witchdoctor Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 You are not going to like what I post about speaker cables then. Because there are differences you can hear and see on a scope. I will be sharing my 1983 tests shortly. No worries, there are many members who will like it, look forward to your post. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Who said anything about speaker cables? We're discussing interconnects. Some speakers are definitely affected by the cable used. It seems to depend upon the speaker system's impedance curve. No speaker has an absolutely flat and uniform impedance across the entire audio passband. Isodynamic speakers like Magnepans seem to come closest, and incidentally, those speakers seem to be among the least affected by the actual speaker wire used. Highly reactive loads like electrostatic speakers can be difficult to get right with regard to speaker cable. The pair of SoundLab speakers owned by the Late Gordon Holt were the most sensitive speakers to cable types I've ever seen, followed by a pair of InnerSound ESLs I once reviewed. I also noticed the phenomenon on a pair of Acoustats I had, and strangely, on a pair of Apogee Signature IIs I once reviewed which I would have thought (being full-range magnetic ribbons) would have been more like Magnepans in that regard. George, I know you were discussing interconnects. The part you won’t like is the reference to consistency with prior tests of interconnects. I was enjoying your defense of speakers that don’t play Rock, Americana and Bluegrass well until you got to Gordon Holt. Never a good idea to cite a man I’d never heard of until after his death for the simple reason that Stereophile was an underground publication with no circulation. Since I never listen to unamplified recorded music I never had a reason to seek men like him out. Finally why bring up black marks on your resume? People will forget you were a reviewer if you stop bringing it up. Have a happy new year. Steve Link to comment
Jud Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Finally why bring up black marks on your resume? People will forget you were a reviewer if you stop bringing it up. Have a happy new year. Steve Ho ho! Take care, Steve and George, and happy New Year to everyone! One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
gmgraves Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 George,I know you were discussing interconnects. The part you won’t like is the reference to consistency with prior tests of interconnects. Liking or disliking has nothing to do with the discussion. Interconnects cannot change the sound of an audio system unless they were specifically designed as filters (which requires external components) in which case, they are no longer conductors. It is impossible for a simple interconnect to have any effect on the signal passing through them in the lengths used in home audio - Period. And in speaker cable, usually the type that aren't just quality copper of around 14 GA up are the one that can cause problems with certain apps and speaker combinations. I was enjoying your defense of speakers that don’t play Rock, Americana and Bluegrass well until you got to Gordon Holt. Never a good idea to cite a man I’d never heard of until after his death for the simple reason that Stereophile was an underground publication with no circulation. Since I never listen to unamplified recorded music I never had a reason to seek men like him out. Since Gordon INVENTED the science (art?) of subjective evaluation of audio components, I figured everyone knew who he was. On the other hand, who or what Gordon was is irrelevant to my point, which was that a pair of vintage SoundLab speakers was very cable sensitive. Finally why bring up black marks on your resume? People will forget you were a reviewer if you stop bringing it up. Have a happy new year. Steve Black marks? I'm afraid you've lost me. And it's not that I was a reviewer, I am a reviewer, thank you very much. George Link to comment
vmartell22 Posted December 31, 2016 Author Share Posted December 31, 2016 Since Gordon INVENTED the science (art?) of subjective evaluation of audio components, I figured everyone knew who he was. On the other hand, who or what Gordon was is irrelevant to my point, which was that a pair of vintage SoundLab speakers was very cable sensitive. That's a great point bringing up GH - before GH, equipment reviews were all about specs! - Again I have this twisted idea that the subjective side would love specs and tests! My reasoning goes like this - they could see the difference in specs or spot the tiny variation in the tests, let's say a tiny difference in capacitance - then they will go - I can hear that! my golden ears came thru! Attitude like that could strengthen their argument. However is not like that! I think they see equipment reviewing more related to art or food criticism than anything technical... some of the terms used feel closer to tasting notes (as in wine or coffee) or interpretation notes (as in classical music reviewing).... Related question - does the Dunning–Kruger effect factor in all of this - do we only believe our hearing is above average? v Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 Some people surely have better hearing than average (almost the definition of average, not to mention that we expect a normal distribution around nearly every performance measure for any organism of any species). Two questions: 1. Is the better hearing just a tiny bit? or a lot? and in what respect? 2. Do those who CLAIM better hearing really have it? Personally, I have no use for golden ears and would rather have brass in pocket. Link to comment
gmgraves Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 That's a great point bringing up GH - before GH, equipment reviews were all about specs! - Again I have this twisted idea that the subjective side would love specs and tests! My reasoning goes like this - they could see the difference in specs or spot the tiny variation in the tests, let's say a tiny difference in capacitance - then they will go - I can hear that! my golden ears came thru! Attitude like that could strengthen their argument. However is not like that! I think they see equipment reviewing more related to art or food criticism than anything technical... some of the terms used feel closer to tasting notes (as in wine or coffee) or interpretation notes (as in classical music reviewing).... Related question - does the Dunning–Kruger effect factor in all of this - do we only believe our hearing is above average? v Well, It's certainly true that people's hearing differs within a certain set of parameters. Age, Exposure to loud noises over a lifetime, all these things affect what and how we hear. I have always maintained that "golden ears" is not, strictly, an ear based phenomenon. In fact, it actually has very little to do with the act of "hearing" and everything to do with listening! Going back to JGH, for a moment, In his later years, he probably suffered from high-frequency hearing loss just like anybody else his age. But, he could still hear things in an audio system that most other people could't. Why is that? Because he trained his hearing to notice certain characteristics about playback that most people would never notice. IOW, his "golden ears" were trained to hear anomalies in reproduced music. Years of doing what he did made him hyper sensitive to such things as wow and flutter, harmonic and I.M. distortion, frequency response anomalies, etc. By the by, is that Kruger you were referring to Arny Kruger? Because he can't hear at all! He'll tell you that EVERYTHING sounds the same. He's convinced that all DACs sound the same, and a $150 Panasonic Receiver from Costco sounds just as good as (and in fact sounds identical to) a $40,000 amplifier from Dan D'Augustino or Nelson Pass! So his equipment is that level. More examples? His CD player is still the original Sony unit from 1983 because he says CD players' sound hasn't changed at all since then! He also could not hear the crossover notch inherent in the original Dynaco Stereo 120 solid state power amp and insists that it sounds as good as the most expensive amps on the market today! To him, the only difference in home audio is speakers and room acoustics. So, I would suggest taking anything he says with a large grain of salt - even if he is credited with the invention of the ABX comparator! George Link to comment
vmartell22 Posted January 1, 2017 Author Share Posted January 1, 2017 Well, It's certainly true that people's hearing differs within a certain set of parameters. Age, Exposure to loud noises over a lifetime, all these things affect what and how we hear. I have always maintained that "golden ears" is not, strictly, an ear based phenomenon. In fact, it actually has very little to do with the act of "hearing" and everything to do with listening! Going back to JGH, for a moment, In his later years, he probably suffered from high-frequency hearing loss just like anybody else his age. But, he could still hear things in an audio system that most other people could't. Why is that? Because he trained his hearing to notice certain characteristics about playback that most people would never notice. IOW, his "golden ears" were trained to hear anomalies in reproduced music. Years of doing what he did made him hyper sensitive to such things as wow and flutter, harmonic and I.M. distortion, frequency response anomalies, etc. Great point on hearing vs listening - back in the napster days, my friends went gaga over it - I refused because as developer I am also a content creator - would not want my work to be available free if it is not my desire - but I am digressing - other factor was that in those early days those friends were downloading 96 and 120 kbps files and in addition to being low rate, they were crappy-ly encoded - and I am not talking golden ears stuff - they were probably done from damaged CDs with weird noises and things in them, some even skipped parts - how the hell do you that on digital???!!! ha ha ha! that's how crappy those files were... yet my friends did not care... they happily loaded those songs on those early Creative mp3 players and Winamp software going thru soundblaster cards... and sang along to their heart's content without noticing or caring - as gmgraves said above - they were hearing but not listening; no chance any of those friends would become audiophiles - and they haven't... And I guess this is the point of this post - be it you are on the subjective or objective side, there are things we all agree are crappy - otherwise we wouldn't be here, from crappy-ly encoded mp3 files, to apple's earbuds and itunes early 128kbps files... Guess we can work from that common ground to break peace! My guess is that both sides *listen*, then process that information according to different biases and beliefs - but at least there is some common ground! v Link to comment
vmartell22 Posted January 1, 2017 Author Share Posted January 1, 2017 By the by, is that Kruger you were referring to Arny Kruger? Because he can't hear at all! He'll tell you that EVERYTHING sounds the same. He's convinced that all DACs sound the same, and a $150 Panasonic Receiver from Costco sounds just as good as (and in fact sounds identical to) a $40,000 amplifier from Dan D'Augustino or Nelson Pass! So his equipment is that level. More examples? His CD player is still the original Sony unit from 1983 because he says CD players' sound hasn't changed at all since then! He also could not hear the crossover notch inherent in the original Dynaco Stereo 120 solid state power amp and insists that it sounds as good as the most expensive amps on the market today! To him, the only difference in home audio is speakers and room acoustics. So, I would suggest taking anything he says with a large grain of salt - even if he is credited with the invention of the ABX comparator! Ha ha ha! Although I know of Arny Kruger and his epic battles with what's his name form Stereophile (can't remember ATM, CBF to google); He could be fun - we need that kind (and I say with the outmost respect - I am referring to combativeness) of bulldog on the objective side... keeps the other side honest... However, no, not that Kruger! Talking of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Justin Kruger from Cornell university department of psychology! I am referring that maybe we only believe as audiophiles our hearing is better - (sorry to those that believe it is) chances are great it is not - however, as I agreed in my previous reply to the first part of your post, I do believe we tend to *listen* better... that is, just pay attention - you are right, not even golden ears type of stuff... v Link to comment
Teresa Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Has anybody also considered the cables used in recording the music? They don't matter either. Most recoding studios use balanced cables from the usual sources Yes Nelson I do. George they do matter and that is one of the reasons I prefer authentic audiophile recordings, those which are made to audiophile standards from the microphones to the finished product, including cables. This post lists some of the better audiophile companies I like. Here is Jonathan Scull's 1998 Stereophile interview with Jack Renner (then Telarc engineer) Scull: Is the mixer tweaked in any way? Renner: We have used hot-rodded consoles. We had one that was internally wired with Monster Cable that we used for a long time. In fact, a number of years ago we were recording the Cincinnati Pops and the Monster Cable console went down—nothing to do with the fact that it was wired with Monster Cable, of course. Scull: Of course... Renner: We actually use a combination of Monster Cables and MIT. We're good friends with both Noel Lee and Bruce Brisson. Scull: Imagine... Renner: So a component failed in the middle of a session. We had a backup console from the same manufacturer, Neotek, and it took us only 10 minutes to set it up. Now understand, we've got a signal that's spent its whole life from the microphone output to the A/D going through Monster Cable. Then we switched to the console with the standard cable in it. And the minute I brought up the fader, everybody in the control room—not just my technical assistants and the producer, but the orchestra manager, the musicians who weren't in that particular number—they all said, "What did you do, what happened to the sound?" Everyone could hear that the soundstage got smaller. Everything just got a little more narrow and not quite as bloomy. If you ever needed a demonstration of the effects of high-performance cable, that was it. …Interconnects cannot change the sound of an audio system unless they were specifically designed as filters (which requires external components) in which case, they are no longer conductors. It is impossible for a simple interconnect to have any effect on the signal passing through them in the lengths used in home audio - Period… What about signal losses? No analog interconnect is perfect. Nor can they improve sound quality, they only make it worse in varying degrees. Better interconnects are more accurate and pass more of the musical signal than poorly made ones. Check out: The Naked Truth about Interconnect Cables I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums. I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past. I still love music. Teresa Link to comment
semente Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Yes Nelson I do. George they do matter and that is one of the reasons I prefer authentic audiophile recordings, those which are made to audiophile standards from the microphone to the finished product, including cables. This post lists some of the better audiophile companies I like. Here is Jonathan Scull's 1998 Stereophile interview with Jack Renner (then Telarc engineer) Scull: Is the mixer tweaked in any way? Renner: ... Scull: Of course... Renner: ... Scull: Imagine... If Scull is being ironic (which he most certainly seems to) then I must read more of him. "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
STC Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Most of you know I’m not a believer in the sonic enhancements attributed to fancy, expensive cables. The simple fact remains that audiophiles love to argue and rant about this issue — usually from their own very subjective point of view. The other day someone posted a question on a FB group asking whether upgrading the power cables on his system was worth it. Of course, there were immediate comments from believers and non-believers. But what surprised me was a response by a staunch supporter of expensive power cords that the reason the most listeners can’t appreciate the “improved low level details and sonic accuracy” delivered by an upgraded power cord (as well as interconnects — analog and digital — and speaker cables) is because their systems are incapable of “resolving” the new level of fidelity. In simple terms, it’s not that the cables aren’t affecting the sound of your system. It’s that your system isn’t good enough to reproduce the improved fidelity. Therefore you don’t hear any difference. This is a fairly common response. When challenged with facts, measurements, and physics, cable advocates fall back and blame the equipment — or your ears. The marketing people at the cable companies and the reviewers that continue to push their agenda have done an amazing job. They’ve convinced audio enthusiasts that spending $200 to $3000 on a single IEC power cord will “dramatically” enhance the sound of your system. Instead of spending that money on appropriate room tuning solutions, we’re told to buy adhesive dots to place around the room or invest in a power cord with unobtainium plugs. So I responded to the challenge. I offered up my own studio, as a place I believe should be more than able to “resolve” the slightest changes caused by a deluxe power cord. After all, my mastering studio sits on its own rubber isolated concrete floor ($25,000), was designed by an award-winning studio architect ($20,000), built by a team of highly trained craftsmen who specialize in studio construction ($139,000), equipped with state-of-the-art analog and digital equipment (Euphonix, Benchmark, Meridian, Bryston, B&W, Oppo – $250,000), wired with cables from Audience and Cardas (provided by the companies but valued at many thousands), and tuned by the acoustics guru Bob Hodas ($700). I’ve been mixing and mastering records in my main studio for over 10 years. Many of you have heard the results. Engineers like my friend Jack Vad of the San Francisco Symphony called it, “among the best sounding rooms” he’d ever heard. So I’m very confident my room can resolve music at the highest level. Some years ago, a small custom cable designer and builder based in Atlanta offered to send me his best power cord for evaluation — a 6-foot, $3000, blond braided IEC cord (it came in a velvet bag and wooden box). He was very confident that I would experience dramatically better “sonic details and instrument discrimination” when using his power cord on my Benchmark DAC 2 HGC. So I borrowed a second Benchmark DAC 2 and setup a parallel signal path from my digital source to my monitor system. A simple push button on my console switched between the output of one DAC (with the expensive power cord) and the other (equipped with the stock IEC cord that shipped with the unit). It was a blind A|B comparison. The question was simple — do the two sources sound the same or different (the levels were carefully aligned and measured)? I ran the test with a variety of music sources, genres, labels, and formats. A group of professional audio engineers that work in other studios in the building (including a Grammy award winner) couldn’t detect any difference — and neither could I! I simply let them listen and switch between the DACs — and no one reported hearing even the slightest change. If the designer of the cable notices a “dramatic” difference at his place, I don’t know how he does it. In my “high resolving” studio, no one could hear any fidelity change when using a $3000 power cord vs. the $1.50 one that is supplied by Benchmark (and which they recommend!). Sure, we all want to have the best possible equipment and to maximize our listening experiences. But if I were to create a list of things that will make the most impact on your sound in descending order, power cords would be very near the bottom (followed only by green magic markers). Great recordings would be near the top followed by the acoustic environment in which you listen to your music and then the speakers. These things make a huge difference. Don’t ever let someone blame your equipment or your ears when making subjective — and usually ridiculous — claims about accessories and tweaks. Use your ears and brains — and remember the famously discredited video about “audio enhancements” provided by ever more expensive AudioQuest HDMI cables from early in the year. If there is an “unbelievable” change, someone is juicing the results. [/Quote] http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5885 So how? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ST My Ambiophonics System with Virtual Concert Hall Ambience Link to comment
Jud Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5885 So how? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Touching, the confidence that people have in the results of blind AB or ABX comparisons. Not saying sighted comparisons *of that type* are better. Also interesting how folks settle into the comfortable "no differences have been measured" rhetoric, when at least one excellent engineer who doesn't sell cables says he has measured differences when cables are set up to operate as part of systems. However - Folks will think and hear what they want, so please carry on. Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
STC Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 .., when at least one excellent engineer who doesn't sell cables says he has measured differences when cables are set up to operate as part of systems. Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile No engineer here but I swear I heard difference in Audioquest and Mogami speaker cables with ESL speakers. Audioquest was a 10 foot cable while the Mogami was just a little under 2 feet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ST My Ambiophonics System with Virtual Concert Hall Ambience Link to comment
gmgraves Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Yes Nelson I do. George they do matter and that is one of the reasons I prefer authentic audiophile recordings, those which are made to audiophile standards from the microphones to the finished product, including cables. This post lists some of the better audiophile companies I like. Here is Jonathan Scull's 1998 Stereophile interview with Jack Renner (then Telarc engineer) Scull: Is the mixer tweaked in any way? Renner: We have used hot-rodded consoles. We had one that was internally wired with Monster Cable that we used for a long time. In fact, a number of years ago we were recording the Cincinnati Pops and the Monster Cable console went down—nothing to do with the fact that it was wired with Monster Cable, of course. Scull: Of course... Renner: We actually use a combination of Monster Cables and MIT. We're good friends with both Noel Lee and Bruce Brisson. Scull: Imagine... Renner: So a component failed in the middle of a session. We had a backup console from the same manufacturer, Neotek, and it took us only 10 minutes to set it up. Now understand, we've got a signal that's spent its whole life from the microphone output to the A/D going through Monster Cable. Then we switched to the console with the standard cable in it. And the minute I brought up the fader, everybody in the control room—not just my technical assistants and the producer, but the orchestra manager, the musicians who weren't in that particular number—they all said, "What did you do, what happened to the sound?" Everyone could hear that the soundstage got smaller. Everything just got a little more narrow and not quite as bloomy. If you ever needed a demonstration of the effects of high-performance cable, that was it. Of course, it seems to not have occurred to you that "audiophile" recordings, being aimed at audiophiles would use audiophile "approved" cables for marketing reasons? Also if you were a cable manufacturer, would it not behoove you to "place", free of charge, cables at audiophile labels so that in the "technical gibberish" part of the liner notes, the record company would list that your products were used in the production of that particular recording. Conversely, you, as a cable manufacturer could advertise in your literature that "Acme Records uses your cables"? [What about signal losses? No analog interconnect is perfect. Nor can they improve sound quality, they only make it worse in varying degrees. Better interconnects are more accurate and pass more of the musical signal than poorly made ones. Well, that's the hype behind "boutique" cables, isn't it? Unfortunately, it's not wholly true. While you are right that no cable can improve on the sound quality that's there in the first place, there are rules about what harm a cable can do, and one of those rules is that if a 1 to 3 meter interconnect is a conductor, with average resistance per foot, and average inductive and capacitive reactance per foot, it will have no audible loss over the audio bandwidth. On the other hand, build quality speaks to reliability, not to performance. Adequate build quality is all that's needed to insure that interconnects are reliable, make gas-tight connections, and have adequate strain relief. In a recording environment, reliability is the top concern. Balanced cables with long runs and 600 Ohm inputs and outputs for microphones and equipment takes care of the losses for long runs. Nice to see you back, Teresa! George Link to comment
gmgraves Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 No engineer here but I swear I heard difference in Audioquest and Mogami speaker cables with ESL speakers. Audioquest was a 10 foot cable while the Mogami was just a little under 2 feet. Well, of course you do! 1) Electrostatic speakers are traditionally very reactive loads. 2) the AudioQuest cable is FIVE TIMES the length of the Mogami! I'd have been very surprised if you DIDN'T hear a difference. And this discussion is about interconnects, not speaker cable. George Link to comment
witchdoctor Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 No engineer here but I swear I heard difference in Audioquest and Mogami speaker cables with ESL speakers. Audioquest was a 10 foot cable while the Mogami was just a little under 2 feet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I like Mogami cables, relatively inexpensive and nice SQ. Of course you can hear a difference or nearly all the major recording studios that use Mogami would just use cheaper zip cord instead. For the people hear who can't hear a difference let them use zip cord instead and continue to complain. Link to comment
STC Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Well, of course you do! 1) Electrostatic speakers are traditionally very reactive loads. 2) the AudioQuest cable is FIVE TIMES the length of the Mogami! I'd have been very surprised if you DIDN'T hear a difference. And this discussion is about interconnects, not speaker cable. I like Mogami cables, relatively inexpensive and nice SQ. Of course you can hear a difference or nearly all the major recording studios that use Mogami would just use cheaper zip cord instead.For the people hear who can't hear a difference let them use zip cord instead and continue to complain. Exactly! How about if I had used 2 foot Audioquest? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ST My Ambiophonics System with Virtual Concert Hall Ambience Link to comment
witchdoctor Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Look at all the people who like Mogami, I am not saying it is the best out but these people like it: MOGAMI® - Cable Performance Testimonials Link to comment
r_w Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 +1 Mogami are good. Lots of studios (and mine) are wired in Van Damme throughout. Welcome to Van Damme - The Route of Least Resistance Source: *Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch - split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS / internally shielded with copper tape) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 2cm USB adaptor (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > *Auralic VEGA (EXACT : balanced) Control: *Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced) Playback: 2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz HPF from subs) Misc: *Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator LPS: 3 x Swagman Lab Audiophile Signature Edition (W4S, Intona & FMC) Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced) Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen Link to comment
witchdoctor Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 +1 Mogami are good. Lots of studios (and mine) are wired in Van Damme throughout. Welcome to Van Damme - The Route of Least Resistance Impressive client list: Van Damme - Studio Link to comment
STC Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Just to clarify.... I chose Mogami W3082 for the low inductance. At two feet length, a Kimber and another brand did not make any difference. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ST My Ambiophonics System with Virtual Concert Hall Ambience Link to comment
gmgraves Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Exactly! How about if I had used 2 foot Audioquest?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Who knows? It would be different, probably, but how different depends on the amp and the speakers. Keep in mind that many electrostatic speakers represent a difficult load. Many, like Martin-Logan's have an impedance that drops to less than 1 (one) Ohm at 20 KHz! Over the rest of the spectrum, the impedance is all over the place, yet M-Ls are pretty easy on cables, but Acoustats, with similar impedance curves were very cable sensitive... George Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Back to interconnects... How badly would you have to eff up a set of interconnects to hear a difference? Link to comment
Jud Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Back to interconnects... How badly would you have to eff up a set of interconnects to hear a difference? http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/unsolicited-advice-nordost-alternative-b-28683/ One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now