PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[Clifford Heath]

On 18/05/16 16:52, Chris wrote:

On 18/05/2016 4:23 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 18/05/16 3:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a
case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot
less
coin.

**Tell that to a Ferrari owner.

Not a good analogy Trev. There are few V12 powered sports cars on the
market, and few cars that match Ferrari performance that are
considerably cheaper.

Valve amps can do some things that very few solid state amps can. Some
would argue that no solid state amp can
match certain aspect of valve amps' performance. And yes, in general,
valve amps cost more, all things being equal. That said, the most
expensive amps on the planet are probably solid state ones (ca. US$1
million).

I'm just taking from an average end-user's perspective. You can fill
your house with high end audio gear and spend a motza, but if it doesn't
sound any better than equipment that costs half the price or less then
what's the point?

Apart from wank value I mean....


In the end the weakest link in the whole system is the transducer
(speaker).

The weakest link is actually the listener. What's the point of
perfectly reproducing Nickelback, after all?

But yes, the speakers are next

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2016 4:52 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 18/05/16 16:52, Chris wrote:
On 18/05/2016 4:23 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 18/05/16 3:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a
case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot
less
coin.

**Tell that to a Ferrari owner.

Not a good analogy Trev. There are few V12 powered sports cars on the
market, and few cars that match Ferrari performance that are
considerably cheaper.

Valve amps can do some things that very few solid state amps can. Some
would argue that no solid state amp can
match certain aspect of valve amps' performance. And yes, in general,
valve amps cost more, all things being equal. That said, the most
expensive amps on the planet are probably solid state ones (ca. US$1
million).

I'm just taking from an average end-user's perspective. You can fill
your house with high end audio gear and spend a motza, but if it doesn't
sound any better than equipment that costs half the price or less then
what's the point?

Apart from wank value I mean....


In the end the weakest link in the whole system is the transducer
(speaker).

The weakest link is actually the listener. What's the point of
perfectly reproducing Nickelback, after all?

But yes, the speakers are next

**Nope. The room is.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2016 4:23 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 18/05/16 3:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot less
coin.

**Tell that to a Ferrari owner.

Not a good analogy Trev. There are few V12 powered sports cars on the
market, and few cars that match Ferrari performance that are
considerably cheaper.

**Nissan GTR, Tesla P90D, Chev Corvette Z07, etc. That said, we have
drifted off-topic somewhat.

Valve amps can do some things that very few solid state amps can. Some
would argue that no solid state amp can
match certain aspect of valve amps' performance. And yes, in general,
valve amps cost more, all things being equal. That said, the most
expensive amps on the planet are probably solid state ones (ca. US$1
million).

I'm just taking from an average end-user's perspective.

**OK.

You can fill

your house with high end audio gear and spend a motza, but if it doesn't
sound any better than equipment that costs half the price or less then
what's the point?

**There isn't, but I could VERY easily demonstrate to you two
amplifiers, with seemingly similar specs, one costing $1,000.00 and one
costing $7,000.00. Even you would choose the $7k one. In a heartbeat.
That said, I could, with very little difficulty, locate a $7k amp which
couldn't compete with a $500.00, Chinese made, mass market POS. Like the
Ferrari, some high end amplifiers perform very nicely indeed. Better, in
fact, than their mass produced cousins.

Apart from wank value I mean....

**Wank value is in the eye of the beholder.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Noddy]

On 18/05/16 6:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Not a good analogy Trev. There are few V12 powered sports cars on the
market, and few cars that match Ferrari performance that are
considerably cheaper.

**Nissan GTR, Tesla P90D, Chev Corvette Z07, etc. That said, we have
drifted off-topic somewhat.

Somewhat, and as nice as those choices are none of them would get within
a bull's roar of any V12 Ferrari

**There isn't, but I could VERY easily demonstrate to you two
amplifiers, with seemingly similar specs, one costing $1,000.00 and one
costing $7,000.00. Even you would choose the $7k one. In a heartbeat.
That said, I could, with very little difficulty, locate a $7k amp which
couldn't compete with a $500.00, Chinese made, mass market POS. Like the
Ferrari, some high end amplifiers perform very nicely indeed. Better, in
fact, than their mass produced cousins.

Yeah, but the bang-per-buck factor is what's in play here. At the end of
the day you're trying to reproduce sound as faithfully as possible, and
if that's you're aim it shouldn't matter what equipment you use to do it
so much as how well the equipment can perform it's task.

As you said, you could locate a 7 grand amp that couldn't compete with a
500 buck Chinese piece of shit. When I'm listening to music I couldn't
care less who's name is on the equipment.

Apart from wank value I mean....

**Wank value is in the eye of the beholder.

It is, but like anything "high end", there is a huge wank factor involved.


--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[keithr]

On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker cables,
the worst choice possible. Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers), then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/

Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

At what length do the characteristics of speaker cable become
significant? I'd suggest that, in most domestic installations the cables
are short enough for anything other than the very cheapest option will
produce good results.

But they certainly aren't any better than many others, and not as good
as some. And there *definitely* is a *quality* difference between
cables, not usually much if any sound difference though, until the cheap
ones stop working. The sound difference then is rather large!
There CAN be sound differences though like microphonics, hum from poor
shielding etc.


Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people find
more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that.

**No, it is not as simple as that. SOME valve amps are engineered to
deliver quite high levels of distortion, whilst others are engineered to
deliver inaudible levels of distortion. The catch is where the amplifier
is pushed to it's limits. Many valve amps possess rather graceful
Voltage limiting (clipping) characteristics and rather benign current
limiting artefacts, whilst many SS amps do not.

Unless you are a rock guitarist, why would you drive an amp into
overload. If your amp overloads at your desired listening levels, you
need a more powerful amp.

Nothing wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd shut
up and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

**The reality is that most valve amp owners buy them because it is a
fashion statement, rather than for any technical or sonic advantages.

 

[keithr]

On 18/05/2016 7:58 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 13/05/2016 5:48 PM, BuckyBalls wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

**Not just Monster Cable™. There are a raft of companies doing the same
thing. It's just that Monster Cable™ was the first company to seriously
identify a gap in the marketplace.

Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

**No. What is sad is those who condemn a range of products, without
understanding why it is so popular. Like solid state amps, there are
good and bad valve amps. The good ones are very good indeed.

And very profitable to purveyors of fine amplifiers.

 

[keithr]

On 18/05/2016 3:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 18/05/2016 3:35 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 18/05/16 7:58 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**No. What is sad is those who condemn a range of products, without
understanding why it is so popular. Like solid state amps, there are
good and bad valve amps. The good ones are very good indeed.

To each their own.

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot less
coin.

**Tell that to a Ferrari owner. Valve amps can do some things that very
few solid state amps can. Some would argue that no solid state amp can
match certain aspect of valve amps' performance. And yes, in general,
valve amps cost more, all things being equal. That said, the most
expensive amps on the planet are probably solid state ones (ca. US$1
million).

The "Golden ears" set speak of the superior valve sound, but when you
get down to it, an amp should not have a "Sound", the signal coming out
should be exactly what went in except in amplitude.

$1M amps like Ferraris are simply a way for the uber rich to dispose of
excess money.

 

[keithr]

On 18/05/2016 6:30 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 18/05/2016 4:23 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 18/05/16 3:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a
case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot
less
coin.

**Tell that to a Ferrari owner.

Not a good analogy Trev. There are few V12 powered sports cars on the
market, and few cars that match Ferrari performance that are
considerably cheaper.

**Nissan GTR, Tesla P90D, Chev Corvette Z07, etc. That said, we have
drifted off-topic somewhat.


Valve amps can do some things that very few solid state amps can. Some
would argue that no solid state amp can
match certain aspect of valve amps' performance. And yes, in general,
valve amps cost more, all things being equal. That said, the most
expensive amps on the planet are probably solid state ones (ca. US$1
million).

I'm just taking from an average end-user's perspective.

**OK.

You can fill
your house with high end audio gear and spend a motza, but if it doesn't
sound any better than equipment that costs half the price or less then
what's the point?

**There isn't, but I could VERY easily demonstrate to you two
amplifiers, with seemingly similar specs, one costing $1,000.00 and one
costing $7,000.00. Even you would choose the $7k one. In a heartbeat.
That said, I could, with very little difficulty, locate a $7k amp which
couldn't compete with a $500.00, Chinese made, mass market POS. Like the
Ferrari, some high end amplifiers perform very nicely indeed. Better, in
fact, than their mass produced cousins.


Apart from wank value I mean....

**Wank value is in the eye of the beholder.

BuKkake?

 

[Blue Peeler]

keithr wrote:

Apart from wank value I mean....

**Wank value is in the eye of the beholder.

BuKkake?

Well played!

 

[Trevor]

On 17/05/2016 11:33 PM, Philip Shaw wrote:

On 2016-05-14, Trevor <trevor@home.net> wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:

Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many
fuckwits who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just
being conned and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a
couple myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on
personal preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly
accurate reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people
find more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that. Nothing
wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd shut up
and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

For old recordings mixed in the era when valve amps dominated the
middle and high-end, it is concievable that a "typical" good valve amp
would produce a better sound than a typical SS amp, because presumably
the mix would have been intended to be listended to with valve
distoritions (and indeed the producer would have listened to it with
valve distortions).

Those valve distortions are also on the recording and will be faithfully
reproduced by a good digital transfer. Back in the early days mixer
consoles, mic pre-amps, cutting lathe pre-amps etc were valve, (as were
guitar amps) so there is no shortage of "valve sound" on the recordings
already.

Of course, that doesn't apply to modern mixes
when no valve distortion is anticipated.

So pretty much everything in the last 50+ years. And a lot in the decade
or so before that as well.

While sometimes the vinyl version of an album is better[1], that's not a
result of the medium (apart from some bad masters of early CDs from
cheaper publishers, where the signal was post-processed to make a
master which could be used for more pressing with a tolerable result,
so all the CDs were excessively harsh). Whatever the reason, a digital
copy of the record will of course have all the merits of the original
vinyl, while having the ongoing merits of a digital recording.

Exactly, something many vinyl fanatics still won't admit though.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker cables,
the worst choice possible.

Only for a few speaker that have a problem, like some ESL's etc.

Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers), then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/

Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

NO mention was made of speaker cables alone. I was talking in general
about cables, particularly signal cables which is why I mentioned
sheilding, not something required for speaker cables.

But they certainly aren't any better than many others, and not as good
as some. And there *definitely* is a *quality* difference between
cables, not usually much if any sound difference though, until the cheap
ones stop working. The sound difference then is rather large!
There CAN be sound differences though like microphonics, hum from poor
shielding etc.


Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people find
more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that.

**No, it is not as simple as that. SOME valve amps are engineered to
deliver quite high levels of distortion, whilst others are engineered to
deliver inaudible levels of distortion.

Not at high power output, and even if it were possible there would be no
point if you couldn't tell the difference for a LOT more expense!

The catch is where the amplifier
is pushed to it's limits. Many valve amps possess rather graceful
Voltage limiting (clipping) characteristics and rather benign current
limiting artefacts, whilst many SS amps do not.

Which ignores the fact that for less money you simply buy a solid state
amp with far greater power that will never clip for the same or greater
SPL, so as I said the real difference is a preference for those valve
distortions.

Nothing wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd shut
up and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

**The reality is that most valve amp owners buy them because it is a
fashion statement, rather than for any technical or sonic advantages.

Well that too, but IME they do have a preference for the valve (and
vinyl) sound and have convinced themselves it is superior, and sadly
spend much time trying to convince others. :-(

Trevor.

 

[Noddy]

On 18/05/16 8:24 PM, keithr wrote:

$1M amps like Ferraris are simply a way for the uber rich to dispose of
excess money.

Clearly you've never driven a Ferrari

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[keithr]

On 18/05/2016 9:43 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 18/05/16 8:24 PM, keithr wrote:

$1M amps like Ferraris are simply a way for the uber rich to dispose of
excess money.

Clearly you've never driven a Ferrari

I'm sure that they are a pleasure to drive, and I'd have on if lotto
ever came up, but the majority of Ferrari owners that I have come across
drive them to be seen driving a Ferrari rather than because of their
performance.

 

[felix]

On 18-May-2016 8:24 PM, keithr wrote:

On 18/05/2016 3:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/05/2016 3:35 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 18/05/16 7:58 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**No. What is sad is those who condemn a range of products, without
understanding why it is so popular. Like solid state amps, there are
good and bad valve amps. The good ones are very good indeed.

To each their own.

To me it's not a matter of whether or not they're good. It's more a
case
of whether they're any better than something that costs a whole lot
less
coin.

**Tell that to a Ferrari owner. Valve amps can do some things that very
few solid state amps can. Some would argue that no solid state amp can
match certain aspect of valve amps' performance. And yes, in general,
valve amps cost more, all things being equal. That said, the most
expensive amps on the planet are probably solid state ones (ca. US$1
million).

The "Golden ears" set speak of the superior valve sound, but when you
get down to it, an amp should not have a "Sound", the signal coming
out should be exactly what went in except in amplitude.

but that's never achievable in practice

$1M amps like Ferraris are simply a way for the uber rich to dispose
of excess money.

--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/
http://www.australianlibertyalliance.org.au/

 

[Noddy]

On 18/05/16 9:56 PM, keithr wrote:

I'm sure that they are a pleasure to drive, and I'd have on if lotto
ever came up, but the majority of Ferrari owners that I have come across
drive them to be seen driving a Ferrari rather than because of their
performance.

Uh-huh....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

 

[keithr]

On 18/05/2016 10:10 PM, felix wrote:

The "Golden ears" set speak of the superior valve sound, but when you
get down to it, an amp should not have a "Sound", the signal coming
out should be exactly what went in except in amplitude.

but that's never achievable in practice

It is perfectly possible to make an audio amplifier with distortion
levels below human perception, and a frequency response encompassing the
entire audible range. That to all intents and purposes is a soundless
amplifier.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2016 8:15 PM, keithr wrote:

On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker cables,
the worst choice possible. Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers), then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/

Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

At what length do the characteristics of speaker cable become
significant?

**It depends entirely on the impedance characteristics of the speaker
system. I've measured audibly significant differences at lengths of less
than 3 Metres (the typical length used in many systems).


I'd suggest that, in most domestic installations the cables

are short enough for anything other than the very cheapest option will
produce good results.

**I've installed more than a few systems where speaker cable lengths are
in excess of 10 Metres. At such lengths, even regular speakers can be
effected by low inductance speaker cables.

But they certainly aren't any better than many others, and not as good
as some. And there *definitely* is a *quality* difference between
cables, not usually much if any sound difference though, until the cheap
ones stop working. The sound difference then is rather large!
There CAN be sound differences though like microphonics, hum from poor
shielding etc.


Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people find
more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that.

**No, it is not as simple as that. SOME valve amps are engineered to
deliver quite high levels of distortion, whilst others are engineered to
deliver inaudible levels of distortion. The catch is where the amplifier
is pushed to it's limits. Many valve amps possess rather graceful
Voltage limiting (clipping) characteristics and rather benign current
limiting artefacts, whilst many SS amps do not.

Unless you are a rock guitarist, why would you drive an amp into
overload. If your amp overloads at your desired listening levels, you
need a more powerful amp.

**If I had to provide a guess (and it really is only a guess), I would
suspect that at least 50% of listeners clip their amplifiers somewhat
regularly. Current limiting is more difficult to quantify, without bench
measurements, but I've certainly seen a number of systems where it occurs.

Nothing wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd shut
up and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

**The reality is that most valve amp owners buy them because it is a
fashion statement, rather than for any technical or sonic advantages.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2016 9:22 PM, Trevor wrote:

On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:
However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker cables,
the worst choice possible.


Only for a few speaker that have a problem, like some ESL's etc.

**Well, yes, but there are *a lot* of ESLs around. Given their cost and
reputation for high sound quality, they tend to be in demand on the used
market. Nonetheless, my point is that Monster Cable™ is the second WORST
speaker cable available (only Naim speaker cable is worse) and that a
VERY economical alternative is readily and easily available. This allows
listeners to use ESLs without major problem and for those who desire it,
very long speaker cables can be used.

Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers), then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/

Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

NO mention was made of speaker cables alone.

**This part of the thread started with speaker cables.

I was talking in general

about cables, particularly signal cables which is why I mentioned
sheilding, not something required for speaker cables.

**Not necessarily. I've attended several systems where particularly
heroic methods were required to eliminate 'frame buzz' caused by TV
transmitters. Shielded speaker cables was one of those methods. Using
zero global NFB amplification was more effective, but more expensive.
That said, the idea of using RG213/U is not specifically because it is
shielded cable, but because it is low inductance.

But they certainly aren't any better than many others, and not as good
as some. And there *definitely* is a *quality* difference between
cables, not usually much if any sound difference though, until the cheap
ones stop working. The sound difference then is rather large!
There CAN be sound differences though like microphonics, hum from poor
shielding etc.


Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people find
more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that.

**No, it is not as simple as that. SOME valve amps are engineered to
deliver quite high levels of distortion, whilst others are engineered to
deliver inaudible levels of distortion.

Not at high power output, and even if it were possible there would be no
point if you couldn't tell the difference for a LOT more expense!

**The Audio Research VT200 exhibits a THD figure of below 0.1% well past
100 Watts:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-1-preamplifier-vt200-power-amplifier-measurements-audio-research-vt#3LeThsrZBWluOfYP.97

There are likely to be lots of others, but I can't be bothered looking.
So, yes, it is possible.

The catch is where the amplifier
is pushed to it's limits. Many valve amps possess rather graceful
Voltage limiting (clipping) characteristics and rather benign current
limiting artefacts, whilst many SS amps do not.

Which ignores the fact that for less money you simply buy a solid state
amp with far greater power that will never clip for the same or greater
SPL, so as I said the real difference is a preference for those valve
distortions.

**Yes, you can, but there are other issues associated with building such
products. Current demands rise, as power output rises, thus elevating cost.

Nothing wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd shut
up and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

**The reality is that most valve amp owners buy them because it is a
fashion statement, rather than for any technical or sonic advantages.


Well that too, but IME they do have a preference for the valve (and
vinyl) sound and have convinced themselves it is superior, and sadly
spend much time trying to convince others. :-(

Trevor.

**And that is their right. A well setup vinyl system can sound very good
indeed. Sadly, the cost is much higher than a digital one of similar
performance. Same deal with valves.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

<snip>

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and also for RG213?

 

[Chris]

On 18/05/2016 11:05 PM, keithr wrote:

On 18/05/2016 10:10 PM, felix wrote:

The "Golden ears" set speak of the superior valve sound, but when you
get down to it, an amp should not have a "Sound", the signal coming
out should be exactly what went in except in amplitude.

but that's never achievable in practice

It is perfectly possible to make an audio amplifier with distortion
levels below human perception, and a frequency response encompassing the
entire audible range. That to all intents and purposes is a soundless
amplifier.

And then connect it to transducers that contribute 1% or greater
distortion...

--
Cheers,
Chris.