Listen to cable directionality

[semente]

I don't accept that soundstage is solely due to room interaction. You can still get a very real sounding illusion with depth, width and height in much larger and wider rooms. In fact, if the room is too small the image can become squashed.

A good track for showing this is the simulated moth in the Olivia Newton John recording "Moth to a Flame" where the "moth" appears to do an anti-clockwise circular sweep well beyond the rear of the speakers and the listening position. In a small room the circle becomes elongated . As I previously said, "The Strorm" from Chesky is a very good test track, where my own DIY gear also sounds very similar to the Pass Class A monoblocks, but not in the power area, which is not needed in a typical home situation. Another very good test track is "Queen-Another One Bites the Dust" when down mixed to stereo from the DVD-A .Many recordings are capable of filling the entire listening area with sound, even the DVD/Bluray of "Avatar" through a far better than average system from just 2 front speakers.Much of the illusion is due to the encoding, as well as recorded ambience, and with a better than average system you don't need a Dolby decoder to obtain much of the encoded surround information.

It comes down to phase accuracy etc. Well recorded DTV episodes and even many advertisements can give this illusion.

I normally watch TV using my main audio system, where some of the productions have excellent audio, as do many of the USA Late Night shows transmitted in 5.1 audio. Some of these can be obtained via captured and uploaded .ts streams from the Usenet.

I should have mentioned that I was referring to recordings that are supposed to sound natural / realistic.

 

With sound processing and phase effects almost anything is possible.

 

http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_stereophonicsound.php

 

R

[semente]

I have written of this before, but you might well have never seen it.

 

I once thought that gear showing these large 3D images vs smaller less 3D or 2D presentations of other gear meant the 3D gear was better. It would show these characteristics across most or all systems and those that weren't 3D were not as good somehow. Such gear seemed more real, transparent and direct to the source if it painted large, deep spacious realistic musical soundstages.

 

I changed my mind after performing an experiment for other reasons. I took a good VTL triode amp which had these qualities in abundance, loaded the output with an appropriate value of power resistors, tapped that in a way that meant the whole affair was unity gain. 1 volt input and out comes 1 volt output from the triode amp. Made some interconnects and fed it on into a nice sounding Spectral amp that lacked all of these wonderful qualities. The Spectral fed my Quad ESL63 speakers.

 

The result was not anything I expected. I heard all of the wonderful qualities of the triode amp undiminished. So my supposition that solid state couldn't do such a thing was clearly wrong. There it was for all to hear. I then reversed position of the two amps. Spectral feeding VTL connected to Quads. My thinking was if the Spectral was lacking in these qualities it would diminish or completely eliminate them if between the source and the VTL. Instead nothing was effected. You could insert or remove the Spectral and hear nothing change. No difference. The Spectral was as clean as a piece of interconnect.

 

The only reasonable conclusion is these other qualities were colorations of the triode amp added to the source signal. Not all ss amps are as transparent as the Spectral. Some came close most didn't. Some would transmit maybe 2/3rds of the triode quality and add other colorations on top or have colorations that somewhat limited the effect. Still nothing I heard doing this with several different amps did anything to argue against the idea the beautiful wonderful sound of the triode amp is an additive set of colorations. This is not due to superior fidelity. It was and is quite compelling and most would prefer it I think.

I agree with this and it's sad that the press doesn't make any reference to harmonic distortion, phase distortion or other causes for increased "3D-ness".

Instead most critics prefer to classify this as part of the equipment's "character"...

 

Salvatore discusses this here:

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html#Rel

 

But it is important to distinguish better - performance wise/accuracy - from pleasant - more interesting/exciting/expressive from the listener's perspective.

 

I find what separates you and 17629v2 is not only the approach to audio (objectiveness vs. subjectiveness) but also a matter of expectations and guiding objectives (accuracy vs. taste).

 

R

[esldude]

I don't want to start an argument with you, but I have to agree. You bring up the transparency comment constantly. And every time you do I ask the same question. How do you go about deciding if any one component is more transparent than the other? I never once got a straight answer out of you.

 

 

[/color]

 

Well you need a reference. Then you need to compare the device output to the reference. That is one method. Nulling two signals can tell you how they differ or if they differ.

 

As in the amplifier example you can insert and remove a piece of gear from the signal path and see if it altered the sound or not. You can check that with measurements or you can listen to it.

 

You can have a reference channel and put a device in the other channel to see if both channels match.

 

Putting a tube amp in the signal path results in a tube sound (usually). Something with its own characteristic sound imposed on all signals through it is not transparent. Not true to the source. Something you can insert or remove without hearing any effects is transparent. And no not all amp designers dream of their amps sounding like tubes.

 

There is no argument with you on the Carver amps. You don't have anything to argue with. He hand matched one of his amps to convince listeners and also passed a null test with a deep null. That exact configuration was never made into a product. That he in fact was successful and the industry isn't very different today is rather interesting. I am sure he believed showing his amps had a larger performance envelope and better fidelity than a ten times the cost tube amp would have made a difference. It did not. Just like letting people listen to things they think sound different and finding without labels they don't also appears not to make a difference.

[esldude]

I agree with this and it's sad that the press doesn't make any reference to harmonic distortion, phase distortion or other causes for increased "3D-ness".

Instead most critics prefer to classify this as part of the equipment's "character"...

 

But it is important to distinguish better - performance wise/accuracy - from pleasant - more interesting/exciting/expressive from the listener's perspective.

 

I find what separates you and 17629v2 is not only the approach to audio (objectiveness vs. subjectiveness) but also a matter of expectations and guiding objectives (accuracy vs. taste).

 

R

 

I think you have understood just about right.

 

I would add I have been where he appears to be. He seems to think I haven't and don't understand from whence he is speaking.

[semente]

Ironically his loathing of all things technical is actually keeping him from learning the causes of his listening impressions which in turn would help him improve system performance.

 

17629v2's listening ability does seem quite evolved and effective.

 

R

[17629v2]

Ironically his loathing of all things technical is actually keeping him from learning the causes of his listening impressions which in turn would help him improve system performance.

 

17629v2's listening ability does seem quite evolved and effective.

 

R

 

Don't forget that my perspective is probably different than most others. The customers I was dealing with knew what they were doing. It was a given that I had to know more than they did, or what was the point of me even being there? My job wasn't to listen to their systems and make recommendations where I thought appropriate. I had to play music on the customers system and watch what they listen for, and what they respond to, or don't. Its not an easy thing to do, and specs just don't help in most cases.

 

For the record, I don't loath all things technical. But specs can only take you so far. If I were to let the lack of meaningful specs get in the way of building a system, the customer would just go to someone else who would get the job done where I failed. That's where hands on experience comes in. You learn or you go out of business.

[witchdoctor]

Well you need a reference. Then you need to compare the device output to the reference. That is one method. Nulling two signals can tell you how they differ or if they differ.

 

As in the amplifier example you can insert and remove a piece of gear from the signal path and see if it altered the sound or not. You can check that with measurements or you can listen to it.

 

You can have a reference channel and put a device in the other channel to see if both channels match.

 

Putting a tube amp in the signal path results in a tube sound (usually). Something with its own characteristic sound imposed on all signals through it is not transparent. Not true to the source. Something you can insert or remove without hearing any effects is transparent. And no not all amp designers dream of their amps sounding like tubes.

 

There is no argument with you on the Carver amps. You don't have anything to argue with. He hand matched one of his amps to convince listeners and also passed a null test with a deep null. That exact configuration was never made into a product. That he in fact was successful and the industry isn't very different today is rather interesting. I am sure he believed showing his amps had a larger performance envelope and better fidelity than a ten times the cost tube amp would have made a difference. It did not. Just like letting people listen to things they think sound different and finding without labels they don't also appears not to make a difference.

 

Bob caught hell from his dealers for doing that, they were not too pleased that they had to explain to customers why they should still buy the expensive amps from the other vendors they worked with.

[witchdoctor]

Try listening again when you are sober and drug free !

 

What fun is that:)

[mansr]

What fun is that:)

 

Last time I was sober, man I felt bad

Worst hangover that I ever had

-- Dire Straits, Heavy Fuel

[Jud]

...why they should still buy the expensive amps from the other vendors they worked with.

 

...or from Carver. The cheapest amps he makes now go for $9K for a pair of monoblocks. Your one upgrade option from there is the $32K Silver Sevens.

[Jud]

Well you need a reference. Then you need to compare the device output to the reference. That is one method. Nulling two signals can tell you how they differ or if they differ.

 

As in the amplifier example you can insert and remove a piece of gear from the signal path and see if it altered the sound or not. You can check that with measurements or you can listen to it.

 

You can have a reference channel and put a device in the other channel to see if both channels match.

 

Putting a tube amp in the signal path results in a tube sound (usually). Something with its own characteristic sound imposed on all signals through it is not transparent. Not true to the source. Something you can insert or remove without hearing any effects is transparent. And no not all amp designers dream of their amps sounding like tubes.

 

Not having various amps or other equipment sitting around to compare except for a few old cables, my reference for transparency (short of obvious faults of commission) is extremely subjective. I have a decent collection of recordings spanning a reasonably wide variety of music. A component with decent transparency should therefore provide a wide variety of listening experiences. I have tracks that have big soundstages and tracks that have no soundstage to speak of. I have tracks that are recorded with beautifully clean sound, and tracks that were recorded with intentionally "gritty" sound, or by amateur tapers from vinyl or at live events. If I find myself getting bored in the short or mid term (short term being hours, mid term being 2-4 weeks of pretty steady listening) from a sense that everything is starting to sound the same, then the component isn't transparent.

 

Shorter: If you don't hear sonic differences between albums, or between tracks on the same album (or even within tracks - did you know Good Vibrations was recorded in four different studios to get the different sounds Brian Wilson was after?), the component is imposing its own sound and is not transparent.

[semente]

Not having various amps or other equipment sitting around to compare except for a few old cables, my reference for transparency (short of obvious faults of commission) is extremely subjective. I have a decent collection of recordings spanning a reasonably wide variety of music. A component with decent transparency should therefore provide a wide variety of listening experiences. I have tracks that have big soundstages and tracks that have no soundstage to speak of. I have tracks that are recorded with beautifully clean sound, and tracks that were recorded with intentionally "gritty" sound, or by amateur tapers from vinyl or at live events. If I find myself getting bored in the short or mid term (short term being hours, mid term being 2-4 weeks of pretty steady listening) from a sense that everything is starting to sound the same, then the component isn't transparent.

 

Shorter: If you don't hear sonic differences between albums, or between tracks on the same album (or even within tracks - did you know Good Vibrations was recorded in four different studios to get the different sounds Brian Wilson was after?), the component is imposing its own sound and is not transparent.

 

Very much true.

[richard kimber]

 

So there you go a whole new topology of cable that is actually based on real live physics.

 

John S.

 

This sounds a bit like the Anti Cables topology, but I'm not an expert so I can't be certain.

 

- Richard.

[witchdoctor]

...or from Carver. The cheapest amps he makes now go for $9K for a pair of monoblocks. Your one upgrade option from there is the $32K Silver Sevens.

 

I'll see what the guys at the Carver site have to say, I have 0 experience with his new amps. I think Bob's amp building has evolved with time but have no idea, that is just a personal opinion. I am so happy with my AV 505 I don't think I would upgrade other than to experiment.

 

I see these come up on Audiogon at way below retail from time to time:

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/carver-black-beauty-305-power-amplifier/

 

I just couldn't pull the trigger when I could get something like this, 375 watts a channel, and have it totally refitted and recappedfor less than $1000, all in:

 

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/solid-state-carver-tfm-45-power-amplifier-2016-09-30-amplifiers-33020-hollywood-fl

[esldude]

...or from Carver. The cheapest amps he makes now go for $9K for a pair of monoblocks. Your one upgrade option from there is the $32K Silver Sevens.

 

I think what Carver experienced was that no matter how you show someone that plenty of gear is over-priced and equivalent performance is available for much less or that in fact people prefer certain departures from linearity they won't take you seriously unless gear costs serious money. At least among one segment. No matter if there is some absolutely certain way to show someone a $500 amp is unbeatable at any cost there are people who won't feel the same if they can pay 10 times that. This effect only intensified once JG Holt got people to abandon anything other than subjective listening for evaluation. Yes I know this wasn't actually JGH's intent, but it was the result.

 

Even before the amp challenge Carver was doing similar things. I think it was all the way back in the 70's he got some noted reviewers at the time to listen to LP's at his place. He had a circuit to add controlled amounts of low order distortion. Just listening everyone agreed on what sounded best and thought he was cleaning up the sound. In fact he was adding distortion and a bit of EQ. The details are fuzzy, but seems he basically made a good modest MM equal to an expensive MC cartridge in their opinion. As one might now expect it didn't lead people to think you could get MC performance at MM price. Nope, it was just ignored.

 

You can see after the amp challenge failed to change people's opinion he made his first Silver Sevens. Got HP to bless them as best amps available. Then in time started making more expensive SS gear like the Sunfire with appropriately woven tales of what was special in the tradition of audiophile lore. Among some circles at least he eventually garnered similar acclaim as making great amps. I think Bruno Putzeys has travelled a somewhat similar path in some regards. I think he just skipped the part of these public challenges that Carver tried for a period of a few years.

[Speedskater]

That is a coaxial cable. Very few audio cable companies offer interconnects based on coax cable anymore.

It may be true that boutique audiophile cable companies don't offer many coax unbalanced interconnect cables. But the best unbalanced interconnect cables are still coax and they are made by the major bulk cable manufactures like Belden, Canare & Mogami.

 

The much more common topology is 2 or more conductors (I am a fan of star-quad as used in microphone cables) twisted together, one "+" the other "-", with a braided outer shield spaced at a some distance from the pair.

And generally the shield is tied to the "-" just at one end.

The very same cable can also be terminated with XLR connectors, the shield being connected to one of the 3 pins--and often to the shell as well.

Yes, Shielded Twisted Pair (STP) and quad make the best balanced interconnect cable and again they are made by Belden, Canare & Mogami.

[sandyk]

It may be true that boutique audiophile cable companies don't offer many coax unbalanced interconnect cables. But the best unbalanced interconnect cables are still coax and they are made by the major bulk cable manufactures like Belden, Canare & Mogami.

 

+1

[witchdoctor]

It may be true that boutique audiophile cable companies don't offer many coax unbalanced interconnect cables. But the best unbalanced interconnect cables are still coax and they are made by the major bulk cable manufactures like Belden, Canare & Mogami.

 

 

Yes, Shielded Twisted Pair (STP) and quad make the best balanced interconnect cable and again they are made by Belden, Canare & Mogami.

 

Hey speedkater, you obviously have some engineering cred. You claim unbalanced coax interconnect canles are better. This is a thread that compared cables. Can you please make some files, coax vs non coax for another challenge?

[Jud]

I think Bruno Putzeys has travelled a somewhat similar path in some regards. I think he just skipped the part of these public challenges that Carver tried for a period of a few years.

 

Not unless Carver offered DIY modules for a fraction of the price.

 

I think in that regard Putzeys is a little more similar to Nelson Pass, though he hasn't gone to the extent Pass has, releasing designs into the public domain.

[sandyk]

Hey speedkater, you obviously have some engineering cred. You claim unbalanced coax interconnect canles are better. This is a thread that compared cables. Can you please make some files, coax vs non coax for another challenge?

 

Witchdoctor.

Different topology equipment designs don't have identical interconnect requirements. In my own gear for example, the 0 volts (earth) reference resistance right from the DAC to the Power Amplifier DOES matter for best results, as it is switched through the preamp as well.

In this case a good coax cable with twin shielding will result in a much lower resistance 0 volts reference and higher S/N.

 

Alex

[17629v2]

It may be true that boutique audiophile cable companies don't offer many coax unbalanced interconnect cables. But the best unbalanced interconnect cables are still coax and they are made by the major bulk cable manufactures like Belden, Canare & Mogami.

 

 

Yes, Shielded Twisted Pair (STP) and quad make the best balanced interconnect cable and again they are made by Belden, Canare & Mogami.

 

I just tried some of Blue Jeans best IC's, I think hey were Belden, and they really couldn't compete with my Audioquest. Definitely less transparent, and they clearly imposed they're own sound on the music. What am I missing?

[mansr]

I just tried some of Blue Jeans best IC's, I think hey were Belden, and they really couldn't compete with my Audioquest. Definitely less transparent, and they clearly imposed they're own sound on the music. What am I missing?

Sanity.

[sandyk]

I just tried some of Blue Jeans best IC's, I think hey were Belden, and they really couldn't compete with my Audioquest. Definitely less transparent, and they clearly imposed they're own sound on the music. What am I missing?

 

If they were the LC1, they may not be a good match with all equipment.

[17629v2]

Sanity.

 

I hope you didn't get your degree in psychology the same place you got your degree in electronics.

[mansr]

I hope you didn't get your degree in psychology the same place you got your degree in electronics.

The university I studied at (KTH) only awards degrees in engineering.