J
Jeßus
Guest
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/
Bybee Holographic AC Adapter
RRP: $2,795.00
Now $2,295.00.
Bybee Holographic AC Adapter
RRP: $2,795.00
Now $2,295.00.
B
Bob Milutinovic
Guest
"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:9s3rs9lkn8dc8is4ke1jbkqlthe4leu9sd@4ax.com...
The next logical progression from "directional" cables.
"Whileever there're stupid people with money, there'll be smart people to
take it from them."
A couple of decades ago, a friend and I contemplated ordering a special run
of twin-core "AC flex" (you know the type, used to connect lights & switches
in 99.999% of Australian households) in black. The plan was to sell it to
audiophiles for $100/metre as "super-high-grade lossless pure copper
ultra-transparent" speaker cable.
We gave up on the idea when we realised neither of us was capable of keeping
a straight face for long enough to sell it to anyone. I can guarantee though
that it would've performed better than any of the $300-$500/metre crap being
flogged commercially.
--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom
news:9s3rs9lkn8dc8is4ke1jbkqlthe4leu9sd@4ax.com...
The next logical progression from "directional" cables.
"Whileever there're stupid people with money, there'll be smart people to
take it from them."
A couple of decades ago, a friend and I contemplated ordering a special run
of twin-core "AC flex" (you know the type, used to connect lights & switches
in 99.999% of Australian households) in black. The plan was to sell it to
audiophiles for $100/metre as "super-high-grade lossless pure copper
ultra-transparent" speaker cable.
We gave up on the idea when we realised neither of us was capable of keeping
a straight face for long enough to sell it to anyone. I can guarantee though
that it would've performed better than any of the $300-$500/metre crap being
flogged commercially.
--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 22/07/2014 11:23 AM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
**Many speaker cables are configured and sold similarly. Many, but
certainly not all. There is nothing special about most speaker cables,
apart from the pretty cosmetics.
**You can make no such guarantee. Like many who look from the outside,
your simplistic approach can be tested and dismissed quite quickly.
Don't believe me? Dust off your calculator and factor in a long speaker
cable run (say, 20 Metres) for these speakers:
http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Kappa9&image=090801082656_kappa9.jpg
And:
http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg
The typical resistance and inductance of the cables you suggest are
approximately 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.9 uH.Metre respectively.
OTOH, a top-of-the-line speaker cable, like the Goertz MI-1 possesses
figures of 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.012 uH/Metre respectively.
Run the numbers. You'll realise that SOME systems require different
geometry speaker cables than standard 'figure 8' types. Low inductance
figures can be pivotal to good performance. In most such cases, I
suggest using RG213/U, which offers sunstantially lower inductance than
regular cables, but at a rational price. Not as good as Goertz though.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
**Many speaker cables are configured and sold similarly. Many, but
certainly not all. There is nothing special about most speaker cables,
apart from the pretty cosmetics.
**You can make no such guarantee. Like many who look from the outside,
your simplistic approach can be tested and dismissed quite quickly.
Don't believe me? Dust off your calculator and factor in a long speaker
cable run (say, 20 Metres) for these speakers:
http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Kappa9&image=090801082656_kappa9.jpg
And:
http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg
The typical resistance and inductance of the cables you suggest are
approximately 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.9 uH.Metre respectively.
OTOH, a top-of-the-line speaker cable, like the Goertz MI-1 possesses
figures of 0.012 Ohms/Metre and 0.012 uH/Metre respectively.
Run the numbers. You'll realise that SOME systems require different
geometry speaker cables than standard 'figure 8' types. Low inductance
figures can be pivotal to good performance. In most such cases, I
suggest using RG213/U, which offers sunstantially lower inductance than
regular cables, but at a rational price. Not as good as Goertz though.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
C
Clifford Heath
Guest
On 22/07/14 12:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Who the hell needs their hifi amp to be 20 metres from their speakers?
Who the hell needs their hifi amp to be 20 metres from their speakers?
B
Bob Milutinovic
Guest
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:c360rmFacn1U1@mid.individual.net...
I make these observations as (a) an electronics engineer and (b) a former
employee of a rather high end audio wholesale/retail group.
You're quite right that there will be a difference, but the question arises,
will in general use this difference be perceptible to the unbiased human ear
(i.e., will blind tests consistently show that "bells 'n' whistles" speaker
cable is better than regular electrical/RF/network cable or cheaper generic
speaker cable)?
Over all of this lies the fact that once you get to a specific
performance/quality level, subsequent tiny increments in performance or
quality will exact an exponential rise in cost. For example, you can get a
crappy AV receiver for $250, a reasonable one for $1K, a good one for $3K,
but if you want one which is discernably better than the $3K one, you'll be
up for $15K or more.
I was once at a customer's house delivering his newly-purchased $32K SACD
player (actually a twin set, a separate transport and a separate
preamplifier/controller), and he asked us to stay back for dinner and a demo
after we installed it. Through his $250K custom-built Martin Logan speakers
(a slightly modified version of the Statement e2s), the sound was (to malign
a marketing phrase) "eargasmic" (though as he later showed, crap in
comparison to decent vinyl on his $24K turntable). The total cost of his
sound system was pushing the $400K mark - an amount most of us would use to
buy a house.
For those who can afford the price and who genuinely know what they're after
and what they're doing, there'll always be benefit to using better-quality
equipment - but experience has shown that the vast majority of people paying
many hundreds of dollars for "luxurious" cables do so only so they can boast
to their friends, and spend many hours listening to how much better their
equipment sounds (in their minds) in order to try to justify their
expenditure.
--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom
news:c360rmFacn1U1@mid.individual.net...
I make these observations as (a) an electronics engineer and (b) a former
employee of a rather high end audio wholesale/retail group.
You're quite right that there will be a difference, but the question arises,
will in general use this difference be perceptible to the unbiased human ear
(i.e., will blind tests consistently show that "bells 'n' whistles" speaker
cable is better than regular electrical/RF/network cable or cheaper generic
speaker cable)?
Over all of this lies the fact that once you get to a specific
performance/quality level, subsequent tiny increments in performance or
quality will exact an exponential rise in cost. For example, you can get a
crappy AV receiver for $250, a reasonable one for $1K, a good one for $3K,
but if you want one which is discernably better than the $3K one, you'll be
up for $15K or more.
I was once at a customer's house delivering his newly-purchased $32K SACD
player (actually a twin set, a separate transport and a separate
preamplifier/controller), and he asked us to stay back for dinner and a demo
after we installed it. Through his $250K custom-built Martin Logan speakers
(a slightly modified version of the Statement e2s), the sound was (to malign
a marketing phrase) "eargasmic" (though as he later showed, crap in
comparison to decent vinyl on his $24K turntable). The total cost of his
sound system was pushing the $400K mark - an amount most of us would use to
buy a house.
For those who can afford the price and who genuinely know what they're after
and what they're doing, there'll always be benefit to using better-quality
equipment - but experience has shown that the vast majority of people paying
many hundreds of dollars for "luxurious" cables do so only so they can boast
to their friends, and spend many hours listening to how much better their
equipment sounds (in their minds) in order to try to justify their
expenditure.
--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom
A
asdf
Guest
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
This is the reason behind the invention of salesmen.
This is the reason behind the invention of salesmen.
P
Peter
Guest
asdf <asdf@nospam.com> wrote:
The internet is good for this as well.
Have a couple of drinks, throw up a web page and the job is done!
--
The internet is good for this as well.
Have a couple of drinks, throw up a web page and the job is done!
--
N
news13
Guest
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:32:39 +1000, Clifford Heath wrote:
Up the wall into ceiling, across the roof space and down wall to socket
for speaker.
Up the wall into ceiling, across the roof space and down wall to socket
for speaker.
J
Jeßus
Guest
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:24:31 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
Who are 'these audiophools' you speak of?
Who are 'these audiophools' you speak of?
J
Jeßus
Guest
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:16:08 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
Like you did with me a couple of years ago, when I described my audio
set up here. You inexplicably called it a 'kludge of a system', if I
recall correctly
I don't think this topic is one of your strong points.
Like you did with me a couple of years ago, when I described my audio
set up here. You inexplicably called it a 'kludge of a system', if I
recall correctly
I don't think this topic is one of your strong points.
J
Jeßus
Guest
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:23:58 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
<cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:
Some cable with a diode added?
It wouldn't surprise me.
<cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:
Some cable with a diode added?
It wouldn't surprise me.
C
Clocky
Guest
On 23/07/2014 2:58 PM, Jeßus wrote:
How is "USB DAC from this PC to a 1965 National valve receiver" not a
kludge compared to a traditional system?
Oh, and before you jump on me and assume it was derogatory, you forgot
to mention the smiley I added before we agreed it was largely
subjective, particularly as we both have a dgree of hearing loss.
So let's not take those comments out of context.
Given all that, why you think your judgement is better then mine is what
is inexplicable.
Just as some claim they can pick the difference between 192kbps MP3 and
the same CD track, in the real world that simply doesn't pan out and
it's no different with cables no matter how technically and
mathematically the differences may be.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:16:08 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Unlike you, I actually have 40 years' experience in the audio
business, along with technical training in electronics and
communications. I actually understand the significance of excessive
inductance in cabling.
That's why I'm surprised that someone with your experience only looks at
this from a purely technical point of view.
Ah well.
Like you did with me a couple of years ago, when I described my audio
set up here. You inexplicably called it a 'kludge of a system', if I
recall correctly
I don't think this topic is one of your strong points.
How is "USB DAC from this PC to a 1965 National valve receiver" not a
kludge compared to a traditional system?
Oh, and before you jump on me and assume it was derogatory, you forgot
to mention the smiley I added before we agreed it was largely
subjective, particularly as we both have a dgree of hearing loss.
So let's not take those comments out of context.
Given all that, why you think your judgement is better then mine is what
is inexplicable.
Just as some claim they can pick the difference between 192kbps MP3 and
the same CD track, in the real world that simply doesn't pan out and
it's no different with cables no matter how technically and
mathematically the differences may be.
C
Clocky
Guest
On 23/07/2014 2:54 PM, Jeßus wrote:
The people who fall for that shit.
The people who fall for that shit.
J
Jeßus
Guest
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:44:22 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
You haven't explained what's wrong with that. And what's a
'traditional system' in your eyes? Here's a tip - you haven't asked
anything about the DAC in question, what type of files I play, or
anything about that receiver. Never mind speakers. I have a habit of
swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?
It's inexplicable that you haven't explained what is wrong with it.
You also haven't given an example of what you think is good.
It does pan out. I'm one of them... anything under 192K and I can pick
the difference. But I suspect you already know this, since you
specified 192K and I know I've made posts before saying exactly the
same thing.
Righto...
On 23/07/2014 2:58 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:16:08 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Unlike you, I actually have 40 years' experience in the audio
business, along with technical training in electronics and
communications. I actually understand the significance of excessive
inductance in cabling.
That's why I'm surprised that someone with your experience only looks at
this from a purely technical point of view.
Ah well.
Like you did with me a couple of years ago, when I described my audio
set up here. You inexplicably called it a 'kludge of a system', if I
recall correctly
I don't think this topic is one of your strong points.
How is "USB DAC from this PC to a 1965 National valve receiver" not a
kludge compared to a traditional system?
You haven't explained what's wrong with that. And what's a
'traditional system' in your eyes? Here's a tip - you haven't asked
anything about the DAC in question, what type of files I play, or
anything about that receiver. Never mind speakers. I have a habit of
swapping my amplifiers from time to time, at the time of posting it
was the National receiver that was set up. Can you explain what is
wrong with it?
It's inexplicable that you haven't explained what is wrong with it.
You also haven't given an example of what you think is good.
It does pan out. I'm one of them... anything under 192K and I can pick
the difference. But I suspect you already know this, since you
specified 192K and I know I've made posts before saying exactly the
same thing.
Righto...
T
Trevor
Guest
"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote in message
news:53cf67d6$0$2930$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
What rubbish, anyone can pick the difference between 192lbs MP3 and the
original CD given the right source material.
If it's rap music 64kbs is probably enough however.
Trevor.
news:53cf67d6$0$2930$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
What rubbish, anyone can pick the difference between 192lbs MP3 and the
original CD given the right source material.
If it's rap music 64kbs is probably enough however.
Trevor.
T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 23/07/2014 5:44 PM, Clocky wrote:
**If you CAN'T hear the difference between a 192 MP3 and the same
material on a Red Book CD, then your system (and possibly ears) has
major limitations.
FWIW: I use 192 MP3 in the car, because I can't hear the difference in
that environment. Different matter on the home system.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
On 23/07/2014 2:58 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:16:08 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Unlike you, I actually have 40 years' experience in the audio
business, along with technical training in electronics and
communications. I actually understand the significance of excessive
inductance in cabling.
That's why I'm surprised that someone with your experience only looks at
this from a purely technical point of view.
Ah well.
Like you did with me a couple of years ago, when I described my audio
set up here. You inexplicably called it a 'kludge of a system', if I
recall correctly
I don't think this topic is one of your strong points.
How is "USB DAC from this PC to a 1965 National valve receiver" not a
kludge compared to a traditional system?
Oh, and before you jump on me and assume it was derogatory, you forgot
to mention the smiley I added before we agreed it was largely
subjective, particularly as we both have a dgree of hearing loss.
So let's not take those comments out of context.
Given all that, why you think your judgement is better then mine is what
is inexplicable.
Just as some claim they can pick the difference between 192kbps MP3 and
the same CD track, in the real world that simply doesn't pan out and
it's no different with cables no matter how technically and
mathematically the differences may be.
**If you CAN'T hear the difference between a 192 MP3 and the same
material on a Red Book CD, then your system (and possibly ears) has
major limitations.
FWIW: I use 192 MP3 in the car, because I can't hear the difference in
that environment. Different matter on the home system.
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Y
Yaputya
Guest
On 22/07/2014 12:52 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
This is a link to a post listing 48 speaker 'hifi' cable listening tests.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
From the conclusion:
If hifi is all about sound and more specifically sound quality, then we
should, once the other senses have been removed be able to hear
differences which can be verified by being able to identify one product
from another by only listening. But time and again we cannot.
So you can either buy good but inexpensive hifi products such as cables,
amps, CDPs and be satisfied that the sound they produce is superb. You
do need to spend time with speakers as they really do sound identifiably
different. Or you can buy expensive hifi products such as cable tec and
luxuriate in the build and image and identify one hifi from another by
looks and sound. But you cannot buy expensive and identify it from cheap
by sound alone.
This is a link to a post listing 48 speaker 'hifi' cable listening tests.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
From the conclusion:
If hifi is all about sound and more specifically sound quality, then we
should, once the other senses have been removed be able to hear
differences which can be verified by being able to identify one product
from another by only listening. But time and again we cannot.
So you can either buy good but inexpensive hifi products such as cables,
amps, CDPs and be satisfied that the sound they produce is superb. You
do need to spend time with speakers as they really do sound identifiably
different. Or you can buy expensive hifi products such as cable tec and
luxuriate in the build and image and identify one hifi from another by
looks and sound. But you cannot buy expensive and identify it from cheap
by sound alone.
Y
Yaputya
Guest
On 23/07/2014 1:35 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
The average 40 year old bloke has lost 10dB of hearing at just 4kHz, by
50 years it is 20dB down - far more significant than the speaker cable!
http://books.google.de/books?id=sLBRgV3NpZIC&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
What about the capacitive reactance?
Audiophool cables typically have much higher Xc than figure-8.
Well, you better have a look at this link before you say any more...
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
The average 40 year old bloke has lost 10dB of hearing at just 4kHz, by
50 years it is 20dB down - far more significant than the speaker cable!
http://books.google.de/books?id=sLBRgV3NpZIC&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
What about the capacitive reactance?
Audiophool cables typically have much higher Xc than figure-8.
Well, you better have a look at this link before you say any more...
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
Y
Yaputya
Guest
On 23/07/2014 9:44 AM, Clocky wrote:
Real world listening tests prove it!
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
On 23/07/2014 2:58 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:16:08 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
On 23/07/2014 8:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Unlike you, I actually have 40 years' experience in the audio
business, along with technical training in electronics and
communications. I actually understand the significance of excessive
inductance in cabling.
That's why I'm surprised that someone with your experience only looks at
this from a purely technical point of view.
Ah well.
Like you did with me a couple of years ago, when I described my audio
set up here. You inexplicably called it a 'kludge of a system', if I
recall correctly
I don't think this topic is one of your strong points.
How is "USB DAC from this PC to a 1965 National valve receiver" not a
kludge compared to a traditional system?
Oh, and before you jump on me and assume it was derogatory, you forgot
to mention the smiley I added before we agreed it was largely
subjective, particularly as we both have a dgree of hearing loss.
So let's not take those comments out of context.
Given all that, why you think your judgement is better then mine is what
is inexplicable.
Just as some claim they can pick the difference between 192kbps MP3 and
the same CD track, in the real world that simply doesn't pan out and
it's no different with cables no matter how technically and
mathematically the differences may be.
Real world listening tests prove it!
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
B
Bob Milutinovic
Guest
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:c3864nFojggU1@mid.individual.net...
Measurable most definitely, but perceptible?
My current 'phone has a 1080x1920 5.2" display (398ppi); my previous 'phone
had a 720x1280 4" display (230ppi). The difference is easily measurable -
but most people would struggle to spot any difference in resolution without
the aid of a loupe (and many would struggle even then).
Not at all irrelevent. If $10/metre cable sounds better than $5/metre cable,
that doesn't mean $20/metre cable will sound better than either - you'll
likely have to go up to $100/metre cable to get any improvement.
I do live in Sydney, and though I'll admit it's nigh impossible to find a
house for $400K in Sydney today, (1) that observation was made over a decade
ago and (2) that amount can still be put toward, and take a very healthy
chunk out of, the purchase of a house.
I still stand behind my claim. If you have a listening room and time to
spare, I'll happily bring along a couple of lengths of "two-core flex," and
we'll start dragging members of the public in and subjecting them to blind
tests.
--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom
news:c3864nFojggU1@mid.individual.net...
Measurable most definitely, but perceptible?
My current 'phone has a 1080x1920 5.2" display (398ppi); my previous 'phone
had a 720x1280 4" display (230ppi). The difference is easily measurable -
but most people would struggle to spot any difference in resolution without
the aid of a loupe (and many would struggle even then).
Not at all irrelevent. If $10/metre cable sounds better than $5/metre cable,
that doesn't mean $20/metre cable will sound better than either - you'll
likely have to go up to $100/metre cable to get any improvement.
I do live in Sydney, and though I'll admit it's nigh impossible to find a
house for $400K in Sydney today, (1) that observation was made over a decade
ago and (2) that amount can still be put toward, and take a very healthy
chunk out of, the purchase of a house.
I still stand behind my claim. If you have a listening room and time to
spare, I'll happily bring along a couple of lengths of "two-core flex," and
we'll start dragging members of the public in and subjecting them to blind
tests.
--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom