Sean wrote:
"do you think that your gear / system is representative of the majority of components / systems in use today ?"
Probably not, but the interfaces are similar. The difference is that everything I have is heavily modded. You can get the same mods if you want from me.
"How many parts are in the crossover network of your speakers ? You probably don't have enough fingers and toes to count them all."
There are about 20 capacitors. I know because I am in the process of modding them. This is an exception because it is a complex crossover used in the KEF 104/2. |
Corona wrote:
"Maybe this will help; it took us three years to build a ported dynamic speaker with no x-over."
My hats off to you. I had though about doing this myself, but I don't have a lot of speaker design experience. But I thought it would certainly be possible. I imagine it took a lot of messing around with speaker efficiencies etc.. |
Nrchy wrote:
"We have had these disagreements before when I asked the question about what makes a bigger difference, new componants or very good interconnect or speaker cables? My experience shows that cables can make differences which are beyond belief. You poo pooed the whole ideal. Inspite of the fact that you could not measure the difference every one of the people I had come over and listen was amazed by the huge difference."
I never said that cables could not make a big difference. In fact, I believe that they can make a HUGE positive difference, if they are neutral cables. Non-neutral cables can change the sound, but not in a positive sense. What I actually said in the initial post was that I believe that trying to find SYNERGY between particular cables and particular components was a fruitless proposition. |
Sean - Robert (of Ridge Street) and I have come to the same conclusions for a reason. It is experience. When you design a truly neutral cable, any system that it goes into benefits from it. The cable is really like no cable at all. There is really no "synergy" between components and well-designed cables. People sometimes ask me whether my cables will sound good with their components. I frankly don't know how to answer this. They expect me to have a magical file listing certain components that play well with certain cables of mine. All I can answer is that my cables are neutral and extremely revealing, so if they have a poor sounding component in their system, it will likely reveal this component. The trick is to replace the offending component rather than wasting money swapping cables until you convince yourself that it sounds better.
At least if you are starting with neutral, low-loss revealing cables, you can pretty-much rule-out the cables as the cause of any objectionable system performance, with perhaps the exception of noise issues, such as hum and RF pickup. |
Sean wrote:
"What is being said here is that a cable can be good even though it doesn't transfer all of the information that was fed into it."
No, what I said was that certain cables do not mate synergistically with certain components, at least without degradation of some sort, such as dynamic compression or HF roll-off. In other words, cables that are said to be synergistic only with a particular component are usually "tone control" cables.
"A better cable will lose even less signal / convey even more information without altering tonal balance."
No argument here.
"Well, guess what ? I think we all agree with that premise in basic theory. What i think that most of us here would like to know is how do we find these cables and know which ones they are ?"
Unfortunately, you have to take the word of either: a reviewer, a trusted friend, or a manufacturer and ultimately try the cables for yourself. However, if you are not a super-sleuth, you may still have an offensive component in your system that you have not identified and thus end-up in the vicious circle of cable swapping etc.. I try to help as many customers in this sleuthing as I can but it is difficult to do this remotely. One thing that I am doing is offering a "reference source system" to try with a refundable deposit down. At least with this source, you KNOW that the source not the problem. Then the only things to consider are the preamp, the amp and the speakers.
"If it is not something that we can measure and / or quantify by some type of physical or electrical characteristics, we are right back to trial and error and ludicrous claims based on marketing hype and / or personal preferences."
I never said that a neutral cable did not have measurable quality metrics. They certainly do and I believe in these metrics, such as capacitance and dielectric absorption for an interconnect cable. Furthermore, I believe that I am nearing the point of diminishing returns for these metrics. Not all quality metrics for cables are easily measurable however. The quality of the silver wire for instance plays a big part in the neutrality and quality of an interconnect cable. I have my theories as to why this is and I know what to do to make the silver sing, but I have no effective way to measure this, at least which makes any sense at audio frequencies. |
Flex wrote:
"In response to the original post, cable differences go deeper than coloration. Two cables can be equally neutral on chromatic scale, yet differ greatly in macro/micro dynamics, noise floor, speed, clarity, detail resolution versus smoothness, and quality of imaging."
I agree completely. The confusion has to do with the definition of the word "neutral". In this sense, I use it to mean a cable that imparts no sound of its own. This is much more than just a flat steady-state spectral response. |
Sean - what I do in my own reference system to eliminate most of the "dynamic loading effects" is the following:
Preamp with very low-impedance output - 7 ohms
Power amps with very low impedance output
Speakers with flat impedance response - 3 ohms
Cables with extremely low loss and dielectric absorption
This way, I have a reference system that is extremely tolerant to differing loads. The interaction between components is small. This way when I mod different components, I can insert them into the system and really hear the improvement and not spend all of my time troubleshooting and swapping other components to get a good synergy. I want to eliminate as many variables as possible.
I do have one known issue. The power amps need significant current to stay dynamic. A passive linestage proved to be dissapointing to me.
At HE2003, I used all tubed components in our active system. Here, synergy between speakers and amps was very significant. Once we found this synergy, the magic happened. However, as always, using our cables avoided having the cables "add" any sonic signature of their own. And we used 15-foot unshielded IC's too. |
lemme@lone wrote:
"if a 15 foot run of cable can be readily had from Empirical, why does everyone else have so much trouble making a standard 3 footer that should have 5 times less 'signature'"
The answer is simple. Most manufacturers of cable do not have a clue about the physics. It helps to have almost 30 years experience doing hardware engineering design. I have been researching cables specifically for almost ten years, including computer simulations of IC's and speaker cables. These really help one understand the physics without the need to build hundreds of prototypes. It eliminates much of the trial-and-error. If you see a manufacturer of cables that uses a similar design for IC's and speaker cables, this is the first indication that they don't have a clue.... |
"Audioengr starts the thread knowing full well it will serve as a promotional vehicle for his product."
Bullshit - It just irks me how many audiophiles believe this nonsense. I read hundreds of posts like:
"what speaker cables will sound good with my B&W 803's?"
I just want to dispell these notions, that's all. |
"Based on their posts here; maybe they don't have enough customers to keep them busy."
I actually wish it were true. This has been my busiest summer yet. I don't even get to go flyfishing much - and the lake is only a half mile away. |
Flex wrote:
"Audioengr's original argument is that IF you match components well enough, including with tubed systems, that it is at least possible to get the cable influence out of the equation. Obviously cables need to be as well designed as possible (re S23chang) but the HUGE dependency of system sound on cable parameters can be avoided"
Precisely, you've got it!
Then we can focus on creating a database of which components and speakers synergise well together. Every once in a while, you read a review where this component synergy happens by chance. I'm sure everyone has read one of these reviews at one time or another. Cable swapping just further muddies the problem by adding too many variables. |
Unsound wrote:
"System synergy is dung? What about impedance matching between pre and power amp, between power amps and speakers, between speakers and rooms, etc.."
I agree with you 100%. Synergy between amps and speakers is critical. Sometimes between preamps and amps as well. However, it goes beyond impedance. However, published impedances, for inputs anyway, just amounts to whatever resistor that the manufacturer decided to solder across the inputs for the most part. There are more important parameters, such as input capacitance and drive required to get good dynamics etc... These have a bigger impact on the sound and the synergy. |
Sonic_genius wrote:
"AudioEngr: If you have the education and experience that you claim then you would be a fool to be in the high-end audio cable business."
Not really. I've already had a 26-year illustrious career in the computer industry and I took early retirement. I don't need the cable business to survive. I do it because I'm passionate about it. This has several advantages:
1) I'm not going belly-up any time soon
2) I'm doing this business for the right reasons
3) High-end audio shows are really a kick
4) I like the people much more than the egg-heads that I worked with in the computer bussiness |
Nrchy - your respect index just went up a notch. ;>) |
Rjwood wrote:
"Oh, and if Audioengr is really starting these threads for the benefit of us mere music lovers, perhaps he could nominate a few manufacturers whose cables perform at the same exalted level as his own?"
Sure, I can do this:
Bogdan
Audience
Acoustic Zen - certain cables
Siltech |
Bwhite wrote:
"So from your statement about preamps - I gather you don't view them as too important. What about source components? Are they important?"
Preamps are certainly important. The point is: that in most systems there the SYNERGY between the pre and the amp is not too important, In other words, several good preamps will all behave about the same. There are exceptions to this, such as my own amps, which seem to require a lot of drive to sound dynamic, and therefore a low output impedance preamp.
Source components are the MOST important to nail right. If these are wrong, you will chase your tail indefinitely trying to fix the sound. I have a significant number of customers that have subjectively "bright" or sibialant systems just because their CD source is not optimum. This is precisely why I offer a demo source "system" to audition. Htye just leave a deposit and they can compare the Transport, DAC and SP/DIF cable to what they have to determine where the weakness is. |
Sean asked:
"What consistent factors have you found amongst all of these cables that makes you think that they perform better than other cables not mentioned ?"
This is easy. First, there is some science behind these cables. The L, R, C and Dielectric Absorption (DA) have been optimized to some extent, as well as the wire size. Second, the metallurgy of these cables is "good". This means that some attention has been paid to the fabrication and processing. |
Rjwood wrote:
"your system is only as good as its weakest link and that weakest link could be a cable, 'neutral' or otherwise."
Certainly agree with this. This is why it is so important to start with cables that do not add any sonic signature of their own. |
