To me, all you need is low L, C, and R. I run Mogami W3104 bi-wire from my McIntosh MAC7200 to my Martin Logan Theos. We all know that a chain is only as strong as its' weakest link - so I am honestly confused by all this cable discussion.
What kind of wiring goes from the transistor or tube to the amplifier speaker binding post inside the amplifier? It is usually plain old 16 ga or 14 ga copper. Then we are supposed to install 5 - 10' or so of wallet-emptying, pipe-sized pure CU or AG with "special configurations" to the speaker terminals?
What kind of wiring is inside the speaker from the terminals to the crossover, and from the crossover to the drivers? Usually plain old 16 ga or 14 ga copper.
So you have "weak links" inside the amplifier, and inside the speaker, so why bother with mega expensive cabling between the two? It doesn't make logical sense to me. It makes more sense to match the quality of your speaker wires with the existing wires in the signal path [inside the amplifier and inside the speaker].
@rodman99999Yes I read that post, and that is perfect exactly what I'm saying but that is the exception, you understand. I'm asking honest questions so smart audiophiles will give me their view. You mentioned being obtuse, that is what you did when you mention using bad cables, again, again, again no one on either side of the discussion advocates using bad cables (strawman). You are wrong about DSP not making up for problems in the signal. Have you ever used ProTools and the amazing plugins that are available in it? If you are good with audio tools you can make recording sound much better. I have a friend who mixed the Sinatra Duets album, Frank said no efx, the original recording was so unmixable they did it anyway, something you don't do when Frank say no, the album was great and no one ever knew.
BTW I'm not stating normal anti cable argument like saying they aren't testable or they don't sound better, I never said anything like that. I've spent millions on sound equipment over the years believe me I know sound equipment on the professional level I'm just trying to understand it at the audiophile level. Honestly.
You’ve made yourself very clear. You’d be embarrassed if you knew how clearly you communicate.
Ouch!!!
_ _ _ _ _
- He lumps all audiophiles together - like the Borg in Star Trek. Not as independent thinkers with successful careers - who, as music-lovers, have arrived at similar observations and experiences over their decade’s-long audio journey.
- He doesn’t respect cable swapping. But, he definitely favors mic swapping. It’s okay to address the needs of different performing artists with different voice boxes and chest cavities during the recording phase. But, it’s not okay to address the various needs of source components and speakers during the playback phase. Such as synergy.
- Location sound is always tweaked in Post Production. EQ, room tone, re-recording, etc. Matching the SQ of different mic’s on different actors in different takes. Altering the voice perspective as to whether the shot is a wide Master or a Close-up.
- He still doesn’t get that the cables’ metallurgy and architecture affect the electricity - the fuel for the entire playback system. High octane = High performance. Getting the various components to integrate well is the goal.
- After insulting everybody, he wonders why people are attacking him.
Do you accept that recovering all of the information contained in the original recording is a legitimate aim of hi fi reproduction?
I think that's an admirable aim, especially when in the context of a cable. It should let the signal come through without adding noise or distortion. Of course, nothing will ever be perfect. But I think it's possible for a real cable to be indistinguishable from a perfect cable. Once a certain threshold of accuracy is passed it won't make a difference to our hearing perception.
Changing cables undoubtedly causes perceptual changes for some listeners. Why that is could be a number of things beyond just expectation bias. For now we don't have much in the way of convincing explanations for what actual changes in the signal are occurring. We just have perceptual descriptions. It's quite possible that the cables are deviating away from technically correct performance, but that perceptually comes across better for some listeners.
Well when it comes to audio engineers and audiophiles I chose to listen to Dave McNair @ PTA Grammy Winning engineer and a fellow who will actually consider all points.
So many on this forum have such knee-jerk reactions to anyone not bowing down to the cable religion, I never said cables don't make a difference, I never said I haven't tried different cables (only a few I'd have to say) I've spent 10s of thousands on cables, I never said my mind is made up and I won't demo cables, I'm just pointing out logical problems with the audiophile community as a whole. It is very poor thinking to point out some friend or a studio that is an exception to a general statement about a large group.
Why doesn't the worlds most complex and exact machines use special AC Cables and interconnects?
Why don't audio test equipment makers like Audio Precision send their equipment out with boutique cables?
Why does the audiophile community constantly throw up straw man arguments by saying something like " well if you wan't to use cheep (leaky) cables then you obviously want to stay in your state of willful ignorance"
Why does the audiophile community think that cables bring out the design of the components.
Why don't engineers design components with particular cables in mind if they are such an important part of the systems fidelity?
Why doesn't the audiophile community understand that nearly every channel has DSP on it when mixed. Limiting dynamics, EQ, reverb, phasing, imaging, airiness, and all the other toys used all the time.
Why do audiophiles think the electronic signal goes down the strands of the medium (the signal moves in a field on the outside of the conductors).
Why do audiophiles think that inserting a very high quality AC cable between the romex and the Amp fuse makes the audio signal change (there is no audio until after the transformer where the power is changed to DC). (Also I've spent 100 of thousands on Power conditioning personally).
Blind tests vs. ABX tests vs. visual confirmation cable tests. As you all well know the visual test with the very expensive cable always sounds better.
Why is it that audiophiles generally can't accept the idea that an amplifier designed for a specific speaker driver is the best practice for more accurate sound. (I watch a guy on YouTube who has gone through 300 exceptionally expensive power amps).
Why is it that the "break in period" is not testable, I understand cables aren't always quantifiable but break in changes should be, and they are not.
Why is it that sample rate information has so much BS, the AES did a large study on this years ago and showed experienced listeners were not able to hear any differences between CD, SACD and 96/24 (I spent $8k on my SACD player).
Why is it that audiophiles think that resolution (sample rate) is the same as resolution in pixel rate in vision, it is not. (this myth still hasn't gone away).
-little harder question-
If boutique cables are so important to the sound than why is it that cables with similar resistance, capacitance and inductance sound the same, you immediately say "they don't" but if there is a problem one of these characteristics is damaged).
And again why is it that audiophiles think they can add any information to the sound with expensive equipment and cables (yes, some people have delt with this question but I think they were all recording engineer who understand this concept.)
@yoyoyayaYes I've been right on set when huge productions were waiting for me to untangle cables getting screamed at by the first Assistant Director. To me cables are like plumbing they should only get noticed if there is a problem.
I have never read a cable review where reviewer started out by cleaning connections. Just pulling off a cable and reconnecting removes some oxide this would effect sound. Suggest looking at what the cable and connector's are made of more than what its price tag is.
@yoyoyayaAs a serious answer with the 2nd law in mind it would mean that at the smallest point of information flow in the signal path would be the limiting factor. If digital (which is usually the problem these days) the smallest sample rate is the limiting factor in analog you can just turn up the signal creating noise.This is why 48khz is still the norm, could have recorded many movies at 96khz but there would be a particular piece of equipment that couldn't deal with it so 96khz never caught on for movies. In music analog front ends (mixers) then recorded to 192khz ProTools is about as good as it gets in my opinion, yes it's a little noisier in the front end (same idea as tube amps) but the signal is digital in the mix and can be changed any way you want without losing fidelity. Many audiophiles speak of cables in such stellar ways if you don't use expensive cables not having them creates a bottleneck in both the analog and digital world. in analog bad cables are very easy to hear if you have experience with the system and microphones (tube mics are harder) usually a bad mic cable crackles very very loudly because the ground is broken and 48v phantom power rips your head off, in the digital world cables that don't pass the proper 1s and 0s don't work at all. Great engineers whom I've learned from felt a lot of responsibility to the original recording and the format in which that recording was preserved for posterity, no one considered that AI will easily put together the missing pieces in the future. AI will be the added information in the 2nd law definition in the near future.
@johnkGold should be used on connectors not because gold is a good conductor but because there is 0 residue, in 1000 years there will be no oxide on gold connectors maybe dust but no oxide.
#1- I never said, "bad cables". A, "bad" cable (in my lexicon) would be a cable that doesn't convey ANY signal.
'Crappy' would include the sort that come with most equipment, or: those that utilize dielectrics such as PVC, or other cheap-out constructions*, that are detrimental to audio signals.
*Admittedly: even some cheap, after-market cables perform better than the manufacturer-provided garbage.
#2:
You are wrong about DSP not making up for problems in the signal.
What I said was your digital gyrations (whatever form that may take) can never recover information LOST along a signal pathway.
Of course: the sound of a system can be tweaked with regards to a plethora of parameters, via DSP (which my TacT RCS 2.2X pre provides in spades), BUT: if critical components of the ORIGINAL signal are lost, there isn't a device manufactured that can recreate those, at any cost.
Again, for many of us: an accurate simulacrum of performers and their performances in a particular venue, is the desire/goal.
That requires maintaining the original signal, in as unaltered a state, as possible.
The common term: transparency.
How anyone else chooses to listen to their music, or: manipulate their signals, in their own listening environs, is strictly their own affair.
Even when in the business of designing and building systems for others; I never tried to change a customer's aural palette, though many viewed listening to my demo systems an awakening.
My credo was, "The customer always thinks they're right!"
The problem I have in these threads is the number that go about trying to dissuade others, from experimenting with their own systems.
As I often aver:
No one can tell you whether/how your system, room and/or ears will respond to some new addition. There are simply too many variables.
LIKEWISE: no one can possibly know whether a new addition (ie: some kind of disc, crystal, fuse, interconnect, speaker cable, etc) will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves.
Some companies offer a 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee, so- those that are actually interested, have absolutely nothing to lose, by trying (experimenting with) such.
Just like with your legion of straw men arguments and appeals to authority, meant to deflect from the actual subject (which is your wont), projection is another of your ploys, accusing others of some religious fervor when it's you trying your level best to convert with all manner of nonsense arguments.
All you do is proselytize and then end you mini rant with some lame proverb of sorts meant to make one think of oneself as placing themselves above others. You need help.
And again why is it that audiophiles think they can add any information to the sound with expensive equipment and cables
@donavabdear: how many times do you need to be told the same thing over and over? It’s not about adding information, it’s about loosing as little information as possible. It’s like hitting the head against the wall with you. How many lines at a time can you read? Do you actually read anything other people write, or do you just enjoy yourself talking?
I’m just pointing out logical problems with the audiophile community as a whole.
Yup! Everyone already knows you despise the audiophile community as a whole. So what are trying to accomplish here? In a forum catering to audiophiles. To me, that’s the very definition of trolling
Why is it that audiophiles think that resolution (sample rate) is the same as resolution in pixel rate in vision
I don’t know what to think about this statement of yours on audiophiles. I don’t know whether to laugh, or be outraged by your offensiveness and extreme put down of an entire group of audio enthusiasts
@thyname//And again why is it that audiophiles think they can add any information to the sound with expensive equipment and cables (yes, some people have delt with this question but I think they were all recording engineer who understand this concept.) //
It is the definition of hypocrisy when you leave off the end of my statement
(yes, some people have delt with this question but I think they were all recording engineer who understand this concept.)
I am so convinced with these comments against upgrading my cables that I will go ahead and buy a few more Synergistic Research Foundation series cables. I need to order three more power cables and two subwoofer cables.
You are wrong about DSP not making up for problems in the signal.
Yes you can fix many problems with DSP there are programs like Isotope RX that can pull out sounds in front of other sounds using machine learning that was not possible even 5 years ago. Today vocalists routinely use Auto Tune or other programs to even make the singer bearable, or use with great singes if you want to go into a key change earlier or make a change while the artist isn't available. DSP is super important on even classical recordings, you can use very live mics (wider polar pattern) that are further from the musicians (to get a better image) and then use DSP to take the unwanted ambience (or air condition) down. Digital DSP sounds generally perfect today with no phase problems or latency as old DSP units introduced.
@recklesskelly Thanks. There’s always someone that shows up here and decides to educate us about our “bad” choices. I thought this was a hobby and we were allowed to spend our own money however we want. I certainly didn’t put in a request to be lectured like a child.
//And again why is it that audiophiles think they can add any information to the sound with expensive equipment and cables (yes, some people have delt with this question but I think they were all recording engineer who understand this concept.) //
Is this what we're dealing with? Better cables (and some that do cost more) get out of the way of the music. What a waste of time and effort.
says: “Why do audiophiles think that inserting a very high quality AC cable between the romex and the Amp fuse makes the audio signal change (there is no audio until after the transformer where the power is changed to DC). (Also I've spent 100 of thousands on Power conditioning personally).”
This may be difficult to grasp, but a good power cable can affect the sound produced by your system without interacting directly with the processed signal path🤯 I know, right?
One way a good PC can do that is not limiting the current to your gear. That requires both adequate gauge wire AND good connections. Wire and connector metallurgy can affect this greatly. I tend to like power cables built with 12 gauge or greater POCC or OCC copper, and copper connectors plated with gold (warmer sounding) or rhodium (less conductive, sounds neutral to me with leaner more defined bass - but a long break in period). I built a wire that uses silver plated copper connectors and it is a unicorn cable, tipping the frequency spectrum up in everything I have plugged it into. Too little resistance? Dunno, it’s not for me.
Another factor is reducing stray electrical fields behind your gear in the vicinity of low level analog or digital signal cables, especially on or near the back plate of your integrated amp or preamp where many cables and their connectors come into close proximity. This is accomplished in power cable design with shielding, cable geometry and connectors that reduce emissions. Problems with interference can arise from the current in the cable, and electrical noise from your gear - especially digital sources - returning to your outlet, power strip or power conditioner via your PC. The area behind your gear is the worst place for your delicate low level signals to transit, but transit they must. Why pro audio uses balanced interconnects, am I right? And why you like wireless connections.
There is also a school of thought that vibration is bad for power circuits, and serious manufacturers of power cord connectors like Furutech put a lot of effort into reducing vibration. And their high end AC connectors do sound very good to me.
I have built PCs for a few hundred bucks that I think sound terrific, and I’ve bought or built PCs for a lot more that were just OK or even unlistenable. I have bought some finished PCs from China for a little over $100 that sound fantastic, while others I bought sounded meh. And I have listened to higher end power cables from some big name brands and I thought they were worth every penny.
So maximizing current delivery and minimizing noise and vibration in power cables can have noticeable benefits on sound of your hifi. And even though they are technically upstream of the processed signal, because they occupy a common space on your shelf with cables delivering low level signals between your boxes, PC’s are an integrated part of your hifi ecosystem where every step you take to isolate the signals from noise and from one another matters.
Audiophile don’t “think” well designed power cables improve how they experience the music produced by their systems. They know it from empirical experience because they try different cables and they hear differences in the sound coming out of their speakers or headphones. As mentioned by others here, exceptional cables really enhance spatial cues and recreate the timing and flow of the recorded notes in ways that just make more sense to my ears and my brain.
Spend less time typing about why it doesn’t work, and spend more time exploring different cables in your systems at home. You might actually enjoy yourself.
@knownothing Thank you for your great response, I really appreciate it.
@tjagThank you for your answers without getting so upset, believe me I challenge people at my church about theology and they give me the same upsetting responses I get in this forum strange that the reactions are so parallel.
I have a question for both of you, I use 2x P20 power regenerators from PS Audio they are about $10k each and seem to do their job. So my question is why do I need my fairly expensive AC cables to and from those power reconditioners, (I have isolated 20 amp circuits and audiophile Edison connections installed) the P-20s take AC power turn it into DC then regenerate it back to AC with hopefully perfect specs. Also in general I don't have any problems with RF in my system with any cables I've tried.
Thanks
@donavabdearThanks for your response about the second law of thermodynamics. With all due respect, what's in the post does not relate to the law.
Regarding your comments on digital audio, you refer only to sample rate, which relates to frequency response. Bit depth which relates to amplitude is equally important. Most DAWs operate internally using 32 bit floating point internal processing.
Your bottleneck argument is not accurate. It frequently happens that a multitrack recording where the overall project file is 24/96 might include some material which was originally recorded in 16/44. The DAW will upsample that to 24/96 to make it compatible with the overall session. There won't be any more information in that track but the rest of the tracks recorded at 24/96 will benefit from the wider frequency response and greater headroom that the increased sample rate and bit depth allows.
I’m no expert, but experiments showed me that even the quality of the pc connected to the linear DC power supply matter.
Why? I have no explanation other than cable material and structure shapes sound. Could be that cables are like bottles filled with water, they come in different shapes but the water in them is still water just delivered differently.
I experimented with using combinations of different occ/silver/ofc wire types to supply my power conditioner. This works almost like an equalizer. I enhance the sound character by changing the wire combination.
Why do you use expensive power cords if you don’t believe in them?
The thing is, you are not curious and don’t want to try and experiment.
@yoyoyayaYes your correct on both points, I should have been clearer. Transfer facilities will not take time to resample your production sound if it is the wrong sample rate / bit rate or time code rate. Standard is 48k sample rate, 24 bit and 23.976 ND Time Code. When digital first came in I was the first to have an entirely digital system. It was hell, everyone was an expert and no one would listen, I nearly got fired from CSI: Miami on the first year by CBS. There were huge problems with time code flags and sample rates because some, not all recorders use the sample rate to generate time code and there was no standard with metadata. That was really a difficult time in movie sound.
On the subject a great myth that practically no one understands is that a 48k sample rate and higher sample rates like 96hz or 192hz converted back to analog have exactly the same wave form. I honestly knew this but didn't really understand that the wave forms are exactly the same the bit depth only helps the noise floor.
Today vocalists routinely use Auto Tune or other programs to even make the singer bearable,
GEE! In the STUDIO/during EDITING/on the RECORDING, changes can be made to the sounds/tracks being laid down?
WHAT'S NEW?
During PLAYBACK, in the listening room, from the source to the speakers/headphones, NO component manufactured is able to determine what information has been/may have been lost along the circuitry/signal path.
To do so: the equipment would (of necessity) have to sample the original signal at the GENERATION POINT (stylus tip/tape head/LASER/digital track reader), compare the sound AT THE LISTENING POSITION, and process the signal to restore any information found absent, if possible. NO current component does that.
@tjagThanks for that, I don't believe in very expensive power cords like $2k and up, I have many thousands $ in power and interconnect cables over the years but it was never for sound quality but to save the power supplies and safety, I just know that if you get DC in your cables from bad power through unbalanced positive and negative waveforms the capacitors that cross your transformers will carry that DC voltage across the transformer into your equipment. But I haven't done any tests after I bought my power reconditioners they made all the AC power just fine. What kind of power condition do you use? I understand that it makes a difference but I don't understand how AC cables after reconditions should make any difference if RF is not a concern. Thanks
Back in March a thread about power cords and break/burn-in was started.
I hate to type, so: I'm going to copy/paste some of my speculations.
That a highly complex musical signal, MIGHT affect Poynting vectors and signal speeds, in interconnects, in a much more profound manner than a simple AC (ie: a fixed 60/50 Hz) signal, in a PC, seems likely (at least) to me.
Further: all of the above and what I'll c/p (seems to me) lends credence to how the application of a stronger, DC voltage/field, outside a dielectric (ala Synergistic MPC and Audioquest DBS systems), might stabilize those vectors and signal speeds, PERHAPS eliminating some time smear and, "burn-in".
Bear with me a minute, in my folly, far as a possibility on why a power cord might make a difference.
Based on some of the theories on how electricity works, simplified:
The conductor acts as a waveguide for the signal/voltage.
Within the conductor: when excited by an AC current, electrons oscillate, generating photons/electromagnetic waves that travel, always from the source, to the load.
Keep in mind: all signals (ie: music, AC) are sinusoidal waves
Those photons/electromagnetic waves travel through and outside the dielectric, which (according to it's permittivity/Poynting vectors) will have various effects on those waves. One of the most obvious, is the dielectric's effect on the speed of the signal.
The better designers of printed circuit boards, even take the above into account, when choosing materials for their products.
I posted a link on the first page, that included data on the manufacture of semiconductor chips and what was observed when materials were cryo'd, during process. Short version: better contact/lowered resistance between layers.
Under the scanning microscope: much smoother surfaces observed.
I would hope, by now, it's a given that various cable constructions, twists, braids, etc, can make for a cleaner transmission of signals (ie: Litz, etc).
Just seems to me (a hypothesis): given the above (some theories and some things established/measured/proven), it's not a big stretch to believe a power cord, built of the best conductor (Ohno CC silver), wrapped in a very low dielectric coefficient dielectric (ie: Teflon), cryo'd for the smoothest transfer of those photons/magnetic waves and twisted in some crazy way, might not smooth out some of preturbations/noise, from the crap an AC waveform had to go through, back to it's generator. (run-on, much?)
I haven't tested this, actually comparing two circuits, but: it wouldn't surprise me, if a power supply that used a choke, would be less affected by a better power cord, as the former can eliminate a lot of the high freq garbage, etc, that's either created by, or makes it through all the big converting/filtering stuff, before.
Never thought about PCs before the good stuff hit the market, but: the Physics/QED made sense.
I tried 'em, I like 'em and the science makes my head feel better.
OH, and: it takes some time for the dielectric to form, take a charge, polarize, or however one chooses to define the process, when a dielectric is subjected to electromagnetic waves, which affects the Poynting vectors, measurably/predictably.
The lower the material’s dielectric constant: the longer that takes.
Let's cut the nonsense here folks, and get to a simple fact.
What @donavabdearis doing is known as "sealioning."
here's Mirriam-Webster:
'Sealioning' is a form of trolling meant to exhaust the other debate participant with no intention of real discourse.
Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.
So many on this forum have such knee-jerk reactions to anyone not bowing down to the cable religion, I never said cables don't make a difference, I never said I haven't tried different cables (only a few I'd have to say) I've spent 10s of thousands on cables, I never said my mind is made up and I won't demo cables, I'm just pointing out logical problems with the audiophile community as a whole. It is very poor thinking to point out some friend or a studio that is an exception to a general statement about a large group.
Why doesn't the worlds most complex and exact machines use special AC Cables and interconnects?
Why don't audio test equipment makers like Audio Precision send their equipment out with boutique cables?
Why does the audiophile community constantly throw up straw man arguments by saying something like " well if you wan't to use cheep (leaky) cables then you obviously want to stay in your state of willful ignorance"
Why does the audiophile community think that cables bring out the design of the components.
Why don't engineers design components with particular cables in mind if they are such an important part of the systems fidelity?
Why doesn't the audiophile community understand that nearly every channel has DSP on it when mixed. Limiting dynamics, EQ, reverb, phasing, imaging, airiness, and all the other toys used all the time.
Why do audiophiles think the electronic signal goes down the strands of the medium (the signal moves in a field on the outside of the conductors).
Why do audiophiles think that inserting a very high quality AC cable between the romex and the Amp fuse makes the audio signal change (there is no audio until after the transformer where the power is changed to DC). (Also I've spent 100 of thousands on Power conditioning personally).
Blind tests vs. ABX tests vs. visual confirmation cable tests. As you all well know the visual test with the very expensive cable always sounds better.
Why is it that audiophiles generally can't accept the idea that an amplifier designed for a specific speaker driver is the best practice for more accurate sound. (I watch a guy on YouTube who has gone through 300 exceptionally expensive power amps).
Why is it that the "break in period" is not testable, I understand cables aren't always quantifiable but break in changes should be, and they are not.
Why is it that sample rate information has so much BS, the AES did a large study on this years ago and showed experienced listeners were not able to hear any differences between CD, SACD and 96/24 (I spent $8k on my SACD player).
Why is it that audiophiles think that resolution (sample rate) is the same as resolution in pixel rate in vision, it is not. (this myth still hasn't gone away).
-little harder question-
If boutique cables are so important to the sound than why is it that cables with similar resistance, capacitance and inductance sound the same, you immediately say "they don't" but if there is a problem one of these characteristics is damaged).
And again why is it that audiophiles think they can add any information to the sound with expensive equipment and cables (yes, some people have delt with this question but I think they were all recording engineer who understand this concept.)
The one & only man in my 35 years of purchasing gear either retail or used whom truly understands the word "trust." Trust in my word, and I’ll put trust in yours.
Let's cut the nonsense here folks, and get to a simple fact.
What @donavabdear is doing is known as "sealioning."
here's Mirriam-Webster:
'Sealioning' is a form of trolling meant to exhaust the other debate participant with no intention of real discourse.
You nailed it! That's exactly what he is doing. For folks who have been participating in the audio forums for a while, it is actually pretty easy to figure out what individuals like this "bring to the table". Which is nothing but trolling and frustrating other folks who are sincerely trying to learn something, or sharing knowledge, to the point of these folks abandoning the forums for good altogether. It is so sad, but the reality. Majority of the folks I know in this hobby no longer participate in these forums. And I don't blame them. People like these make it toxic.
The time code to digital sound synching is a digression, but an interesting one!
It's not strictly correct to say that the analogue waveform of a recordings at different sample rates will be the same. If the recording has sufficiently high frequency information then that will show up in the analogue waveform converted from the higher sample rate recording.
Given the range of human hearing and the frequency range of musical instruments, some debate whether higher sample rates are needed but others will argue that frequencies above 20 Khz can be perceived even if they cannot be "heard".
True to a degree. I did treatments, then cables (not crazy$$$) then a few tweaks. For many there is a compromise as the room is multi purpose, cables are less obtrusive and do have benefits over the stock junk. Your statement @boxertwin12is a bit over the top. No one is saying expensive but better built than the crap that comes from the factory. Kinda like putting a slip-on vs the stock can on your BMW. Slight uptick in performance, fuel economy and sounds way better.
Those that swear that expensive cables make a difference but have no room treatment are the really blind ones.
Great and dandy. Can you show us YOUR room treatments? You can post pictures of your audio gear and your listening room here, under "systems". Thanks for sharing
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.
