dynaquest4
Not sure the point of the poem...but it does rhyme. +1 for that Mr. Geoff.
>>>>I’m a poet and don’t know it.
Not sure the point of the poem...but it does rhyme. +1 for that Mr. Geoff.
>>>>I’m a poet and don’t know it.
So What Is Real?
There is a newsletter I subscribe to because the guy seems to talk about reality and not what some sales dude wants to sell you. mwaldrep@aixrecords.com Now the funny thing to me is that all these cable specialists of high dollar remedies for flawed playback are somehow going to magically change what you hear and will then rise above the abilities of the music file limitations and recording engineers. A dumb wire that is used to create the hi-res recordings so sought after is not somehow suitable for the playback of the same. The following is from Waldreps newsletter and I fully agree. I love this guy and he is a light shining through all the smoke and mirror BS of high end audio. I confess I too am a cable denier and incapable of hearing "
further uptick in micro-dynamic jump
" but love the delicious word salad these guys create to try to describe something that is not there. I can see the cable guy sitting there with his buddy. Wow did you hear that uptick in micro-dynamics!! You just know that's how he would talk, right?
As an aside here how does one become a professional listener? What is the criteria for attaining this lofty goal? How do you know when you have arrived and what governing authority sets down the requirements for such a thing so you know you are not deceiving yourself and others? Is it a nebulous category that is assigned to you when you spend a certain level of money or do you have verifiable and provable abilities above the norm as recognized by a large group of people including recording industry engineers, professional sound installers and high end audio system owners? In other words anyone but cable sellers?
The following is from "Dr. AIX Post for January 25, 2020"
" Cable Nonsense
As an aside here how does one become a professional listener? What is the criteria for attaining this lofty goal? How do you know when you have arrived and what governing authority sets down the requirements for such a thing so you know you are not deceiving yourself and others? Is it a nebulous category that is assigned to you when you spend a certain level of money or do you have verifiable and provable abilities above the norm as recognized by a large group of people including recording industry engineers, professional sound installers and high end audio system owners? In other words anyone but cable sellers?
The following is from "Dr. AIX Post for January 25, 2020"
" Cable Nonsense
What is it that Art Linkletter used to say? Kids say the darndest things. Well, it seems some FB audio group administrators, audiophiles, high-end audio salespersons, audiophile society officials, and manufacturers also say things that make little or no sense when talking or posting about cables.
I usually steer clear of FB posts or online magazines that promote high-end audio cables. It's just never safe to present with science, established electrical engineering theory and practice, or objectiveness when cables are concerned. A recent exchange on a familiar FB audio group page resulted in a member calling me a "cable denier" because I advocated for science and physics in evaluating power cords.
The thread basically dismissed my comments because I'm a member of the professional audio engineering community. Audio equipment salespeople, FB administrators, high-end audio marketing managers, and the general audio buying public are claimed to be better and more reliable sources of information when it comes to recommending expensive accessories and cables. According to the gentleman below, they are capable of listening in ways that audio professionals can not.
One commenter wrote:
"Mark is a pro and speaks just like one, but he is not a professional LISTENER, like you (Writer's NOTE: the guy offering the ultra expensive power cords), I and so many others in the high-end industry. Interesting is that most so-called experts are also naysayers who work in the recording industry, not in the high-end industry."
What does this statement actually claim? That professional audio engineers and producers do not know how to listen? That spending one's professional life in front of speakers in a control room doesn't require listening?Maybe...just maybe...the engineers responsible for producing the recordings that are played back in these guys high-end systems are correct in their assessment of power cords and expensive USB/Ethernet cables. Image that!
Can you really trust a gentlemen that just launched a new cable company that offers a 6-foot power cord for $3150? Oh and this person also believes that cables are directional! BTW They are not.
Here's a couple of additional comments...
"Cables can make a difference. I’m glad I can hear those differences it truly enhances the experience. I have been a dedicated audiophile and in the industry for over 45 years and have been able to identify those differences since my first experience with Smog Lifters in the 70’s. I search for and usually discover great products that deserve special attention by people looking for the last bit of resolution and coherency. I’m truly sorry for those that wouldn’t hear the difference."
Here's a comment from an individual that swapped a normal Ethernet cable for an expensive one.
"...the Vodka seemed to remove a layer of film for superior textural reveal. There was also a shade more tonal depth and recording space ‘air’. Most noticeable of all was a further uptick in micro-dynamic jump."
I don't know about you but I cringe when I hear people talk about audio in such terms. And this after listening to a commercial album and then stopping, swapping the cable and relistening. It's unbelievable.
I could pull quotes from cable reviews all afternoon but I think you get the point. When anyone starts spewing nonsense about power cords, digital interconnects, or network cables, run away. Keep your wallet in your pocket and unsubscribe from that group or online magazine. Their motivations are suspect. They either want to sell you something (usually at very high cost) or are dependent on advertising dollars from the companies they write about or the individuals they interview.
"237 responses Add your response
"...the sound per se is completely vulnerable to things that are not even remotely connected to the audio system"Have a haircut, use Afrin. I have been preaching that from time to time and it falls on deaf ears. Deaf ears that do notice audible differences in color of the few-milimeter long fuse or an oversized fridge magnet thrown in the hole in the wall. Someone should standardize haircuts, at least, before arguing about minutia of sound. |
fleschler @geoffkait I’ve outlined the construction of the listening room several times in these forums and I sure you’ve read them. No springs but 12" thick, 3000 psi, steel reinforced concrete foundation for the room. The room was designed by Acoustic Fields and has 16" multi-layered, activated carbon bass filtered walls/doors (no other openings). >>>>Wow! What a coincidence! My cigarettes have activated charcoal filters! Actually I must have missed your outlines of the construction of your listening room. Oops! |
@glubson I was very specific concerning the cost of my cabling at about $7500 and gave some detail as to the average cost and number of cables. My main audio system cost is about $60,000. The room cost had a cost overrun of about $20,000 due to designer and contractor errors (sent incorrect sized carbon paneling, absorption paneling, unfinished cherry plywood which had to be finished on-site, electrician who didn't follow directions and had to rewire/re-set separate audio sub-panel, etc). |
fleschler, I apologize for not getting the numbers right. It was eight or nine different numbers (including 10X-30X) mentioned in the post so I lost track what related to what and what was saved and how. In any case, it is an impressive endeavor to go through with the room. Most of the people would probably split $165000 between modifying an existing room and acquiring more expensive equipment although your approach is way more interesting. Why no windows? If I understood it correctly, and I might have missed it again, you would need artifical light and air flow all the time. That could be a problem in the long run, or during longer listening sessions. Is there an issue with that? |
glubson, Thank you. I already had the equipment and I moved into another home. The prior home had a 25X20X11 (vaulted) size listening and storage room with windows behind and to the side of the speakers. Although it had a 6" poured reinforced 3000 psi floor and dedicated power, 8" thick walls of more conventional construction, it is 100% inferior to the new room I built. I already had the equipment when I built the new room and used nearly the same SR HFT, speaker placement and Hallograph that I had in the prior room. So, it just cost a lot to build this custom room. Below is the breakdown of the room. Windows are anathema to good sound. Note my 17" thick pair of doors built identically to the walls. I built a separate storage adjacent room to house my 7,000 CDs, 5,000 78s and 18,000 LPs for immediate access and outdoor shed for the rest of the collection. Listening Room Construction It is custom but not SOTA materials Floor-Poured steel reinforced to 12” 3000 lb. PSI concrete floor Walls- 1” MDF 1/8” thick Acoustiblok vinyl sound barrier ¾” MDF 3 x 12 vertical studs, 14.5” on center Staggered 12.6” wide 2 x 12 and 4 x 12 per vertical stud channel 13” X 4” X 48” 72lb. 4 chamber activated charcoal absorption filters staggered vertically up/down/up/down 4” Rockwool insulation over vacant stud channel area adjacent to filters - Flexseal all joints ¾” cherry plywood Doors-Same construction as Walls 17" thick swinging 84" & 96" high Side Walls - 5X 4' X 2' X 3" wood framed acoustic absorption panels Ceiling 4’ Sound Absorption Blankets 4” Rockwool 2 x 8 horizontal beams 5/8” X drywall paneling - Flexseal all joints 1/8” thick Acoustiblok vinyl sound barrier ¾” cherry plywood Ceiling - 6X 5' X 3' X 6" wood framed acoustic absorption panels Recessed 9 BR 40 65 Watt LED floodlights 2 Ton HVAC split system, low speed, high volume 70+ oz. plush cut pile carpeting Power-Separate Sub-panel for audio only outlets, 10 gauge wiring, 20 amp breakers. Nothing special. |
$165,000 on a listening room is an extreme example of the cost involved when the financial principle of diminishing returns is ignored. This poster could potentially have achieved 95% of the sound quality he was looking for at the $50,000 mark. But he became obsessed with this "hobby" and completely lost the ability to comprehend the meaning of value (quality divided by price). Did it for me when he touted his 18,000 LPs. Really? Why spend that much on a room in which you play an outdated technology? |
No, I have 25,000 LPs/7,000 CDs/7,000 78s. I am 64 and started collecting/listening at 2 (two years old). At 5, I had 300 records (Steve Hoffman used to bring his portable record player to the beach when he was a child). I was not permitted to go shopping from ages 3 to 5 because all I would do is want a record, sold in nearly every store (like CDs, cassettes in the 90s and 80s respectively). As to BS flag, you may be full of B.S. as I am good friends with Frank (Oregonpapa and our mutual friend and prior remastering engineer Robert Pincus) and are friends with other world famous remastering engineers Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray. Also, my collection is relatively small compared to other acquaintances Music Man Murray (1 million records), Thomas Chandler (1.5 million records), Tom Null (200,000 records) all deceased but whom I have acquired some records from. I did not purchase most of my LP collection new but did buy 97% of the CDs and 50% of the 78s new (from stores going out of business in the 70s). @dynaquest4 LPs are NOT OUTDATED TECHNOLOGY! If you have read these forums and the industry (LP and hardware production), they are a very significant platform for reproducing music for serious listeners. My 78s, acoustic and electric recordings can be considered obsolete technology but provide ample pleasure to the listener. Acoustic recordings are more difficult to properly reproduce than LPs (speeds, e.q., stylus size, etc). CDs are considered outdated technology due to frequency band limitations among other reasons; however, like LPs are also a significant platform for reproducing music. You also point out that I could have achieved 95% of my acoustical requirements at $50,000. HOW DO YOU KNOW? I was a commercial real estate appraiser for nearly 32 years and one of my specialties was sound studio appraisals, existing and proposed. I appraised 17 studios in Los Angeles area, some under construction with very significantly greater costs per square foot, double layered concrete viscous material separated flooring and walls, split positive and negative power grids to the studios, etc,, really expensive set-ups. My contractor and designer completed a Capitol Studios remodel and are now working on an 8,500 square foot recording studio in Newport Beach for $800,000. I had a budget of $145,000, which included finishing materials, power, lighting and HVAC so my actual acoustical construction costs were closer to $130,000. Since I don't intend to move again, can afford what I built and do not intend to alter the listening room construction, the price was right. Acquaintances who have high end expensive audio systems have spent $500,000 to $800,000 on their much larger listening rooms. My cost was significantly lower on a per square foot basis and require no bass traps of any sort. Acoustics represent 50% of music sound quality in my opinion as well as knowledgeable people; otherwise, we would not have spent as much on achieving optimal sound (very common in the construction of concert halls throughout the world). |
Holy Crap! Just did the math. 18,000 LPs (and not counting the CDS and 78s he boasts) equates to buying a LP every day for 50 years. I’m throwing out the red BS flag on that one. Nahhh, accumulating that number of albums over a relatively short period of time isn’t really that hard ( especially if the albums were bought as collections, or bought used during the period when the digital "revolution" caused an absolutely massive glut in the used record market...albums were often going for $2 a pop and snagging a few boxes of genuine gems on each visit to a well stocked record store was standard fair for many collectors in those days ) Heck I have about 10,000 albums and it was easy and cheap to assemble that collection ( and it could easily have been much larger but I was picky )....and btw I have several friends who have collections twice as large that were bought largely during the same period. Read, not that unusual, and fairly easy to do in the right circumstances ( that glut was one of the few things that was great about the advent of digital ). And as for the costs of that room....have been in that end of things for quite a while and have done several rooms like that....and the stated costs are not at all out of line. The thing is these projects involved doing serious heavy duty work/design, whereas most modern "stick" houses are crap cookie cutter construction executed with crap materials. Bottom line, real construction costs to produce real quality custom structures are real high in the relative sense. |
fleschler @geofkait I’ve outlined the construction of the listening room several times in these forums and I sure you’ve read them. No springs but 12" thick, 3000 psi, steel reinforced concrete foundation for the room. The room was designed by Acoustic Fields and has 16" multi-layered, activated carbon bass filtered walls/doors (no other openings). >>>That’s certainly one strategy - to try to make the structure as strong 🏋🏻♂️and non-resonant as possible, to try to prevent vibrations from interfering with the sound. it’s only fair to point out that seismic very low frequency vibration will still affect the sound inasmuch as the entire building is subject to Earth crust motion in all six count em! Directions. There is no escaping seismic type vibration without decoupling. Steel reinforced Concrete is no match for the strength of seismic vibration, which force the entire building to shake. That’s why the system should always be decoupled from building, even a room that’s very strong and rigid. Rigid is the enemy of sound, not it’s friend. Your friends are actually flexibility and ease of motion. The easier a component can move in a particular direction the better it’s isolated in that direction. Ironic, huh? The project to observe gravity waves constructed out in the middle of nowhere would have been very unsuccessful had it built an extremely strong structure in which the detector was placed, rather than take enormous pains to decouple the detectors and mirrors from the environment. Yes, there are two paths you can go by But in the long run There’s still time to change the road you’re on - Led Zeppelin |
If I can afford it I will go with very high expanse to accommodate a room for musical experience...I understand that, we put our money where our pleasure ask for...Then to criticize others for their expanse has no meanings except annoyance... I cannot invest high amount of money for my audiophile experience... Then to create an Hi-Fi with cost converging to "almost zero" was my task...And it is possible... In my experience the electronic components ratio price/ quality sound represent only 15 % of the audio final resulting experience... This proportion would seem to be too low for many of you...This % can vary for the worst if your speakers are not of sufficient high quality level, if your dac is too low quality, and amplifier less performing...If you had way better electronic components your sound will be better than mine but I dont think that better electronic components will modify the impactful influence of the 3 embeddings in term of importance for the peak potential experience in itself...For example a better and costlier electronic components gear system will not sound better than my audio system if the costlier system is badly embedded in the 3 environments: mechanical, acoustical, electrical... All my tweaks were improvised, homemade, created solutions, with very low cost... 1 Controls of vibrations resonance is 15 % 2 Acoustical field of the room 35 % 3 Electrical embeddings grid 35% These remarks are only made to create a counter argument to the almost universal pressure to buy the costlier electronic components, this is represented as the only way to Hi-Fi, and that is false because of the law of diminishing returns...Giving a relatively good quality of electronic components to begins with (like mine), at a certain threshold, the difference between an ordinary or low level audiophile experience and a high level one is determined by the controls of the 3 embeddings mostly... |
It’s not how MUCH you spend on the room, it’s HOW you spend it. Knowledge is what’s left after 🔜 you subtract out all you’ve forgotten from school - which I dare say in this particular endeavor - high end audio - ain’t going to help you that much anyway. 🤗 Example - most people are blissfully unaware of the impact on the sound of the very high sound pressure levels SPLs found in room corners and other locations on walls and in the 3 dimensional space of the room. It’s like having an army of narrow band speakers beaming down at you from all around the room, interfering with the pure signal from the main speakers. Comb filter effects up the wazoo! These locations are room and system dependent and can only be identified by the relatively time consuming method using a SPL meter and test signal. Another example - John A Public still doesn’t know how to set up speakers. And frankly, I’m getting a little tired of telling them. 😛 |
But he became obsessed with this "hobby" and completely lost the ability to comprehend the meaning of value (quality divided by price).Nothing wrong with that. The man has time, likes it, can afford it, and enjoys it. Along the way, he provides job and food on the table for a few families. Win-win. I wouldn't do it to such an extent, but no harm was done in this story. |
LPs are NOT OUTDATED TECHNOLOGY!They are still around, but, if the number of LP-filled boxes on the curbs of some cities are anything to go by, many LP owners do feel it is outdated. So does public library that does not take LP donations anymore. They still take CDs. "...they are a very significant platform for reproducing music for serious listeners"What exactly are "serious listeners"? These days, it may be iPhone with AirPods Pro. Check the numbers of those sold and compare to the number of turntables, or records, sold. Those are some serious discrepancies, I am afraid. |
"I suspect I'm being trolled by @dynaquest4 "There it is....just as when bible beaters end a conversation about the true existence of divine intervention or the efficacy of prayer, and run out of counter points, they drop the "God works in mysterious ways" bomb. On this forum, if you disagree you are dubbed a "troll." Which is nothing more than a personal insult disguised as...well, an insult. That poster's first reply was quite well written...there was no need for the followup. |
"Between glupson and geoffkait, I dont know who is the shark and who is the remora anymore"I am more of a whale while geoffkait it more of a kid with orange inflatable floating device with a smiling duck face on it. One day, he will have my picture on the wall, but first he has to learn how to swim with the big boys. |
geoffkait, "...glubson is an angelfish." Stay away! "In pet stores, the freshwater angelfish is typically placed in the semiaggressive category. Some tetras and barbs are compatible with angelfish, but ones small enough to fit in the mouth of the angelfish may be eaten. Generous portions of food should be available so the angelfish do not get hungry and turn on their tank mates" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterophyllum |
Great results with four Baby Promethean Mini Isolator springs. They are between the underside of a Schumann Resonator and small granite blocks. Really demonstrates how vibration control is important to manage. Nice to just put the springs in place and forget about them. Fo.Q tape is another winner. A small piece accomplishes a lot. |
| Post removed |
I am 100% in agreement with mahlman (and Dr. AIX -- IBM Unix?) Damaged or defective power, speaker and interconnect cables can certainly produce audible artifacts. But once you have eliminated actual defects the law of diminishing returns comes crashing in pretty fast IMO. Especially if your cables are of a similar quality to those used to make the recording. A great point, I say. When it comes to digital cables, the cheapest ones that are not defective work EXACTLY the same as the most expensive ones you can buy. I have been on this horse before, but a digital signal is just data until it gets to your DAC. Anyone who knows how data transfer protocols work knows that even a marginal cable can deliver 100% accurate data. That is because the protocol checks the received data for consistency and asks for a new copy if it fails. While it is possible for bad data to pass as good, it is EXTREMELY rare. If you do get bad data or your cable is so poor that repeated transmissions cannot fix the error, the difference is NOT SUBTLE. Your tin eared grandfather will notice right away. I am not certain where it makes sense to draw the line on analog cables, but if there is anyone interested in digital cables costing more than $50 for a 10 foot run: I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I would like to sell you.(For less than the cost of an audiophile power cord :) ) |
Glupson: What exactly are "serious listeners"? These days, it may be iPhone with AirPods Pro. Check the numbers of those sold and compare to the number of turntables, or records, sold. Those are some serious discrepancies, I am afraid.People listening to MP3s on their iPhone through AirPods are casual listeners. For the most part, they would tell you so. Your (unsited) statistics if correct (they probably are) would just prove there are more casual listeners than serious listeners among the general public. I don’t think anyone on this forum would disagree. |
BTW: I don't knock casual listeners. I am one sometimes. In the gym I listen to music streamed to my (not i) phone through Bluetooth headphones. Even in that mode, though, I am a little bit picky. I listen to CD quality FLAC files (from TIDAL) and when I buy a new phone I pay attention to the quality of the on board DAC (current phone LG G7) because I don't care to plug in an external one. My current Bluetooth headphones are Bose Soundsports. Definitely middle of the road IMO, but not bad for the price. |
@kfz03110, "after listened different cables: The differences are so small that I can’t even repeat my own blind test picks. So I just buy decent entry level cables( low hundreds) and spend my money on speakers, electronics, and source." Same advice goes for bitrates in my case, but mastering definitely matters. Earlier today I compared tracks from ’The Hollies 20 Greatest Hits’ (one of the very few recommended - unfutzed - early compilations of this1960s Manchester outfit). Even with headphones I could not easily detect much difference between flac and 192kbps rips! Yet a similar volume levelled comparison between the above mentioned CD and the similar ’The Hollies All the Hits and More : the Definitive Collection (1988)’ revealed clear, easy to distinguish sonic differences. Despite what I’d read previously, mainly on the wonderful Steve Hoffman forum, I found myself preferring the latter. This CD transfer seemed to have a touch more (original vinyl-like) punch and energy. Both versions sounded vastly preferable to my ears than the more modern sounding Ron Furmanek remastered and remixed effort ’The Hollies 30th Anniversary Collection’ 3CD set, from 1993. https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/the-hollies-on-cd.2410/ |
"
When it comes to digital cables, the cheapest ones that are not defective work EXACTLY the same as the most expensive ones you can buy. I have been on this horse before, but a digital signal is just data until it gets to your DAC. Anyone who knows how data transfer protocols work knows that even a marginal cable can deliver 100% accurate data. " yeah, this is what people believed in the 80`s |