I could have chosen a CD player instead of separates if I could have heard them. I live in Los Angeles area yet could not listen for example to the highly regarded Luxman D-03x player in my home. I read that many Luxman owners sold/traded in their more expensive older players for it. The three dealers within 150 miles told me I could hear it at their store only or purchase it. Retail it's $4000. I just didn't want to shell out that much. I noticed a few nearly new units sold for $2800. I didn't want to lose at least $1600 (w/tax) on a new unit just to try it. Another dealer of a $14,000 VAC IQ 200 amp would let me try it for a $1,000 fee, included in the sale price if I purchased it. Percentage-wise, that was fair, especially since it is a much more expensive, heavy (100+lbs shipped), delicate unit (tubed) and included insured shipping cost to me. I've gotten to the point that I want to check out equipment in my room with my system before purchasing unless it is inexpensive. After nearly a dozen units, I finally found a great sounding transport so I lost interest in purchasing an all in one player.
Nearly all manufacturers do not advertise/exhibit their product measurements? Why?
After my Audio Science Review review forum, it became apparent that nearly the only way one can determine the measurements of an audio product is wait for a review on line or in a publication. Most equipment is never reviewed or is given a subjective analysis rather than a measurement oriented review. One would think that manufacturers used tests and measurements to design and construct their products.
Manufacturers routinely give the performance characteristics of their products as Specifications. Those are not test measurements.
I searched the Revel speaker site for measurements of any of their speakers and could not find any. Revels are universally lauded for their exceptional reviewed measurements. Lack of published manufacturer measurements is true for nearly every speaker manufacturer I've searched for on line, perhaps several hundred. Same is true for amps, pre-amps, DACs, transports, turntables, well you get the picture. Do they have something to hide? I doubt the good quality products have anything to hide but poor quality products do.
ASR prides itself in providing "true" measurements that will aid in purchase decisions. Why don't the manufacturers provide these measurements so that reviewers can test if they are truthful or not?
Then there are the cables and tweaks for which I suspect that there are inadequate tests available to measure sonically perceived differences but which objectivists believe don't exist or are "snake oil."
Well, please chime in if you have some illuminating thoughts on the subject.
I would have loved to see manufacturers measurements on my equipment and especially those that I rejected.
- ...
- 518 posts total
Interesting study indeed. What it showed that one needs to use a square pulse with duration of ~1.5 microseconds to see the cables reacting significantly differently. I submit that such a pulse doesn’t faithfully represent a typical audio signal. However, one can imagine sources of such pulses in a line-level audio cable: (1) Sloppy filtering and isolation of the reconstructed signal by a DAC. Ideally, the DAC ought to get rid of out-of-band frequency components (let’s say down to -100 db), and also isolate its internals from the output connector by using some kind of a voltage amplifier or follower stage. (2) Interference from external sources. Digital devices, specifically, are known to use square pulses to encode information: it can be computers, Ethernet devices, WiFi, mobile phones. Ideally, such devices ought to be carefully shielded and placed far enough away from audio equipment. However, life is imperfect. A DAC may be overly simplified, or using components, such as capacitors, with out of design range specs, due to cost cutting. Aging of components may play its role too. Digital devices could radiate more electromagnetic radiation than expected, for various reasons. In such dicey situations, a better shielded, beefier, more uniform cable can indeed to some degree ameliorate audible issues stemming from unfiltered DAC residuals, the EMI, and RFI. Then we’ll hear audible differences. Testing cables under conditions close to ideal like Amir does - DAC is well-designed and well-built, there is no significant EMI and RFI in the vicinity - may show no audible difference. |
@russ69 has provided information recently that he is domiciled in SoCal. That outfit is in Queensland. "I’m Kevin, I’m from Queensland, and I’m here to help." |
@russ69 if you are in Socal here is a list of dealers: |
@kota1 - thanks for posting cable study paper link! that “ paper “ captures most of important IC parameters for passive circuits. unfortunately, audio system is more complex than that, and has sources and receivers built of active circuits. active circuits can add “audible” ringing to the signal, if cable parameters push circuit phase margin below targeted value. EMI/RF noise also can be audible, because not all sensitive amplifiers have enough high frequency noise rejection, to withstand modern days RF noise in our living spaces. depending on modulation technique, RF noise can be heard as additional “unexplained" noise affecting SQ. phono-pre could be a good example of sensitive active circuit usage, and therefore it is very hard to find good match between cartridge, cable, and phono-pre, to achieve excellent SQ. |
- 518 posts total