Newbee,
Regarding off axis listening, what one normally experiences in most systems is that when one moves outside the sweet spot or the sweet zone there is a loss of realism. The image that one hears in the sweet area does not carry over into the non-sweet area. So, other listeners will not have the same sonic experience outside "the zone" as those inside "the zone" have. With my system, you can move around the room and all the elements remain in place. It is quite uncanny. You can sit or stand virtually anywhere in the room and not feel the sonic image is diminished. You never get the feeling that you are outside "the zone" unless you are very close to one of the speakers or directly outside one of the speakers. |
Newbee,
You are elucidating an important point -- the difference between stereo imaging and sonic holography. We are actually talking about a continuum here that starts with the most elementary stereo imaging that has little depth and where location of voices and instruments is imprecise and the images not well defined.
On the other end of the continuum is the most sophisticated holographic imaging one could imagine which would be represented by an incredible sense of 3-dimensionality that moves out from the speakers on all sides with exceptional depth, width and height where placement of voices and instruments is not only precise but also appears with a sense of realism, finesse and continuity that gives one the feeling of "being there". Of course, the other sonic parameters that are important to us all must be there, as well.
I do not think it is possible to reach the apex of sonic holography. I believe we are always working toward that idea. I have been working toward it with every improvement I have made to my system -- with a couple of improvements to go. But I have attained what I consider a high level of sonic holography in my system.
I have been working on room treatment as much as possible. The addition of the Shakti Hallographs has made a big difference in my room. But things are not ideal yet. I have the Synergistic Research ART but I do not have the space to mount everything properly at the moment. When we remodel the house everything will fall into place in a larger listening room |
Douglas_schroeder wrote (in 2004)
"I'm guessing no one's seen this kind of response to this question yet.
I'm 42, pastor, and I intentionally have not purchased as high end a system as I'd like; I give very sacrificially to the Lord. I'm investing in the "etherial sound sytem" I will one day enjoy."
One assumes you finally sacrificed sufficiently to be able to enjoy that ethereal sound system you've been lusting after all those years. |
I'm somewhat at a loss to understand what exactly the OP means when he refers to 'sonic holography' and wonder if perhaps he is confusing that term with 'stereo image'. IMHO the later refers to a sense of height, width and depth, all of which are relative depending on equipment set up and of course source.
IMHO 'sonic holography' represents the optimum achievement in 'stereo image' something which does not appear in most rooms under any conditions and even with the appropriate room, set up, equipment and source, it takes a lot of time and patience, as well as listening skills. It usually helps a lot if one has actually ever heard it. FWIW, I've been doing this for a while and I have only heard it once in a commercial 'high end' setting (Dealer listen rooms). Once! And not again.
When I read that the OP believes that he has created what I refer to as 'sonic holography' by optimizing his wires but not optimizing his set up, which it is obvious he has not, I believe he is engaging in a bit of hyperbole.
Taken to the next level, he also claims that now with the wires optimized he has optimized 'sonic holography' without regard to where one listens, that there no longer is a sweet spot seating requirement, off axis is fine, while using dynamic speakers, challenges my imagination, and suggests to me that he is experiencing varying levels of 'stereo imaging'.
Perhaps we need to explore what exactly is 'sonic holography' and how, or if, it can be differentiated from the traditional, if more pedestrian, 'stereo imaging' concept.
Perhaps I am the only one who differentiates the two phrases. If so just ignore this. |
"It is the energy flow via the electrons that creates the audio signal. While the actual speed of the electrons themselves is slow and their movement is characterized by more than one form of movement, the sound we hear actually travels very fast via the energy flow through the electrons."
Actually, energy doesn't flow thru electrons, electric charge does. Rate of this electric charge is measured in Coulombs per second and called electric current. Energy travels on the outside of the cable thru magnetic field (called the Poynting field). For instance, electric charge flows from one terminal of battery thru the load to come back to another terminal while energy flows from both terminals to the load on the outside of the cable.
This might help: http://amasci.com/elect/poynt/poynt.html |
Douglas_schroeder,
Futility comes in all sizes and colors. |
Sabai, do not waste your time discussing anything with Geoffkait. |
If you stand 5m from listening live piano-viola concerto, do you feel a holography of sound? Is it similar to Carver's Sonic Holography?? Or what yall realy mean under Sonic Holography after all?? |
Sabai wrote,
"Geoffkait,
To keep things simple, when referring to "in the signal path" I
am talking about whatever is actually connected to the circuitry of the
system."
I suspect that might makes things a little too simple. Of course it all
depends how one defines "signal
path" I think a more accurate definition, and one that is probably
acceptable even to most naysayers, is the signal path is chain of source
(CD, LP, etc.), electronics, cables and speakers as well as the acoustic
waves that arrive at the listener's ears from the speakers and from room
walls, etc.
For example, I suspect most people would agree that CD tweaks such as
cleaning fluids and the Green Pen are IN the signal path. And most people,
even naysayers, would probably not dispute the room acoustics' effects on
the sound. So, i think we should agree that room acoustics are in the
signal path.
Where I think the definition of "signal path" diverges is
when we discuss devices or tweaks that don't appear to influence the
"electronic signal path" OR the acoustic portion of the signal
path. Isn't that the definition of a controversial tweak? That is why I would
put isolation devices, dampers, diffusers, absorbers, tiny little bowls, tube
traps and Hallographs IN the signal path, even CD treatments, cryogenics,
cable wraps and parallel line purifiers.
But certain (controversial) tweaks like SteinMusic Harmonizer, crystals, the
Intelligent Chip, Acoustic Revive Schumann Frequency Generator,
deionizers and demagnetizers and LessLoss Blackbody seem to fall
somewhere in No Man's Land, difficult to say for sure whether they're in or
out. Still others are clearly not in the signal path - Rainbow Foil, Clever
Clock, Red X Pen, the telephone thing, things of that nature.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica |
Geoffkait,
Sorry if I ascribed this to you in error. No worries. This is not a "problem area" for me -- for whoever wants to go there. |
Sabai wrote,
"geoffkait, you stated, "I honestly don't know where Sabai falls." Frankly, I don't care where I "fall". Whoever wants to pigeon-hole me can go right ahead."
I did not make that statement. You must be thinking of someone else.
Cheers, GK |
Csontos,
Tell us a good joke. I got a great sense of humor. I love a good laugh. |
Almarg,
Since you have no experience with this and since you have not heard my system -- which would certainly convince you -- there is only one thing you can do, and that is to speculate. This is totally understandable. There is no way for anyone to understand this process unless they start to experiment personally with series and parallel cabling. And it is understandable that this will not be a viable option for most people. It takes a lot of work and a lot of money to do this -- and the inclination to do something completely different. |
Geoffkait,
You stated, "... the velocity of electrons through audio cables, the drift velocity, is actually extremely slow ...". Of course, you are completely correct. My later post where I correct my misstatement was not allowed -- or is just late in being posted here.
You also stated, "On the other hand, the electromagnetic wave - the musical signal travelling through audio cables - travels at a high percentage of the speed of light." You are completely correct. Close to the speed of light. This is what I was referring to -- the signal, not the electrons themselves, which my later post explains (not yet appearing here).
You stated "I honestly don't know where Sabai falls." Frankly, I don't care where I "fall". Whoever wants to pigeon-hole me can go right ahead. |
Almarg,
You stated, "FWIW, the OPÂ’s path is not one that I would personally follow. It suggests the possibility that a multitude of small inaccuracies were both originally present and subsequently introduced, which after a great deal of time and experimentation have been made to essentially cancel each other out. If I were not satisfied with the imaging/dimensionality/holography of my system, consistent with some of Onhwy61Â’s comments I would focus on speaker placement ..."
There were no "inaccuracies" present or introduced that "cancelled" each other out. With all due respect, frankly, I find this a very odd statement. Especially the idea of introducing inaccuracies and cancelling out. I have a problem wrapping my head around this one. It is a complete misconception. I am not talking about inaccuracies. I am talking about improving the holographic imaging and other parameters. There was nothing "inaccurate" about the sound before these improvements were made. The sound was as accurate as it could be at that time given the nature of the system that was then in place.
When you introduce a second power cord in series with a Bybee AC Purifier, for example, you do not introduce an "inaccuracy" into the system. If anything, the sound becomes more "accurate", if you care to put it that way, because some of the AC has been cleaned up. The end result of all the improvements is a much more "accurate" sound. If anything has been cancelled by this process it is only one thing -- the lack of earlier "accuracy" due to distortion caused by dirty AC.
Off-axis listening in the "new improved" system is phenomenal. You can sit or stand virtually anywhere in the room and hear the same holographic image. |
You are laughing right now, right? |
09-18-12: Csontos
Al, he's stating for all intents and purposes, that he's experiencing a far higher degree of holography than you did with your Carver!! I can't believe you're willing to reconcile this to personal individual experience. Reminds me of the seventies when a bunch of brand names attempted to pass themselves off as high end by producing spuriously favorable specs. What's up? Diplomacy does have a down side. Namely public perception. As I see it, the conclusion stated in your first sentence can only be read into his posts with respect to off-axis listening, for which the Carver Sonic Hologram essentially doesn't work. My take on the rest of his comments is reflected in my previous post, which amounts primarily to an opinion that his findings should not be expected to have broad applicability. Not sure what else there is to say. Regards, -- Al |
Al, he's stating for all intents and purposes, that he's experiencing a far higher degree of holography than you did with your Carver!! I can't believe you're willing to reconcile this to personal individual experience. Reminds me of the seventies when a bunch of brand names attempted to pass themselves off as high end by producing spuriously favorable specs. What's up? Diplomacy does have a down side. Namely public perception. |
Drift velocity with audio cables constantly changes direction since audio cable carry AC current making them "vibrate". At higher frequencies they practically stand still. |
Kijanki wrote,
"Geoffkait, electrons don't travel at all - they vibrate standing in place since we're dealing with AC signals."
I was obviously referring to audio cables, not A/C cables. Electron Drift Velocity is on the order of 1 mm/hr.
Cheers |
Al,
Correlation is weakened by the fact that people often try more expensive cable from the wrong family or their systems have poor transparency. Cardas cables, for instance, are praised by many for the warmth, while Nordost cables bring speed and resolution. Replacing bottom of the line Cardas with top of the line Nordost in bright system can make it sound worse in spite of much higher price - a reverse correlation. At the same time person changing from less expensive to more expensive Nordost might feel big improvement. Over the years I used few Audioqest ICs in my system (Topaz, Ruby, Viper, King Cobra) finding each time more refinement with more expensive cable and when I thought King Cobra is good enough to keep I tried Acoustic Zen Absolute that cost more. I've never seen reverse or no correlation perhaps because I targeted cables known as neutral sounding for neutral sounding system. Would it be better to spend money on something else? - that's another story.
Geoffkait, electrons don't travel at all - they vibrate standing in place since we're dealing with AC signals. |
Sabai, I will be more than happy to tell you everything I know about holography. First, Carver was not true holography. I've owned and tried almost every gimic under the Sun, none of them worked.
Let us compare obtaining holography to cooking a good recipe; you begin with the best products you can buy. I suggest perusing an old library of "Stereophile" magazines and selecting from the components rated "Class-A". You also may need advice in regard to "synergy". Kevin at Upscale Audio is always in a talkative mood. Although I have custom speakers I'm partial to Von Schweikerts.
A dedicated listening room is also essential. There must be space between the back wall and the side wall in regard to the speakers. The only area you can make a substantial savings, is on interconnects and speaker wire. Since high quality wire is a must, you'll have to get it from a speaker store or "Vampire Wire", but you can get it in bulk and terminate your own.
Once you get it altogether, you'll still need advice from your "guru" of choice to make it click; but when it does, you're in "audiophile heaven".
|
09-18-12: Csontos
Oh come on, Al. With all due respect, you of all people here should be able to tell us what we can expect to hear and what we cannot regarding the OP's position. Remember the "b.s."? Is it appropriate for all of us to become delusional? Seriously. Actually, I can’t say what others should expect regarding the OP’s position, and I don’t think that anyone can. I would simply asterisk the experiences he has reported with a big “YMMV.” As I have said in the past in many cable-related threads, cable effects are dependent to a considerable extent on interactions between their parameters and characteristics and the technical characteristics of what they are connecting. Things like input and output impedances, noise susceptibility, susceptibility to ground loop effects, power supply design (with respect to power cords), amplifier class of operation and other design variables (with respect to power cords), use of feedback in amplifiers (with respect to speaker cables), etc, etc. And even if the technical characteristics of what is being connected are known in detail, many of those effects would still be inherently unpredictable. And to the extent that there is predictability, it is easily possible to cite situations in which a sonic comparison between two cables would yield exactly opposite results depending on what is being connected. What would be a delusion, IMO, is an expectation of a high degree of correlation between cable price and cable performance. Weakness of that correlation follows in part from that system dependency and inherent unpredictability. And if, as many here would assert (including me, to a degree that is LIMITED AND FINITE), cable effects are not fully explainable on the basis of generally recognized science, there is further reason to expect a weak correlation between price and performance. To the extent that cable effects are not explainable on the basis of generally recognized science, no one can say with any precision where the dividing line is that separates sonically beneficial optimization of a given aspect of a cable’s design, from overkill that substantially raises the cost of the cable but provides no benefit. FWIW, the OP’s path is not one that I would personally follow. It suggests the possibility that a multitude of small inaccuracies were both originally present and subsequently introduced, which after a great deal of time and experimentation have been made to essentially cancel each other out. If I were not satisfied with the imaging/dimensionality/holography of my system, consistent with some of Onhwy61’s comments I would focus on speaker placement, listening position, and room acoustics, and probably also on upgrading components. But that’s just me. The OP has found a path to success that worked for him, for which he is to be congratulated. But as I said earlier, YMMV. Regards, -- Al |
Geoffkait,
To keep things simple, when referring to "in the signal path" I am talking about whatever is actually connected to the circuitry of the system.
Regarding electrons, of course I misstated this. I should have said the audio signal travels awfully fast through cables -- not the electrons. To clarify, the electrons themselves are not actually "flowing" at lightning speed when we talk about the flow of electricity. It is the energy flow via the electrons that creates the audio signal. While the actual speed of the electrons themselves is slow and their movement is characterized by more than one form of movement, the sound we hear actually travels very fast via the energy flow through the electrons. If we had to wait for the electrons themselves to arrive with that signal we would be very disappointed. Each modification of the signal path via cables and "tweaks" changes the signal flow via the electrons. I hope this clarifies how I see signal modification happening. |
Onhwy61 wrote,
"My apologies for misdescribing the telephone thing. Although I note you are careful not to say it wasn't a joke."
- Ok, I'll say it. It's not a joke. It's as serious as a colonoscopy without anesthetic.
:-)
GK |
Oh come on, Al. With all due respect, you of all people here should be able to tell us what we can expect to hear and what we cannot regarding the OP's position. Remember the "b.s."? Is it appropriate for all of us to become delusional? Seriously. |
My apologies for misdescribing the telephone thing. Although I note you are careful not to say it wasn't a joke. |
Onhwy61 wrote,
"Some people fall outside the curve because they are brilliant
outsiders blazing paths into the unknown. But for every person like that
there are probably a thousand who are just oddballs. I honestly don't know
where Sabai falls. I applaud him for his willingness to share, yet at the
same time some of the things he says sound like an elaborate inside joke.
Not all that different than the post by the guy selling the over the telephone
test tones."
Most folks would probably consider tiny little bowls that improve bass
frequencies, 7.8 Hz frequency generators, the Red X Coordinate Pen, LP
demagnetizers, the Quantum Clip, Tourmaline Gun, liquid cables, CD edge
bevelers, directional fuses and Rainbow Foil to be elaborate jokes or cruel
hoaxes foisted on gullible audiophiles. Side note: the telephone thing does
not involve test tones.
GK |
Regarding Doug's finding that a longer XLR cable that was not designed for digital applications outperformed a shorter RCA digital cable, that is not at all implausible or surprising. For one thing, it can often be expected that a modestly longer cable will outperform a shorter one in a digital application, depending on a number of system-dependent variables. For the explanation, see this paper by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio ("Audioengr" at Audiogon). While the paper discusses S/PDIF, similar considerations can be applicable to AES/EBU, although the specific numbers may be different. None of this is applicable to the much lower frequencies of analog audio signals, however. Also, of course, a comparison between an unbalanced interface and a balanced interface introduces many variables into the mix besides the intrinsic differences between the cables. In digital applications those would include differences in signal characteristics such as risetimes and falltimes, which are directly relevant to jitter; the fact that different interface circuits are being used in the two components; and differences in susceptibility to ground loop effects and pickup of low level noise, both of which can affect jitter. Regards, -- Al |
Sabai wrote,
"But I can speculate. Electrons travel awfully fast through cables. And as they travel through a series of cables they are being organized in a unique way through each unique cable -- and through each unique "tweak". It is the combined effects of this multiple-stage organizing of electrons that produce very special results. This is where the word synergy enters the picture. From my way of thinking, having experienced this first-hand, the shortest path is irrelevant in the search for better sound through series cabling. There is virtually no difference in how long it takes for the current to pass through a short signal path versus a long signal path. And that time difference is not a deciding factor when it comes to the issue of sonic synergy. This is an issue that is cable-dependent and "tweak"-dependent -- not an issue that is "length of signal path"-dependent."
Just for the record, the velocity of electrons through audio cables, the drift velocity, is actually extremely slow, on the order of one meter per 12 hours! On the other hand, the electromagnetic wave - the musical signal travelling through audio cables - travels at a high percentage of the speed of light.
Also for the record, Shakti Hallographs are actually IN the signal path, assuming one considers reflected acoustic waves in the room that reach the ear to be part of the Signal Path. Ditto for Tube Traps, Corner Tunes, Skyline and other diffusers, Sonex and such. LessLoss Blackbody, Tice Clock and Schumann low frequency (7.8 Hz) generator are much better examples of devices that most folks would deem NOT to be in the signal path. |
Orpheus10,
What have you done since you left Carver behind to attain holography in your system? Would you care to share some of this here? As you so rightly observe, holography -- at a sufficiently high level -- really brings the music alive and makes it so enjoyable.
I would love to have heard the systems you are referring to. I do my auditioning in Hong Kong, Bangkok and Singapore. The Adelphi 1 Audio Mall in Singapore is the all-in-one audio emporium that I enjoy best of all. |
Douglas_schroeder,
Thank you for your kind post. It is much appreciated. You have the kind of open mind that I esteem. I think you would be stunned if you sat down and listened to my system. I was brought up as a classical pianist from the age of seven. I graduated from the Conservatory of Music. Music is a passion for me -- not a hobby. I believe you sensed this from reading my OP.
Thanks for letting me know about this joke. I had no idea. It will be very easy for me to ignore these folks. I am of another generation and am not familiar with this kind of "inside joke". I could not care less. IÂ’m not too old to appreciate good music and to recognize what my ears tell me. My hearing is very acute. I can still hear 16,000Hz.
I agree. Those who laugh at this are missing out. Daisy-chaining is not totally unknown in high end audio, by the way, although it is unknown with cables. I found a couple of threads on other sites about daisy-chaining power conditioners + isolation transformers + power regenerators. The posters gave me some ideas that I found were spot on for my own system -- how to get the best effects when using these front-end components. I have four of these components in series in my front end. I could never go back to having only one or two of these elements in my front end. The combined result with all four in my system has been nothing short of stunning.
I also used to feel that the shortest path must be the best way -- before I started experimenting with cables in series. I think you will change your mind very quickly once you start experimenting with series cabling. With reference to the shortest path, I think you have already experienced what I am talking about, regarding your digital cable experience. I have found that detail and definition are actually enhanced -- as well as sound stage and continuity -- when you have the right synergy with series cabling. This is totally counter to what one would expect and I have no explanation for it.
But I can speculate. Electrons travel awfully fast through cables. And as they travel through a series of cables they are being organized in a unique way through each unique cable -- and through each unique "tweak". It is the combined effects of this multiple-stage organizing of electrons that produce very special results. This is where the word synergy enters the picture. From my way of thinking, having experienced this first-hand, the shortest path is irrelevant in the search for better sound through series cabling. There is virtually no difference in how long it takes for the current to pass through a short signal path versus a long signal path. And that time difference is not a deciding factor when it comes to the issue of sonic synergy. This is an issue that is cable-dependent and "tweak"-dependent -- not an issue that is "length of signal path"-dependent.
Like you, I also demand detail along with improved holography. I never sacrifice detail for the sake of improved imaging. There is no easier way to kill the sound than to take away the detail. In fact, I was looking for increased detail/definition by using cables in series and I have been pleasantly surprised with this very result.
In my opinion, you are not entirely right when you comment that it is virtually impossible to say which cable is doing what in the series. You can take out one cable at a time and reinsert each, one at a time, to find out what special properties each cable imparts to the series. This is how I discovered which position in each series is best for each cable. In the end, it is the synergy of the whole series that matters. There is no telling ahead of time how things will sound until you work with each cable and each “tweak” in each series to discover the best location for each of them.
Jack Bybee has kept me very busy finding novel ways to integrate his products into my system. Jack is the kind of innovative audio manufacturer I seek out. We all know how run-of-the-mill sounds. But if you want to reach a higher level you have to use a bit of imagination and a lot of cash to make it happen. If you don't succeed, OK -- nothing much lost. But if you do succeed you may be the happiest audio camper around – with some people scratching their heads, and some laughing about something they have no experience with.
Regarding searching for that single special cable, the closest I have come is HiDiamond. But I still use all HiDiamonds in my system (digital, interconnects, speaker cables, power cords) in series with other cables and “tweaks” for the best effect. If you could hear my system you would instantly know what I am talking about. Once you have started down the series-cabling path there is no going back because you realize that nothing is lost or sacrificed. No sonic parameter is compromised. On the contrary. Everything is enhanced -- and I am talking about not subtle -- when you come up with winning combinations. I agree with you about a big change. If I make a change to my system and I am sitting there scratching my head trying to hear if something has happened then forget it.
Your own experiment with cables in parallel is a good example of the mindset I am talking about – stepping outside the box. Regarding parallel cabling, I am actually running a small experiment at the moment with speaker cables in parallel. So far, so good. But, up till now, I have actually been running all my speaker cables in series.
As for guidelines about how to go about successful series cabling and tweaking, the process seems to favor at least one active cable in the series. If initial results are not favorable, reverse the series and connect up again. If you want to start experimenting with series cabling I would suggest using a Synergistic Research active XLR interconnect in series with another non-active XLR interconnect of your choice from a different company. Since it will be very hard to get hold of Bybee XLR Interconnect Quantum Purifiers to “tweak’ the series – only about 12 pairs were made (I have one pair) -- the MIC Enacom (from Combak Harmonix in Japan) may do well. This is an excellent item for improving the sound through the XLR interconnect path but it is an item that is very position-dependant in the series.
By the way, although I am retired I still run a small and very successful company (in the electronics business but not audio-related). My business is based on an invention whose development was greatly dependent on keeping an open mind about possibilities. Ever the experimenter, I have recently developed my own audio product – a proprietary RCA feed-back circuit that has become an indispensible part of my system. It has been tested on many high end professional systems and in every case it greatly enhanced holographic imaging. One high end shop wanted to purchase a set on the spot after taking the time to listen carefully to its attributes. But I could not part with my prototype. I am now compiling a list of interested reviewers and distributors who will be receiving this product for evaluation. Please let me know if you are interested in receiving a set for evaluation.
Regarding devices that are not in the signal path, I have found Shakti Hallographs very useful.
Your positive response to my OP is greatly appreciated. |
Onhwy61,
There is no inside joke here. Everything is on the table. Those who don't understand -- not my problem. Their loss. I am not selling anything to anyone. I have nothing to sell. I'm not in the audio business or connected to anyone in the audio business. I'm only connected to the music.
This has indeed been a painstaking process, but a labor of love nonetheless. If I take even one element out of the system I have to put it back right away. There is no going back to the old way of doing things. Yes, getting really good sound quality takes an awful lot of work. Everything really good in my life has come with really hard work. |
Sabai, I left Carver behind a long time ago, that didn't compare to the holography I'm speaking of now, and I've heard incredible levels of holography with incredible price tags. What I heard at that high end emporium was all top of the line ARC and Thiel set up by an obsessed fanatic.
I had the pleasure of enjoying many listening sessions at his home. He enjoyed them as well because I'm not a motor mouth at listening sessions; I came to listen to music, not to talk about listening to music. As I recall he had CD's stored in those huge drawers, you see in public libraries.
The sound at his home was quite different from the sound at the emporium, it was lush, and euphoric as opposed to pin point, but even more "holographic". I believe the very best holographic speakers are "dipole" to some degree. His Von Schweikerts had speakers in both the rear and front of the cabinet.
As you stated, the degrees of holography are never ending, and they make the music so much more enjoyable.
|
Some people fall outside the curve because they are brilliant outsiders blazing paths into the unknown. But for every person like that there are probably a thousand who are just oddballs. I honestly don't know where Sabai falls. I applaud him for his willingness to share, yet at the same time some of the things he says sound like an elaborate inside joke. Not all that different than the post by the guy selling the over the telephone test tones.
I can't help but wonder if Sabai took all that stuff out of his system and just paid attention the speaker/listener position and room acoustics would he get equivalent or better results? Is getting really good quality sound that much work? |
Sabai, you are the best example by far, that I have seen on this site so far! |
|
Douglas_schroeder wrote,
"I'm not impressed with devices and gimmicks which are not in the signal path and seemingly have little purpose toward the signal (aside from sensible room tuning devices like sound panels and bass traps, etc.). They are largely a waste of money and time - and yes, I have done demo of many of them. I dont own them because they wasted my time for pissy results. I do not review them typically because they are a waste of time and effort relative to the direct changes one can make within the signal path. In that respect I see little wisdom in working with extraneous tweaks when one can alter the sound directly through things like cables. IMO, a Bybee filter has a lot more going for it in terms of change of a rig's sound than a LessLoss Blackbody or the Synergistic Research A.R.T. system."
You might consider cutting the Synergistic Research tiny little bowls some slack as they are clearly, well, apparently affecting room acoustics. Can't blame you one bit with respect to the Lessloss Blackbody, though. Obviously a work of the devil. Same goes for the Schumann Frequency Generator, Mpingo disc, deionizers, demagnetizers, Rainbow Foil, SteinMusic Harmonizer, Tiny Little Crystals on the wall and the Red X Coordinate Pen, not to mention Frank Tchang's tiny little bowls which are even tinier than the A.R.T. bowls, if you can believe that. :-) |
Doug,
I believe ebm has very poor English dictionary(as he/she certainly speaks different one) that isn't sufficient to blast detailed explainations or descriptions on this site.
It shouldn't mean that his contributions isn't welcomed. |
Sabai, Jefferybowman2k and Ebm are mocking you. Their posts added nothing constructive to the conversation. Ignore them.
If you Google the prhase, "One hit quit," refers to a potent Cannabis which would get the user high in one hit. I assume they are suggesting either that you are high or that anyone who reads your post will become high, that is become delusional. Instead of telling you why they don't like your idea of daisy chaining cabling they made fun of you. So, ignore them.
As a person who has spent many years, a lot of money and time on cabling my reaction to your post is the absolute opposite. I commend you for being creative! Instead of assuming you know how things will sound you experimented. THAT is how exciting things are discovered in system building, not sitting back and laughing at others.
You have spent a lot of time with Cabling and it shows. You also are to be commended, not mocked, for creativity when trying novel ideas in building audio systems! This idea of linking/daisy chaining cables had not occurred to me, but I will try it at some point to see what the effect is. People who sit and laugh at others miss out on the experience of the discovery. I have tried a lot of experiments with systems to see what might yield unexpectedly great results.
Now, having said that, I am in agreement that the shortest cable run is the best in that it will bring the best sound; the idea of daisy chaining power cords and interconnects goes counter to my thinking. I believe that if I were to put a couple ICs together as you suggest, and try them both ways that I will still conclude that a single one is superior. The same with power cords. I think you are hearing an effect emphasizing macrodynamics but I think your definition and detail would suffer using the method you suggest.
It had also better be a big change. I don't chase puny changes in systems, as there are way too many huge upgrades to be had, and I'm long done chasing pissy little ones. If even after several seconds it doesn't manifest itself as a big difference then I'm usually done with it; it won't ever be enough to consider as a big improvement. I will certainly not be an audiophile who sits there, 'Well, I think I hear a difference..." IMO, that is a loser's game.
I do believe you are getting some RFI filtering with added length to the interconnects and power cords. So, my guess is that it would seem "better" in some respects, but at the cost of some microdynamics/definition/detail. In principle I almost never will sacrifice definition and detail for any other improvement. I demand both the definition/detail AND the other improvement such as holographic image. :)
But with cabling it is just fun to try novel arrangements. Just last night an audiophile friend and I were comparing two digital cables, one a .5 meter RCA and the other a 2M Balanced/XLR cable acting as AES/EBU, both of the same manufacturer. One might think the shortness of the .5M cable and the fact that it is a dedicated Digital Coaxial cable would make it superior. But no, the XLR interconnect acting as a digital AES/EBU was clearly superior.
My point in the illustration is that we can think logically that we know the outcome of a particular cable decision but the truth is that often the results would surprise us if we heard the two choices in comparison. I have no doubt that you are getting quite different sound with your daisy chaining cables. It would be similar to something I do with speaker cables - using two full pair of cables on one set of binding posts.
I find it incredible the number of audiophiles who are so tight with their money or so arrogant they think they can predict a sound without hearing it that they refuse to experiment. Their loss! From your OP it sounds like you have used complete double paralel runs of speaker cabling and have found precisely what I have; it transforms the speaker's sound, gaining a tremendous amount of what you have termed "holographic." Prescisely! It is a very pleasing gain in the sense of solidity and 3-D nature of the soundstage. The Arrogant Ones would say it's stupid. Again, their loss! :)
My thoughts about your experimenting with using multiple interconnects and power cords is that I fear you are muddying up the result. Of those two cords or two interconnects you join one will be superior. It may not have all the properties you wish for, but it will come closer to your ideal. I would urge you, then, to keep looking for a single interconnect or single power cord, etc. which will have ALL the properties you wish. They do exist, though you may have to go through a dozen to find them. It can be a very exhausting process.
The other problem with daisy chain of cabling is that you cannot tell what each is contributing to the sound. It is only trial and error, but that doesn't help you move your rig with purpose toward your ideal sound. This is especially so if you are mixing and matching cables throughout the system! You are unwittingly making it far harder to gain a clear direction where you want the sound to go. I did a lot of mixing and matching of cables in my early years as an audiophile and thought it was superior. Now that I have been able to procure many different brands and hear them in comparison I advise the opposite; Stop mixing and start comparing entire looms/sets.
But, I will try your method of daisy chaining interconnects just for fun! It's a lot of joyous discovery to find out what such things do to the sound! It hurts nothing and opens your ears to new experiences. What do I expect? I expect a fundamentally different sound, a change which will emphasize macrodynamics but at the cost of mircrodynamics, similar to a networked power cord or a power conditioning device placed on the system. It will be interesting to see if that is my impression.
Finally, I would compare the daisy chain technique more to networked cables, which I have over time found to be horrid, one of the best ways to kill definition and purity of a system. I have a feeling that I will not be using your technique, but I commend you for creativity and being willing to discuss it.
Finally, to everyone; there are hundreds - no, limitless numbers of steps to advance an audio system. Holographic nature of the soundstage IS an element which will improve dramatically as those steps are climbed, be it one at a time or in leaps and bounds as far more capable equipment is used.
I'm not impressed with devices and gimmicks which are not in the signal path and seemingly have little purpose toward the signal (aside from sensible room tuning devices like sound panels and bass traps, etc.). They are largely a waste of money and time - and yes, I have done demo of many of them. I dont own them because they wasted my time for pissy results. I do not review them typically because they are a waste of time and effort relative to the direct changes one can make within the signal path. In that respect I see little wisdom in working with extraneous tweaks when one can alter the sound directly through things like cables. IMO, a Bybee filter has a lot more going for it in terms of change of a rig's sound than a LessLoss Blackbody or the Synergistic Research A.R.T. system.
Sabai, keep having fun and experimenting! You are a positive person on this board and have an obvious love for the hobby! |
Orpheus10,
I have read that, with Carver products, you have to sit in a sweet spot or you do not experience the effect. If this is true then it is very different from the holographic effect I experience in my system. You can sit virtually anywhere in my room and the experience is still holographic with no skewing of the sound due your listening position. |
I must have been responding to Almarg's post, my bad.
|
Orpheus10,
You understand exactly what I'm talking about -- being able to reach out and touch vocalists and instrumentalists. It is that feeling of immediacy and aliveness that makes this unique. But you seem to have achieved this level of holography at a much lower cost than me with the Carver, where I have used cables and "tweaks". I have no experience with Carver products but I have read about them. Do you still have your unit or are you now achieving your holographic effect in another way? I am not clear on this from your post because you state that your experiences have been the same as mine.
There is no way I could ever go back to the "old way" of doing things. If I take even one element out of the system I have to put it right back. I will be adding three new items in the next few months to see if I can get the sound to an even higher level -- without breaking the bank.
My wife doesn't understand audio prices -- to put it mildly -- so I just make a joke of things and we let it go at that. She runs the house. I run the office/listening room. Division of labor works well in our home. |
I think I got it. You mean only one post at a time? I don't see any problem with more than one. |
Onhwy61,
There are 3 interconnects plus a Bybee product and a Combax product. That makes 5 levels. There are 3 speaker cables plus two Bybee products and one Synergistic Research product. That makes six levels. |
Sabai, please clarify. When you say there are 5 levels of interconnects between the D/A and the integrated amp are you saying that you have daisy chained 5 different interconnects together and are using them as a "single" interconnect? And does 6 levels of speaker cable mean a similar arrangement is used between the integrated and the loudspeakers? |
|
|
Sabai, my experiences have been the same as yours. Before I got to where I am, Carver holography was my thing. There's no comparison with what I had and what I got.
It took years to get where I am, but fortunately "high end emporiums" existed at that time. You could pay them a visit, and mix and match various pieces of equipment. I recall one time in particular when we were grooving high on top of the line ARC electronics, and Thiel speakers, when someone came in wanting to audition a Rotel amp. Although they kept the ARC CD player, ARC preamp and Thiel speakers in the mix, the sound stage went flat, no more holography.
That illustrated that you have to have it all, and the more expensive, the better. Not only do you need top of the line equipment, but 20 or so years as an audiophile doesn't hurt either.
In regard to what it sounds like? The short answer is "heaven". When stationary instruments occupy positions on a sound stage, with a vocalist that you can reach out and touch in the center, that's heaven. I just got a new cartridge that cost more than my wife will ever know, and heaven just got a lot better.
|
Almarg,
This is an interesting observation about tube amps. I am thinking seriously about moving to a tube amp sometime in the future -- if and when I can afford it. |
