The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

Frank,

 

I've seen you lie on this forum many times. You are not the judge, jury and executioner. 

 

A specific example, please. ... If you can't provide one, kindly shut up ...

[fas42]

6 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Do you think it's possible to be an audiophile and love music at the same time? When I look at a thread like this, I have serious doubts.

 

Yes. The audiophile is sensitive to any anomalies in the sound, but when they don't exist, at a subjective level, then he can relax, and just go with the music.

 

A mighty good test for how good a system is together, is to listen to some recording you have never heard before, of a genre that leaves you cold, normally. If you almost immediately "get into the groove", understand what the music is all about - then the playback is doing its job properly.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

I disagree.

 

People can change and often do when they see how their actions are perceived by others.

 

It's too important to me that people change their perception of how to achieve satisfying reproduction of music - over 30 years ago I started listening to what other people thought was good sound; and it was almost 100% terrible; so many problems with the SQ; to me it was quite unlistenable.

 

Much better these days, but still not there yet. That's why I use the analogy of a rattle behind the dash of the very expensive car I happen to be a passenger in - others in the car are luxuriating in the ambience of the fancy interior; but all I can hear is that bloody irritating noise, that shouldn't be there ... 🙂.

[fas42]

If you can't appreciate that I also think that something like this is an absolutely fabulous adventure,

 

then you don't understand where I'm coming from ...

[Racerxnet]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A specific example, please. ... If you can't provide one, kindly shut up ...

You know what the source is suppose to sound like for starters. Lets just start from there.

[March Audio]

3 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I initially felt the same way but hearing the same ideas expressed over and over again in almost every thread on this site just became boring and irritating.

 

Quite.  However they are not even ideas, it's just non sensicle ramblings.  This is supposed to be an objective thread.

 

"I optimised something (doesn't say what or how), my brain joined the dots and now suddenly this old 78 rpm record sounds utterly convincing".

[fas42]

Just now, Racerxnet said:

You know what the source is suppose to sound like for starters. Lets just start from there.

 

The source is supposed to sound like "what it is" - the better the reproduction, the closer you are to that - if every time you change something, or every time you listen to a specific track on different systems, it sounds very different - then you're a long way from hearing "what it is" ... I'm puzzled why people had such a hard time, with such a simple concept ...

[Racerxnet]

25 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes. The audiophile is sensitive to any anomalies in the sound, but when they don't exist, at a subjective level, then he can relax, and just go with the music.

 

A mighty good test for how good a system is together, is to listen to some recording you have never heard before, of a genre that leaves you cold, normally. If you almost immediately "get into the groove", understand what the music is all about - then the playback is doing its job properly.

Frank,

 

Your talking out both sides of your butthole again. 

[fas42]

Just now, March Audio said:

But they are not even ideas, it's just non sensicle rabling.

 

I optimised something (doesn't say what), my brain joined the dots and now suddenly this old 78 rpm record sounds utterly "convincing".

 

Every setup has highly specific issues - you identify them, work out how to resolve, and implement. If you do this well enough, then the ear/brain hears enough information, clearly enough, to listen 'past' the remaining technical issues; and you get to enjoy the performance.

 

Now, what part of that is "nonsense"?

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Frank,

 

Your talking out both sides of your butthole again. 

 

Yes, snarkiness is an excellent debating tool ...

[Racerxnet]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Every setup has highly specific issues - you identify them, work out how to resolve, and implement. If you do this well enough, then the ear/brain hears enough information, clearly enough, to listen 'past' the remaining technical issues; and you get to enjoy the performance.

 

Now, what part of that is "nonsense"?

Frank,

 

We are applying the needed upgrades to the system before you and I came to this site. We have provided verifiable support to show there has been improvement. In 1 instance for me, the Berkeley Alpha USB has made a marked improvement for my Older DAC. Verified reduction in jitter. Amir has some plots. 

[fas42]

41 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Frank,

 

We are applying the needed upgrades to the system before you and I came to this site. We have provided verifiable support to show there has been improvement. In 1 instance for me, the Berkeley Alpha USB has made a marked improvement for my Older DAC. Verified reduction in jitter. Amir has some plots. 

 

Which is all good. But it may not be enough to attenuate some audible artifacts, which are still too prominent. Unfortunately, some of the most important things to get right are impossible, or very difficult to measure. Which means you need to rely on your ears, currently, to tell you if you're making headway. As an example, I've mentioned many times that my active speakers are sensitive to mains noise - so, I could put a very expensive scope onto the mains - and see, noise! So, what have I gained? Well, nothing that stops the noise making an impact - I need to try various techniques to cut down the noise reaching the rig; my ears will tell me immediately whether it's working well enough - any measurements showing some attenuation of that noise are useless, if I can still tell that interference is getting through.

[Racerxnet]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is all good. But it may not be enough to attenuate some audible artifacts, which are still too prominent. Unfortunately, some of the most important things to get right are impossible, or very difficult to measure. Which means you need to rely on your ears, currently, to tell you if you're making headway. As an example, I've mentioned many times that my active speakers are sensitive to mains noise - so, I could put a very expensive scope onto the mains - and see, noise! So, what have I gained? Well, nothing that stops the noise making an impact - I need to try various techniques to cut down the noise reaching the rig; my ears will tell me immediately whether it's working well enough - any measurements showing some attenuation of that noise are useless, if I can still tell that interference is getting through.

Then I suggest you buy or build a line conditioner based on your needs and be done with it. The scope provides the information to determine your needs. If you still feel there is noise, look elsewhere. I don't have a tendency to chase tail. If you don't want to use a scope then I would ponder that you have no clue what is on the feed. 

 

Essentially, see whats happening on the feed, fix it permenently, and move on. 

[fas42]

Just now, Racerxnet said:

Then I suggest you buy or build a line conditioner based on your needs and be done with it. The scope provides the information to determine your needs. If you still feel there is noise, look elsewhere. I don't have a tendency to chase tail. If you don't want to use a scope then I would ponder that you have no clue what is on the feed. 

 

Essentially, see whats happenimg on the feed, fix it permenently, and move on. 

 

Line conditioning is something I have been playing with for nearly20 years. But to date it has never been good enough to fully do the job ... close, but no cigar. The scope doesn't provide information - you may purchase gear which has enough filtering built in to do the job; and the mains can be as noisy as it likes, with no effect.

 

The ideal is to fix it permanently, but this has not happened to date - I can plug and unplug a relevant noise maker any number of times I like; and hear it make a difference. What instrumentation is showing is useless, because it doesn't provide the how, to fully prevent the interaction.

[Racerxnet]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Line conditioning is something I have been playing with for nearly20 years. But to date it has never been good enough to fully do the job ... close, but no cigar. The scope doesn't provide information - you may purchase gear which has enough filtering built in to do the job; and the mains can be as noisy as it likes, with no effect.

 

The ideal is to fix it permanently, but this has not happened to date - I can plug and unplug a relevant noise maker any number of times I like; and hear it make a difference. What instrumentation is showing is useless, because it doesn't provide the how, to fully prevent the interaction.

Personally,

 

I don't think you have a clue whats available to mitigate the issues on the feed. This is basically you needing something to fiddle with, and without solving the problem, you have an audience to post useless shit to. 

[March Audio]

15 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Then I suggest you buy or build a line conditioner based on your needs and be done with it. The scope provides the information to determine your needs. If you still feel there is noise, look elsewhere. I don't have a tendency to chase tail. If you don't want to use a scope then I would ponder that you have no clue what is on the feed. 

 

Essentially, see whats happening on the feed, fix it permenently, and move on. 

He prefers to guess

[fas42]

39 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Personally,

 

I don't think you have a clue whats available to mitigate the issues on the feed. This is basically you needing something to fiddle with, and without solving the problem, you have an audience to post useless shit to. 

 

Responses like that are mighty useful for getting somewhere 🙄 ... and you can't see that, at all. I might remind you that I'm an Electrical Engineer, even though I didn't pursue that career in my working life ... which means, I have the technical ability to understand what's going on, in the electrical world. I have used simulation programs to model what is happening with mains noise, when it hits a filter of some sort - and part of what I'm using now is a circuit devised from that starting point. Of course, most audiophiles prefer to buy something that others are raving about, that has cachet for the moment - expensive, with a good dollop of wanker bling slapped all over it - so that they feel good about it, when they look at it ... if they're lucky, it may help - but no guarantees ...

[AnotherSpin]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes. The audiophile is sensitive to any anomalies in the sound, but when they don't exist, at a subjective level, then he can relax, and just go with the music.

 

A mighty good test for how good a system is together, is to listen to some recording you have never heard before, of a genre that leaves you cold, normally. If you almost immediately "get into the groove", understand what the music is all about - then the playback is doing its job properly.

 

A scenario in which an audiophile disappears and a music lover appears in his place? That seems to be my point too. Only I add that music lover may be immune to the inevitable anomalies in technology. Inevitable because there is always a way to "improve" something but in essence distract from the music.

[AnotherSpin]

8 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I disagree.

 

People can change and often do when they see how their actions are perceived by others.

 

People can think they can change or they can think they want, or should change, but in reality this is something beyond their abilities. No choice here. What people can is relax and enjoy the music (of life).

[Confused]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's certainly important on the recording side - they wouldn't have spent centuries trying to work out the best shape and fit out of performing places for music to be played in, if this wasn't the case. However, this doesn't mean the space in which you listen to that performance needs to be, just so.

 

An almost perfect analogy of what a high performance playback achieves, subjectively, is to imagine your listening space chopped off in a vertical plane which is in line with the front of your speakers - that is, there is nothing but empty space beyond that floor to ceiling divide. Then, move that listening space, now chopped off, into the performance hall, into the region where the microphones were - what you hear is equivalent to that situation; the contribution your room makes to the overall acoustics is the same as that scenario.

 

Something to think about, but maybe you have recently discovered for yourself that the listening room is indeed a factor:

 

OK - I know that you consider that the issue is related to "stabilising" the speakers.  The thing is though, what you describe here is a pretty much text book example of what happens when a speaker produces a bass frequency that coincides with a room resonance mode.

 

Don't get me wrong here, there is nothing wrong with stabilising speakers and ensuring correct speaker support, but these techniques may actually improve bass accuracy, which in turn can make the effect of hitting a room resonance mode all the more apparent.

 

Your method is based on observation, finding issues, then mitigating the issues.  I would say that you have just observed your first room resonance mode.  Keep an open mind here, and have a think about if this might just be true.

[fas42]

38 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

Something to think about, but maybe you have recently discovered for yourself that the listening room is indeed a factor:

 

 

38 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

OK - I know that you consider that the issue is related to "stabilising" the speakers.  The thing is though, what you describe here is a pretty much text book example of what happens when a speaker produces a bass frequency that coincides with a room resonance mode.

 

May indeed be the case - it's the first time I've had such occurring - the speakers are located where two previous iterations of setups were located, and this behaviour didn't occur then. However ... these Edifiers dig deeper than prior rigs, and are actives - may be enough to cause such.

 

That said, these speakers aren't as stabilised as well they could be - as noted earlier. Along those lines, since then I have increased the added mass - and the resonance factor seems to be better controlled. Nothing I would put my money on - and so will be much more carefully assessed, and adjusted down the track.

 

38 minutes ago, Confused said:

Don't get me wrong here, there is nothing wrong with stabilising speakers and ensuring correct speaker support, but these techniques may actually improve bass accuracy, which in turn can make the effect of hitting a room resonance mode all the more apparent.

 

Your method is based on observation, finding issues, then mitigating the issues.  I would say that you have just observed your first room resonance mode.  Keep an open mind here, and have a think about if this might just be true.

 

I would be more prone to accepting this if it was a "one note wonder" - but what happens is that the bass line moves up and down the scale, without dramatic variation in that bass fullness.

[Confused]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I would be more prone to accepting this if it was a "one note wonder" - but what happens is that the bass line moves up and down the scale, without dramatic variation in that bass fullness.

The effect will peak at a specific frequency, but will still be very apparent each side of the peak frequency, gradually tailing off as the frequency moves higher or lower..

 

As this is the Objective-Fi forum, if you advise the approximate dimensions of your room, I would be happy to perform a rough calculation of the frequencies at which the main room modes are likely to occur.  (If you have a reasonably rectangular room that is)   

 

You could then correlate this to an analysis of the specific track that invoked the issue. 

[Teresa]

18 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

It's possible, but not at the same time. I think the two pursuits are orthogonal. When I'm listening critically to my system, I'm much less involved in the music. When I'm listening to music, I hardly pay attention to anything related to the sound. If I try to do both at the same time, I rarely succeed.

 

Critically listening is what I try to avoid as when I try to listen analytically it destroys my enjoyment of the music. 

 

Nowadays, I only listen to music for pleasure, however poor recordings and poor sounding performance places keeps me from enjoying the music. Several decades ago I seen Maurice Abravanel and the Utah Symphony on tour at Lawlor Events Center and sound was so poor I didn't enjoy it and have never went back to Lawlor Events Center again. Lawlor Events Center was chosen instead of the Pioneer Center for the Performing Arts because it had more seating and they could sell more tickets.

 

Even before I was into audio I preferred to listen to live music in good sounding places instead of poor sounding ones. I may not be able to say why it sounded poor, I just know it didn't like music there.

 

18 hours ago, PYP said:

 ...Personally, I like to feel music as well as hear it, so I prefer dynamic speakers suitably sized to the room and that room needs to have acoustic treatments.   The gear needs to have very low distortion/noise and be very linear, or I hear extraneous sound that isn't music, which is a distraction.

 

Once I listen to music at home, I'm not thinking about the gear, I simply enjoy whatever I want to hear at that moment at the volume I prefer.  Of course, it isn't the same as a live event, with all that implies, but it often can be better.  And how many opportunities have we all had to hear live music this last year?  As some have said, this is a good time to be an audiophile.   

 

I agree, feeling the music is also important to me that is why I prefer to listen to music with the lights off. In the dark it is much easier for me to feel the music. 

 

17 hours ago, PYP said:

 ...I don't do quick A/B because that doesn't work for me.  Everything settles in over time, so trial periods of up to 30 days are best for potential purchases...

 

I agree. I have alway had a terrible time trying to compare anything music or audio related. If I listen analytically I can't enjoy or feel the music and soon everything sounds terrible. However, if I turn out the lights and let the music wash over me the musical enjoyment can be amazing, that is if it is a good recording of music I like.

 

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

Yes. The audiophile is sensitive to any anomalies in the sound, but when they don't exist, at a subjective level, then he can relax, and just go with the music.

 

A mighty good test for how good a system is together, is to listen to some recording you have never heard before, of a genre that leaves you cold, normally. If you almost immediately "get into the groove", understand what the music is all about - then the playback is doing its job properly.

 

I agree with the first paragraph and that is why I prefer audiophile recordings because I can relax and enjoy the music.

 

I disagree with the second paragraph as I don't like listening to music or genres I don't like when I'm at a live event, so I should also dislike the recorded versions as well. Thus if an audio system makes recordings of music I dislike when listening in person likable then IMHO it is not an accurate audio system.

[PYP]

3 hours ago, Teresa said:

Nowadays, I only listen to music for pleasure, however poor recordings and poor sounding performance places keeps me from enjoying the music. Several decades ago I seen Maurice Abravanel and the Utah Symphony on tour at Lawlor Events Center and sound was so poor I didn't enjoy it and have never went back to Lawlor Events Center again. Lawlor Events Center was chosen instead of the Pioneer Center for the Performing Arts because it had more seating and they could sell more tickets.

We have a similar problem with a university venue which is the location of many performances.  The sound is generally recognized as terrible and studies have indicated that is cannot be corrected in that room without essentially starting with a new building.  Though the programming can be good - more from a variety perspective than performances by top talent, which is hard to attract - we avoid musical performances there.   Of course, having lived in NYC, it is easy to get spoiled.  The multiple good venues there are my reference for my setup at home.   

 

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Confused said:

The effect will peak at a specific frequency, but will still be very apparent each side of the peak frequency, gradually tailing off as the frequency moves higher or lower..

 

Sounds reasonable ... the interesting thing is that it's partial open plan, and the long, narrow kitchen has major openings to the lounge - and it's in the kitchen where it's most strongly concentrated. At the "correct" listening spot, the balance is quite reasonable.

 

12 hours ago, Confused said:

 

As this is the Objective-Fi forum, if you advise the approximate dimensions of your room, I would be happy to perform a rough calculation of the frequencies at which the main room modes are likely to occur.  (If you have a reasonably rectangular room that is)   

 

You could then correlate this to an analysis of the specific track that invoked the issue. 

 

Thanks for the offer! Later today - it's nominally rectangular; but rear wall goes at a strong angle.

 

I have a test CD, with nice frequency sweeps on it - when and if I decide to check it more rigorously, I'll be using this to assess and adjust ... the latter being done by improving stability in the first instance.

 

Cheers,