths and prove this point, the manufacturers remain silent and hope that their name isn't mentioned in a thread like this.
If people stop for a moment and think, I'll bet most consider life (cables included) richer for what is good and if my experience tells me anything, if it's only about what I think is or should be "right", everything is pretty shallow. "Right" is not always good and good doesn't always look right. For what it's worth, even Jesus new that. (Hey look...I only used 63 words here! I'm getting better! ...and only 275 characters and 62 spaces! (if you go back and count this, you're sicker than I am.))
Sean wrote:
My comments about the thread being interrupted were not geared towards your customers "coming to your rescue", but more-so as a general comment pertaining to a specific group of Audiogon regulars that dislike my "brutish" methods of communications
Then start a new thread and address those AudiogoN regulars. LOL!
Sean wrote:
As far as being a "watchdog", i call 'em as i see 'em. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, has webbed feet, etc... it's probably a duck. Just because i'm not shy about pointing the duck out to others and telling them what it is and how to identify it by its' characteristics, it doesn't make me a "watchdog". Having said that, if what i post helps someone to avoid making costly errors or explains why certain situations ( sonic or otherwise ) have arisen surrounding "duck-like" products, so be it.
Not sure your idea of a duck is really a duck unless you mean it literally...web feet and all. As for myself, if I had web feet, my cowboy boots and hi-top Blk/Wht Chucky T's wouldn't fit. Here's my idea of a watchdog. If it guards, barks, attacks and bites what it thinks is foreign, it's probably a watchdog.
Sean wrote:
i have NO idea of what your cables are like. I have third party information on them that is far less than technical in nature and that's all. Neither your website nor your posts here have given me or "anyone else" (ed.) anything to go on.
Again, this seems to be more fantasy than reality. You mean to tell me our almost 185 projects this year were from folks who had nothing to go on? They just called here and said "Look, I don't know why I'm calling but I've just saved up a $135,000.00 and I guess I would like to buy some cables. I'll take yours and...don't even try to give me some reasons or info about your cables. If you do, I'll just take my business elsewhere!" Dam Sean, that would be the life right there! Hell, it would probably even be okay if I didn't even send this person any cables after payment. I mean what difference would it make?
Just because how I answer peoples questions and how I service folks doesn't fit within your frame, that doesn't constitute "anyone" (everyone) else! New Math?...you are a liberal aren't you...LOL! Look, I don't pretend to be everything to everybody and I understand that if one of us were a woman, we'd probably never be husband and wife. I'm okay with that but to say that no one would be my wife (so to speak), guess what...I have a wife! and we have a few customers who believe in what we're doing.
Sean wrote:
While it's quite possible i may be a great fan of your products once i had the chance to really get to know them ( technically and sonically ), the only way that i could do that would be to buy them, use them, dissect them and analyze them for myself. Given that i'm not buying any more cabling from someone that won't tell me what it is that they are selling ( i've been ripped off enough as it is ) and i'm not about to "gut" someone else's property that might be kind enough to let me borrow them, the chances of that happening are slim to none.
Surely that's the only valid way to approach whether an audio product is any good and it's what I do too: Listen to it (lets say I really like it better than what I've used before and other folks have used the product with good success for years) and then measure it, rip it apart and analyze what's in it. I find I don't like the numbers and traces on the scope and I have a real thing against the air pollution it caused to make the synthetic insulators used. This thing's a piece of..."I've been ripped off!" proclaims I. Again...NOT.
If you feel one way or another you've been ripped off, I'm sorry for your loss. Most small Mfg'rs like myself minimize the risk of ones investment by offering at least a 30 day money back guarantee. Some, like Chris at VH Audio offer 60 days I think. So where's the rip off? If one returns the cables they bought to who ever, they're out some time and probably some shipping cost. The education there is worth more than that.
Sean wrote:
The bottom line is that more info specifically about the products themselves with less background about the company could result in more potential sales.
Yep...it "could". (down to three words)
Sean wrote:
Robert: How much simpler would it have been if you had just said "Purity is measured by what percentage of impurities there are in the conductor. "Q" as i call it has to do with what type of impurities are involved. Not all impurities effect the performance of a cable in the same fashion. This is something that we pay attention to while other manufacturers seem to overlook this aspect of production"........This would have been a lot simpler, would have explained the point that you were trying to make while not giving any "proprietary secrets" away and would have actually made you look relatively intelligent with a short and educational response. Instead, you write another novel
Now come on Sean. You accuse me of writing a novel. I said what you said above here with less words! What I said was:
Purity has to do with the level of impurities. We all know that I think. Q has to do with levels of types of impurities.
What I wrote ahead of it was no more (or less) a novel than when you post most of the time. So why the dig? No matter. No harm here. I got a good chuckle.
Sean wrote:
Is there any other business where you can call up / email / go to and ask them for technical assistance or spec's concerning their products and they tell you about the owner's background, the company, the goals of the company, etc... everything BUT what you asked for?
When did you call here or is this another fantasy? The reality is when folks call here they are armed with enough info to make an informed decision on whether to give us a try or not. I'm guessing if, in reality mind you, you did call you might not feel the same way. I would be sorry but that's how it goes sometimes for both of us. Wished it were never so but... I can think of two times specifically when someone called and while they didn't specifically say it, I got a real sense that I didn't answer their questions they the wanted or needed me to. I bet if those two people are reading this, they know who they are...Hi. Sorry I wasn't able to be more helpful.
Like I said, I wished I could but I can't be everything to everybody but I think I am pretty good at being at least a little more than enough for a lot of people. (Rescuers solicited...)
Now, after all this Sean, I'm not trying to make you a wrong bad guy about everything or get you to change, just expand. Not that it may matter to you but I think you obsessively ROCK! I kind of like it and I appreciate you. Like my wife says I remind her of, you remind me of Billy Joel's "I Don't Know Why I Go To Extremes". That's a compliment. I "know" that song not by heart but in heart. Weird maybe and I don't get it but I almost feel like crying right now. Maybe we're comrades on oppisite sides of a fence. If so, maybe that's sad.
Well look at me. What a way to spend a Sunday. Maybe I'm obsessive.
I want to address / clarify my response to Albert. After posting what i did and thinking about it, i'm in the wrong here. That is, i tend to get "tunnel vision" at times and overlook certain factors. I'm sure that i do this on a somewhat regular basis too, so please "kick me" as a reminder when i get a bit overboard.
What i should have been saying throughout this whole thread is different from what i have said. That is, i should have said that the Goertz speaker cables are the most sure-fire way to achieve high levels of accuracy with minimal loss in the transfer of power from the amplifier to speaker interface. Using this approach, one is assured of the lowest distortion possible. With that in mind, it is quite possible that other cables may work nearly as well and could be quite acceptable for use in many systems. How close "good enough" is and whether or not one is willing to risk potential compromise when you already know what will work best is up to the individual.
My personal thoughts are that if one knows that a specific product will get the job done as best possible with the least potential for signal degradation, and it is within one's budget, there's no reason to look at anything else. In this regard, that's why i "zero'd in" on Goertz i.e. it is demonstrably superior in maintaining the widest bandwidth, lowest phase shift, offering a consistently low ( proper ) impedance regardless of frequency, etc... as compared to any other product on the market that i know of. This is where i probably went into "tunnel vision" mode and started to lambast all "lesser" cables, even though there are other cables that i do feel are "worthy" of use. Bare in mind that i'm speaking specifically of speaker cables here and not IC's, etc... As i've mentioned before, interconnects are a slightly different creature with far more variables to deal with. On the other hand, power cords are more like speaker cables in the fact that we pretty much know what the constraints of normal operation are composed of.
I'm sorry for being such a "strong-willed bonehead", but it seems to be something that runs in the family. If you think that i'm hard to deal with here at times, you should see what it's like when you get my Brother, Father and i in the same room discussing ANY serious subject : )
Hope that this "eases the tension" that i helped to create and better explains my point of view. Sean >
Robert: How much simpler would it have been if you had just said "Purity is measured by what percentage of impurities there are in the conductor. "Q" as i call it has to do with what type of impurities are involved. Not all impurities effect the performance of a cable in the same fashion. This is something that we pay attention to while other manufacturers seem to overlook this aspect of production".
This would have been a lot simpler, would have explained the point that you were trying to make while not giving any "proprietary secrets" away and would have actually made you look relatively intelligent with a short and educational response. Instead, you write another novel that still doesn't provide any specifics about your products whatsoever. Rather than provide any type of usable info, you spend your time to lambast me, who is simply asking for specifics about the products that you sell AFTER you brought them up in the first place. Figure it out for yourself why i get frustrated in situations like this. Is there any other business where you can call up / email / go to and ask them for technical assistance or spec's concerning their products and they tell you about the owner's background, the company, the goals of the company, etc... everything BUT what you asked for?
Albert said: "Does this mean that if I prefer my system with Purist Audio or Elrod rather than Goertz that all my equipment should be changed out rather than continue to listen to what is working? I have excellent gear, doubt it needs a band aid."
My answer to this is that one can use whatever they prefer to use. That doesn't mean that it is accurate, linear or low in distortion. It simply means that one has invested their money into products / a system that they like. As i've said before, buy what you like as you are the only one that will be listening to it on a regular basis. The only person that the system has to please is the owner. If the owner is happy with a specific sound and has specific sonic preferences, so be it. Who am i to tell them what they can / should enjoy? I simply post information to try and educate about what is technically correct. Whether or not someone wants to achieve "accurate musicality" is up to them.
Springbok asked the following questions:
1. Do you have to intellectually have a picture of what measurable specs you are listening to and what the physical characteristics of the components are before you can enjoy the music? (I think you've said an emphatic yes)
> Not at all. I can typically listen to a component and form an opinion of it rather quickly. Then again, when you are working with a collection of unknown variables, that opinion would be formed of the entire collection of parts used at that time, not of any given component / part being used. Having some background / point of reference as to what a component is technically capable of simply provides a more solid foundation as to what it may / may not be contributing to what you hear.
Having said that, i've heard many systems that i have enjoyed on certain recordings / types of music that i knew were not accurate at all. The problem with these systems was that their sonic imperfections are implanted on every recording, hence everything shares similar sonic traits. If you like that sound and can live with it long-term, so be it.
By using components that offer "accurate musicality", the results are both more consistent regardless of the source or type of music and are therefore more universally enjoyable. That is, unless one enjoys only a very specific type of presentation, to which i believe is their option.
This type of system building approach typically leads to constant upgrading though. That's because once they hear different aspects of reproduction that they like from other systems that their limited system lacks, they have to start all over again. Given that their system lacks any type of foundation to build upon other than the specific colourations that they initially enjoyed, they are in for a long and tedious up-hill battle. That is, if they are trying to attain greater neutrality and a more universal level of accurate and musical reproduction for a wide assortment of musical types and recordings.
2. When you say specs, do you mean running an oscilloscope so that you can measure dynamic range at each frequency?
> I don't have to measure anything. I'm more than willing to accept the test results / spec's of others so long as they were taken in a proper manner. As far as spec's go, there's no one or two spec's that will tell you everything that you need to know in order to interpret the sonic traits of that device. Even a large quantity of spec's may not give you enough info. The more spec's / test results that you have, the better of an idea one will have though. That's because these spec's, if properly derived and reported accurately, will tell you how uniform the operation of the device will be under various signal conditions and how well it should work with other components.
3. I accept that the appreciation of a stanza of music is an interaction between the brain and the ear, melding perceived sound, expectations, emotions, and past experiences to result in a net quantum of enjoyment/sadness/fulfillment/discord. None of us understand how that works, technically, exactly as none of us can explain physically or in terms of any measurable specs on any medical device, how anybody thinks. So it is with the appreciation of music, which is why there are so many thousands of differing posts on the same component, piece of music and composer. Are you saying that in your particular case you cannot or will not bypass the the "measuring/analytical/physicist" part of your brain to just listen to the music, because it is unacceptable to you intellectually to not understand why you are hearing something? If so, this is, IMHO, perfectly valid, but I think you are fairly unique in that respect. I personally dont give a rat's ass what makes the music sound good/exciting/bad/mediocre - its all in what I hear. Period. I think many of us non Engineer-types are like that.
> As i stated above, i can listen to and enjoy music using anything from a transistor radio to a mega-dollar system. Whether or not i find either of them to produce "accurate musicality" and want to invest in either of them is another story. The reason that i have five different systems is that i know that we can't achieve "perfection" with any one given approach, so i've taken to building several different systems. Each offers their own specific perspective / transfer function while still seeking to approach "accurate musicality" i.e. "neutrality without sounding sterile".
4. I am ignorant of the known physics of sound conduction via interconnects. Is there a primer to read? Is there data on cables showing dynamic range, as there are on speakers, at different frequencies? What other data (forget about inductance, volts, amps, etc since there is no known (to me) sonic/auditory correlation)can you get on cables?
>I can't provide you with any "what's what guide to interconnects and signal propagation" type of manual. It is a complex issue that involves inductance, volts, amps, capacitance, input & output impedances, nominal impedances, etc... I wish it was simpler, but it isn't. As a side note, my comments about Goertz and the measured response / spec's pertained to their flat series of speaker cables, not their interconnects.
5A. Is it not unreasonable for you to expect a small (one-man) manufacturer to divulge his formula in a very competitive market-place, particularly against the big boys, who spend fortunes on marketing, when the bottom line is simply, to most of us, the result of the product? That is, how does it sound?
> I didn't ask for proprietary information, only basic electrical specs that a knowledgable manufacturer should know about their products. To be specific, i didn't ask for the specific molecular structure of the materials being used, where those materials are being purchased, if there were any proprietary chemical or electrical treatments being performed to the materials being used, etc... Given that someone can obtain a sample of these products through various means ( buy or borrow ) and reverse engineer it to obtain everything that i was asking about, the manufacturer wouldn't have been divulging ANY information that isn't already available to the public.
To take that a step further and answer another question that you asked elsewhere, once the figures were obtained, one could do computer simulations and / or perform deductive reasoning based on past experiences and arrive at what to expect out of the cable in terms of electrical performance and / or sonics.
B)The only, to me, reason to do so would be the physical reliability and longevity of the product; if it were made of a metal/conductor/insulator that has a half-life of a few months, then that would be a concern. This point is valid and rational, even to a non-measuring-dunce like me. That point should be addressed and guaranteed by any seller/manufacturer/inventor.
> I commented on this above. The only info that i have on these cables is that they are silver based and make use of a natural fiber ( cotton from what i understand ) dielectric. Given that silver corrodes when exposed to oxygen and cotton ( or other natural fibers ) do not offer any type of "seal" for the conductor, i pointed out that the sonic lifespan of this type of product may not be very consistent. This was not meant to single out Ridge Street products as being the only users of this type of design so much as to point out that this is something that others should be made aware of before investing their money into a product. On top of that, i also offered specifics as to what to expect out of such a design over a period of time and why i thought that there were better, more consistent ways to get around various issues surrounding DA.
C) Thanks for your attention. This is not a troll - I am interested in your answers.
> No problem. As i've mentioned before, i don't mind explaining my comments or why i say what i do. Just as i would like as much info as i can get about a product from a manufacturer to make an informed assessment of the suitability for use, the more background info that you have on the comments that i make, the more informed you are about the validity of the comments being made and how applicable they are to your situation or goals. After all, that is all that i'm doing i.e. sharing my own personal thoughts, observations, ideas, comments, etc... One can agree / disagree / question / correct / ignore the information provided as they see fit.
Transporter: I appreciate your concerns and share your sentiments. That is, when the manufacturer is willing to share and educate, not just pump up their business through exposure and familiarity in the forums.
Your example of Ray Kimber is spot on though, as Ray is both a very likable figure and a very knowledgable and helpful representative of a company. I was going to make a comment pertaining to what i said about "very few manufacturers willing to jump into the arena" with Ray being one of the few exceptions.
I respect Ray to a very great extent, for both his knowledge / experience / products AND his willingness to share / work with others in terms of education and development of technology. The fact that he donates a very large sum of money annually to schools in his area for band / music equipment speaks of his good heart, nobility and motives.
I'm not trying to put Ray on a pedestal or compare everyone to him, as not everyone has the time or financial resources that he may have available to make these things possible. At the same time though, it does demonstrate how a manufacturer can be helpful AND divulge specs / technical info and still maintain a great quantity of business success. This is outside of the respect that it helps build for them within the audiophile community.
Too bad others don't catch on to the example that Ray and a select group of business professionals have left for them. It's hard to "pick on" a manufacturer / representative / dealer that is both helpful and informative. Sean >
Sean, I agree with Springbok's stance. I can understand why Robert is so *protective* of his ways. He's about to turn 60 anytime soon and the idea of going back to his former sales job terrifies him. His plan is to collect Social Security and make cables. He publicly accused me of betraying his trust when all I did was post some info that was readily gathered from the Pure Note website (and I told him months before I was going to do it!). Pure Note would love to know what the hell he's doing, as their later products are oviously patterned after Ridge Street cables. I know that was the caffeine and nicotine speaking, so I gave him one of my prescriptions in good faith. I agree with you that Robert could have been concise, to the point and given enough technical information to satisfy others.
Psychic: I'm glad that you guys had an enjoyable and educational get together. These types of situations can be fun, but they can also be misleading. That is, unless certain precautions are taken to try and keep the playing field level. I'm NOT talking about DBT's ( Double Blind Listening Test's ) or anything like that, just similar conditions in terms of all of the gear being allowed to thermally and physically stabilize. This takes time though and most impromptu meetings / listening sessions don't really allow this.
Lak and I have found that once our systems had similar power delivery/noise control setups what we heard with different stuff was pretty similar. His is a 5W SET, all tube, single driver system and mine a mini monitor based SS system. Lak also found similar results in his living room solid state system. Yes, there are differences, but not big enough to discard our findings. People here know this and also know our personalities and tastes are very different, giving added weight to what we post. This gives them a pretty good idea of what to expect. When some time passed after Chris sent me his Pulsar digital cable for evaluation and I talked to him about how it sounded in my 100% solid state system I used pretty specific wording. He said I was using reviewer's words and that what I described was "exactly" how the Pulsar sounds. Chris is into tubes, as you know. How could I describe the same sound? Chris was confident because my power delivery/noise control rig is right on, I have a good ear (which he deducted from talking with me about different pieces of gear & my postings) and because I was specific in having *you* thoroughly cook the cable before listening to it.
What is more, Nightdoggy (the power amp guru of Audiogon, as I call him) e-mailed me this weekend that he's ready to start his vintage equipment restoration/re-engineering business. He's an EE and has a professional lab, complete w/PCB washer. I'm going to send him my vintage Yamaha A-1 dual mono integrated (it has C-core transformers, FYI). Tom's going to turn that integrated into a mean beast! I plan to use the A-1 in my system for quite a while, since I don't know where in Florida I'll end up living or when I'll finally have a 'stable' job. The A-1 will allow me to have a compact, combined audio/ 2ch HT system. I bet the system will be good enough that my findings on audio gear will stay consistent. Maybe Chris will send me a couple pairs of his upcoming cotton insulated silver ICs and Robert two pairs of Poiemas. That would be interesting...
Sean, the people I owe being sligshot into where I am are you, Deano, Nightdoggy and on the commercial end Danny Boy, Kevin Barrett and Robert Schult. I hold the same esteem for all of you.
As a side note, RX8man also *experienced* the magic of Moca wood. I placed a board under the outboard power supply of his Audio Logic DAC. The man was just sitting there wondering what the F happened! Now it's you, Jahaira, Lak and RX8man. I might have to order a tree felled and cut into boards. They're scarce, as the tree must have a trunk of at least 3 feet in diameter in order to have any useful amount of heartwood.
Albert, I checked and its a 20 hr drive. I might have to dump that Barrilito rum in the fuel tank of my car to boost the octane rating!
>> Did any A goners ever try/feel that theory was useful<<
Useful, yes; essential, no. Same way as I can tell whether I like the taste of a wine without knowing squat about the vintage, number of years in oak or even the name of the grape. But it educates me to know these things and maybe will help me pick out a better one next time............but the bottom line is always the same: how does it taste? Or, in this forum, how does it sound? By the way, I will repay all A'goners who have been so helpful to me in making the suggestions that are responsible for literally all of my gear, if you like wine - sprint, dont walk and buy the 03 Beaujolais - they will be the best $10 you have spent since your last vinyl purchase....:)
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
