Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is the weakest component in a HiFi setup?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
April 1, 2005 11:20:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?

Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?

Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
difference in sound? I've heard that using monster cable can make a
difference.

Regards Brian
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Brian wrote:

> In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
> player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
>
> Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?
>
> Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
> difference in sound? I've heard that using monster cable can make a
> difference.
>
> Regards Brian
>
>
>

Hi Brian,

Here's my two cents of worth; You will get the biggest bang for the buck
with speakers, they are by far the most important SQ factor in any given
system. Matching your amp with your speakers is also a heavily important
issue. But yes, IMHO, all else, to varying degrees, also make a
difference, including room acoustics, speaker placement, wire, power
conditioning, etc.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> skrev i en meddelelse
news:sosp419mpmtrt1pti9pkvou1d9ahrni517@4ax.com...
> In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
> player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
>
> Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?
>
> Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
> difference in sound? I've heard that using monster cable can make a
> difference.
>
> Regards Brian
>

The component most people underestimate tends to be the speakers.

If You buy a hi-fi system with an amplifier, a CD-player and speakers, as a
rule of thumb, You should use at least half the money on the speakers.

My 2 cents,
/Jakob
Related resources
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:20:52 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

>In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
>player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?

Speakers are the most important thing in a system. After that,
the preamp, the CD/DVD player and the power amp last, provided
the power amps are the same kind, eg, class AB solid state versus
class AB solid state from some other mfg. If you jump from s/s to
tubes, the power amp, IMO, come second after speakers.
But you will never regret spending most of your money on speakers
instead of the other components. I'd sooner drive a $4000 pair of
speakers from a $200 DVD player than a $2000 DVD player driving $500
speakers.
>
>Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?

Some might. I wonder about "gold" plated connections that seem
to tarnish though.
>
>Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
>difference in sound? I've heard that using monster cable can make a
>difference.

Monster cable (if you mean the brand) is nothing special. However,
during some high power transients, cable thickness absolutely will
make a difference to the sound, depending on how much wattage you are
pushing. Some amps during full power output for brief periods are
putting out huge amounts of energy, more than some devices that
normally come with heavy gauge power cords because of the constant
power they use. If you can wire each driver separately, you can
experiment with heavy gauge wire for the woofers, and light guages for
the mid-ranges and tweeters. An example of this (other than sound) is
if you try to boost a car battery with a cheap set of small-gauge
jumper cables. They won't work, but an expensive, heavy-gauge set
will.
How can going from what is probably 10 guage to 6 guage make such a
difference? It's the ability to carry the power.
Don't underguage the woofer cable, but experiment with different types
and sizes and see if they make a difference to what you are hearing.

Also, don't neglect the type of cable you are using to connect
components to each other. While I don't believe in the differences
that some attribute to various cables, it's worth trying out coax
versus twisted pair, etc, just to see if it makes a difference to
you.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:sosp419mpmtrt1pti9pkvou1d9ahrni517@4ax.com

> In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
> player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?

The order of importance for sound quality is:

(1) The recording being played
(2) The room
(3) The speakers
(4) The amplifier and CD player

This presumes that all components are at least average quality. No way
can a brilliant room overcome a totally trash amplifier and CD player.


> Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?

No, lots of other metals work as well if not better, including plain
old nickel plate.

> Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
> difference in sound?

Yes to a point. Wire as small as 24 gauge is sold as speaker wire.
This is small enough to cause audible changes in typical lengths.

> I've heard that using monster cable can make a difference.

You can get the same if not better sound out of 12 gauge stranded low
voltage wire that costs about $0.25 per foot in bulk at most home
improvement stores. Monster Cable as small as 16 gauge is sold for far
higher prices, and could be sonically intrusive if used in the longer
lengths.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:sosp419mpmtrt1pti9pkvou1d9ahrni517@4ax.com
>
> > In other words how important are components such as speakers,
DVD/CD
> > player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
>
> The order of importance for sound quality is:
>
> (1) The recording being played
> (2) The room

The best upgrade I ever made was moving house.

> (3) The speakers
> (4) The amplifier and CD player

Personally I'd put these 2 on a par. it's all subjective of course and
I'm not advocating the 'Source - Amp - Speaker' that LINN used to shove
down consumers throats, but the front end and amp are equally important
IMO

Doc
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Brian" wrote ...
> In other words how important are components such as
> speakers, DVD/CD player, amplifier in order to get a
> good sound?

Assuming you are excluding things "beyond" your control
(the recording, the mics used for the recording, the acoustics
of your listening room, etc.)

Good quality electronics are much easier/cheaper to make
than good quality transducers (microphones and speakers).
An equal amount of money spent on speakers will have a
much more audible effect than spent on electronics.

> Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?

Gold merely prevents oxidation at the interface. There are
other, more practical and reasonably-priced alternatives.
Altough reasonably-priced gold-contact connectors are available.
Silver is actually a better conductor than gold, but it oxidizes
so quickly that it is not practical for most uses. Copper has
the highest cost/benefit ratio for metalic conductors.

> Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make
> much of a difference in sound?

Cable of sufficiently low resistance is required to maintain the
"damping factor" or the ability of the amplifier to control the
position of the speaker cones.

> I've heard that using monster cable can make a difference.

Using large-gauge cable doesn't hurt. But beyond the optimal
size, there is no detectable increased benefit.

OTOH, if you mean "Monster"-brand cable, I'm sure that
the Monster people will do their best to convince you that
their cable is the magic answer to all your desires. But
the truth is that it is over-hyped and over-priced. Monster
derives far more benefit from sales of their cables than you
do.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <sosp419mpmtrt1pti9pkvou1d9ahrni517@4ax.com>, on 04/01/05
at 07:20 PM, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> said:


>In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
>player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?

Everyone has their own favorite. More listeners claim speakers are #1
than any other component.

I find that each individual tends to specialize in one component. As I
demonstrate various speakers, one person might not differentiate
between widely (in my opinion) differing speakers. Speakers costing
$600 to over $2000 a pair "sound the same" to them. This same person
might quickly differentiate and rank amplifiers and receivers. The next
person will be the opposite. Both of them could care less about CD
players. A third person will find vast differences in the same CD
players.

None of this stuff is perfect. When a unit is misbehaving it gives off
characteristic sounds that may annoy one person, but not the next. For
example, I am particularly sensitive to small pitch changes. Records
drive me crazy because of the pitch changes caused by warps and
excentricities. A world class turntable and cartridge can do magical
things, but the overall result is ruined (for me) by the pitch changes.
In my experience, relatively few listeners care much about small pitch
changes. Depending on how you want to view this situation, I should be
exalted and worshiped for my extraordinary talent and insight or pitied
for the cross that I must bear.

I can remember a person bringing in his favorite record as the source
material for a speaker demo. This poor record had been thoroughly worn
out about ten years prior to the demonstration -- but the customer
didn't seem to mind. Other customers in the store at the time were
horrified.

>Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?

"Gold" connections usually mean premium construction. Overall, premium
cables usually do a better job. If both the plug and the jack are gold
plated, there is an advantage of corrosion resistance, but if only one
is plated, there isn't much advantage to the gold (but the premium
construction is still worth the trouble). By "usually do a better job"
I mean that they will make better mechanical connections, provide
better radio interference protection, last longer when repeatedly
flexed, etc. These are obvious physical attributes. On a sonic basis,
however, it is whatever you hear or don't hear.

Using premium cables on a so-so system is usually a waste of money. On
high end systems some listeners are sensitive to different cables some
are not.

>Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
>difference in sound? I've heard that using monster cable can make a
>difference.

Really thin cables (#20 or smaller) are not a good idea. The smallest
we use are #16. Beyond that, listen and make your own conclusions.

---

The bottom line is that you must do some work. Listen to a bunch of
systems and learn what is important to you. Having someone in this
group expound to you why one component or specific model is the most
critical (for them) is interesting, but not much use for you.

During the listening process avoid demonstrators who tell you in
advance what you will hear and why it will be better or worse than the
other stuff. It is a discovery process, don't enter it with the
conclusion in hand.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:sosp419mpmtrt1pti9pkvou1d9ahrni517@4ax.com...
> In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
> player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
> Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?

Gold connectors may, or may not, make a difference in the integrity of the
connection. Usually not. But they have no effect on the sound quality

> Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
> difference in sound? I've heard that using monster cable can make a
> difference.

Adequate thickness is important; beyond that you're wasting money. A good
rule of thumb is that you should pick a wire gauge such that doubling the
length of the cable will not make a noticeable difference in the sound.

Speakers are the most variable component in your system. This means that
you should pay more attention to their selection than to the other
components. It does NOT mean, however, that you should spend more money on
them. Expensive speakers are usually better looking than cheap ones, and
they will frequently play louder before distorting. But, there's no reason
to believe that spending more will necessarily result in better sound at
normal living room levels.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <sosp419mpmtrt1pti9pkvou1d9ahrni517@4ax.com>, bclark@es.co.nz
says...
>In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
>player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?

the most important are the speakers.


>Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?

Only if you have serious corrosion problems.


>Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
>difference in sound? I've heard that using monster cable can make a
>difference.

Only if you have really long cable runs or you are using really thin
wires. If you like thick wire, you can get excellent wire that is not
Monster brand and will go for very long runs for about 50 cents a foot.
----------------
Alex
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 04:52:09 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Monster cable (if you mean the brand) is nothing special. However,
>during some high power transients, cable thickness absolutely will
>make a difference to the sound, depending on how much wattage you are
>pushing.

This is an interesting claim. What is it that happens to these cables
during the high power transients? Short of actually melting them, I
can't think of anything - certainly if we are talking transients,
temperature rise isn't an issue.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:20:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:11:18 GMT, donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 04:52:09 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Monster cable (if you mean the brand) is nothing special. However,
>>during some high power transients, cable thickness absolutely will
>>make a difference to the sound, depending on how much wattage you are
>>pushing.
>
>This is an interesting claim. What is it that happens to these cables
>during the high power transients? Short of actually melting them, I
>can't think of anything - certainly if we are talking transients,
>temperature rise isn't an issue.

I don't know the physics, but temperture rise isn't an issue
when boosting a car battery either, but cable guage makes
a huge difference in energy transfer.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 4:51:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:sosp419mpmtrt1pti9pkvou1d9ahrni517@4ax.com...
> In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
> player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
>
> Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?
>
> Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
> difference in sound? I've heard that using monster cable can make a
> difference.
>
> Regards Brian

Oh Brian, you really are a prodigious consumer and believing consumer.

These days good electronics doesn't cost much more than average electronics.
The big difference is speakers.

And 'Monster' (TM) cables. They may be OK, but so is any speaker cable of
sufficient girth insulated with something better than damp paper.

Just get the generic 3mm stuff from Dick Smith and save some bucks to buy an
average CD (or DVD...whatever) an amp, and some decent speakers. B+W, KEF,
Energy, Tannoy, Wharfedale, hell, even Sony Yamaha or Panasonic speakers.
They are all vastly superior to BOSOs.

geoff
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 4:53:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:8h5q41l7fo1ipveiq14dbpnla9pbo13m22@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:20:52 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
>>player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
>
> Speakers are the most important thing in a system. After that,
> the preamp,

What's a preamp ? Straight CD-to-power-amp for the last 15 years (OK,
passive switch and control, for stuff that doesn't have a volume control
built-in).

geoff
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 4:53:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Here are a few nasties.... Ageing coupling electrolytics, slider and in/out
switches and cheapo carbon pots.


"Geoff Wood" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:424d445a$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:8h5q41l7fo1ipveiq14dbpnla9pbo13m22@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:20:52 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
>>>player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
>>
>> Speakers are the most important thing in a system. After that,
>> the preamp,
>
> What's a preamp ? Straight CD-to-power-amp for the last 15 years (OK,
> passive switch and control, for stuff that doesn't have a volume control
> built-in).
>
> geoff
>
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 4:53:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:53:48 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
<geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:8h5q41l7fo1ipveiq14dbpnla9pbo13m22@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:20:52 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
>>>player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
>>
>> Speakers are the most important thing in a system. After that,
>> the preamp,
>
>What's a preamp ? Straight CD-to-power-amp for the last 15 years (OK,
>passive switch and control, for stuff that doesn't have a volume control
>built-in).
>
>geoff
>

I agree with your philosphy, but the audio industry doesn't
make it easy to use that kind of connection because of the lack
of volume controls, switches, and any additional resistence needed to
cut back on the power of a power amp.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 2:16:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:54:03 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:11:18 GMT, donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 04:52:09 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Monster cable (if you mean the brand) is nothing special. However,
>>>during some high power transients, cable thickness absolutely will
>>>make a difference to the sound, depending on how much wattage you are
>>>pushing.

It has nothing to do with power, just resistance.

>>This is an interesting claim. What is it that happens to these cables
>>during the high power transients? Short of actually melting them, I
>>can't think of anything - certainly if we are talking transients,
>>temperature rise isn't an issue.
>
>I don't know the physics, but temperture rise isn't an issue
>when boosting a car battery either, but cable guage makes
>a huge difference in energy transfer.

Not once you get below a loop resistance of about 0.2 ohms, for audio.
You'll need a bit less for jump-starting a truck............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 2:24:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:54:03 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:11:18 GMT, donald@pearce.uk.com (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 04:52:09 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Monster cable (if you mean the brand) is nothing special. However,
>>>during some high power transients, cable thickness absolutely will
>>>make a difference to the sound, depending on how much wattage you are
>>>pushing.
>>
>>This is an interesting claim. What is it that happens to these cables
>>during the high power transients? Short of actually melting them, I
>>can't think of anything - certainly if we are talking transients,
>>temperature rise isn't an issue.
>
>I don't know the physics, but temperture rise isn't an issue
>when boosting a car battery either, but cable guage makes
>a huge difference in energy transfer.
>-Rich

The point is that nothing happens to a cable during a transient - it
is a linear, passive device. The thickness of a cable - when it is an
issue - is an issue at *all* volume levels, and is simply a source of
some small amount of attenuation.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
April 2, 2005 2:51:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <sosp419mpmtrt1pti9pkvou1d9ahrni517@4ax.com>,
Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

> In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
> player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
>
> Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?
>
> Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
> difference in sound? I've heard that using monster cable can make a
> difference.
>
> Regards Brian
>
>
>

The weakest component in the chain definitely has to be the end user.

Not so capable links in the signal chain are readily available and used
over very capable ones because of names, price, color and other
meaningless reasons.

Read, experiment and apply your findings if any of the things audio is
of importance to you.

hth,

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:17:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> I don't know the physics, but temperture rise isn't an issue
> when boosting a car battery either, but cable guage makes
> a huge difference in energy transfer.

I suggest to test this we should all attach a car battery to our speakers.

geoff
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 4:16:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Brian wrote:

> In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
> player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?

The better they are, the more they will highlight the good and bad
aspects of any recording. The software, ie. whatever you play on it, is
probably the weakest point. Another, equally valid, way of seeing it is
to say that the mechanical transducers are the weakest point. These two
viewpoints are merging somewhat, because the mechanical transducers
involved are the mics the recording are made with and the playback
loudspeakers.

> Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?

This depends on what you compare them with. Connections that are not
metal to metal, but rather metal to metal-oxide to metal-oxide to metal
can tend to exhibit semiconductor properties, ie. distort. It is
probably more fair to the technical possibilities to say that a
gas-tight connection between metals is likely to be preferable. Gold
plated connectors may or may not help, gold by being soft makes it
easier to obtain a gas-tight metal to metal connection and it also helps
that it is likely to remain free of oxide.

> Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
> difference in sound?

This depends, you mention a slightly incorrect parameter. The
resistance/impedance, preferably resistance but in real world it is
impedance, of the cable is a parameter. The single largest difference in
sound I have detected is however the one that occurs when too brittle
large crystal copper single strand wires break where the insulation was
removed. I am confident that that difference will be detectable in
double blind listening tests. Beyond that there is a world of subtle
nuances that probably are real, but not of a magnitude that makes then
validly detectable in a double blind listening test, and by that
definition "not a major issue".

> I've heard that using monster cable can make a
> difference.

As I recall fairly recent traffic here this could be correct: The
insulation used on at least some of the cables from Monster Cable does
tend to cause the copper to oxidize faster. My recollection may be
erroneus.

Oxidized multistrand cables will be likely to contain many metal to
metal oxide to metal oxide to metal connections, and those are likely to
cause distortion.

You may of course have meant "any large cable" by using the wording
monster cable, but Monster Cable are sooo anxious to take anyone to
court for using the word "monster" in any context of any kind, and this
is certainly a cable context, I don't want to risk assuming anything
other than that it is about their exquisite, in my understanding trade
marked, market brand of well known products.

Please notice the use of the wording "likely", it implies that it is a
theoretical consideration and that I plain do not know the facts about
these contexts.

> Regards Brian


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 4:42:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <424E7117.44670B7C@mail.tele.dk>, on 04/02/05
at 12:16 PM, Peter Larsen <SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk> said:


[ ... ]

>As I recall fairly recent traffic here this could be correct: The
>insulation used on at least some of the cables from Monster Cable does
>tend to cause the copper to oxidize faster. My recollection may be
>erroneus.

[ ... ]

I don't recall the traffic, but I have noticed that when I encounter
Monster cable in older, existing installations, it is in much worse
shape than anything else. In addition to much more tenacious oxidation
there is insulation "goo" to contend with. I can easily re-terminate
other wires by cutting off a short section and doing a mild clean-up.
With Monster brand, the whole length of the cable is involved and
clean-up is much more difficult.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 4:50:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <114te2rfhgcm615@corp.supernews.com>, on 04/02/05
at 07:20 AM, "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> said:

[ ... ]
>The whole subject of "magic cable" is controversial to say the least.
>There are actually separate newsgroups for folk who prefer to discuss
>the less technical and more fanciful aspects of audio. i.e.
>news:rec.audio.opinion, etc.
[ ... ]

In my opinion, half of the "magic" occurs because of the accidental
cleaning of the contact surfaces when the tired old cables are replaced
by the magic new cables.

While no one has been perfect, I do encounter individuals who are
better than chance at hearing different cables. It's a very difficult
experiment and so far I haven't come up with an experimental protocol
that could pass a review board's scrutiny. In my experience, the ABX
box, while the obvious way to proceed, tends to mask the subtile
differences between cables.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 6:47:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:424edec9$2$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com

> In my experience, the ABX
> box, while the obvious way to proceed, tends to mask the subtile
> differences between cables.

What was your reliable standard of comparison for judging the ABX box?
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 8:22:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message

>
> I agree with your philosphy, but the audio industry doesn't
> make it easy to use that kind of connection because of the lack
> of volume controls, switches, and any additional resistence needed to
> cut back on the power of a power amp.
> -Rich

Get a CD player with an output level control/. Sony do them (physical
motorised rotary pot). Many DVDs have an electronic o/p level control,
though they often are on full at switch-on.

geoff
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 5:32:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <FJGdnetZYLxea9PfRVn-hg@comcast.com>, on 04/02/05
at 02:47 PM, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> said:

>"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
>news:424edec9$2$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com

>> In my experience, the ABX
>> box, while the obvious way to proceed, tends to mask the subtile
>> differences between cables.

>What was your reliable standard of comparison for judging the ABX box?

As I said, while I don't like the ABX hardware, I don't have another
protocol that would pass a board of review. It's hard to attack the ABX
protocol after you accept the idea that the box couldn't possibly
influence the sound.

My experiences with "boxes" has been that equipment differences that
are obvious enough to be detected by a group of listeners (who had no
particular axe to grind) seemed to disappear when the units were
connected to the box. While we might not have agreed on which model
sounded "better", we did agree that the box made the comparison more
difficult.

One of the line level ABX designs I found on the web
(http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm) has the signals go through
two contacts in series. One set of contacts is bad enough. Also looking
at that design, those level set pots are a problem because some units
are sensitive to input impedance. There can be frequency response
changes and slight shifts in the noise floor. (The ABX level controls
and the unit's own input level controls could interact.)

Years ago, we took the posture that cables are cables, don't bother me
with the idea that some sound better. We did this without any testing.
Eventually, we were uncomfortable enough with this posture that we
brought a single high tech cable into the shop to play with. We played
with it for about a year. Our protocol was that anyone could move the
cable at any time with no notice. We all found that we could detect
where the cable landed because a system would perk up and when we
checked, we'd find the cable. (the cable was never visible and one
would have to climb behind a system to look for the cable.) A few days
later that system would return to it's usual sound and, on checking,
we'd find that the cable had moved on.

While we can't claim "double blind" because one person knew where the
cable had landed, that person made no effort to alert anyone that the
cable location had changed, and may not have been present on the day
that someone discovered the move (not every system was used on a given
day by every staff member). The obvious flaw in the protocol was that
we did not log false locators. (When a staff member felt the cable had
moved, but in fact, it had not; or when a staff member did not notice
that the cable had moved.)

Even though the cable experiment was not our reason for being, it
remains a powerful antidotal data point.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
April 3, 2005 7:01:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Peter Larsen <SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:

>Brian wrote:
>
>> In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
>> player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
>
>The better they are, the more they will highlight the good and bad
>aspects of any recording. The software, ie. whatever you play on it, is
>probably the weakest point. Another, equally valid, way of seeing it is
>to say that the mechanical transducers are the weakest point. These two
>viewpoints are merging somewhat, because the mechanical transducers
>involved are the mics the recording are made with and the playback
>loudspeakers.
>
>> Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?
>
>This depends on what you compare them with. Connections that are not
>metal to metal, but rather metal to metal-oxide to metal-oxide to metal
>can tend to exhibit semiconductor properties, ie. distort. It is
>probably more fair to the technical possibilities to say that a
>gas-tight connection between metals is likely to be preferable. Gold
>plated connectors may or may not help, gold by being soft makes it
>easier to obtain a gas-tight metal to metal connection and it also helps
>that it is likely to remain free of oxide.
>
>> Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
>> difference in sound?
>
>This depends, you mention a slightly incorrect parameter. The
>resistance/impedance, preferably resistance but in real world it is
>impedance, of the cable is a parameter. The single largest difference in
>sound I have detected is however the one that occurs when too brittle
>large crystal copper single strand wires break where the insulation was
>removed. I am confident that that difference will be detectable in
>double blind listening tests. Beyond that there is a world of subtle
>nuances that probably are real, but not of a magnitude that makes then
>validly detectable in a double blind listening test, and by that
>definition "not a major issue".
>
>> I've heard that using monster cable can make a
>> difference.
>
>As I recall fairly recent traffic here this could be correct: The
>insulation used on at least some of the cables from Monster Cable does
>tend to cause the copper to oxidize faster. My recollection may be
>erroneus.
>
>Oxidized multistrand cables will be likely to contain many metal to
>metal oxide to metal oxide to metal connections, and those are likely to
>cause distortion.
>
>You may of course have meant "any large cable" by using the wording
>monster cable, but Monster Cable are sooo anxious to take anyone to
>court for using the word "monster" in any context of any kind, and this
>is certainly a cable context, I don't want to risk assuming anything
>other than that it is about their exquisite, in my understanding trade
>marked, market brand of well known products.
>
>Please notice the use of the wording "likely", it implies that it is a
>theoretical consideration and that I plain do not know the facts about
>these contexts.
>
>> Regards Brian
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Thanks Peter for your comments.
When I said Monster Cable I was meaning the product called Monster
cable as I noticed in a forum on the internet that people using this
cable for a Sony 100 watt sub woofer seemed to notice a difference.

Regards Brian
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:01:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Brian" wrote ...
> When I said Monster Cable I was meaning the product
> called Monster cable as I noticed in a forum on the internet
> that people using this cable for a Sony 100 watt sub woofer
> seemed to notice a difference.

The whole subject of "magic cable" is controversial to say
the least. There are actually separate newsgroups for folk
who prefer to discuss the less technical and more fanciful
aspects of audio. i.e. news:rec.audio.opinion, etc.

I personally wouldn't spend a penny extra for "Monster
Cable" or any of the other magic snake-oil, "boutique"
products.
April 3, 2005 7:05:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Cyrus <invalid@i.like.spam> wrote:

>In article <sosp419mpmtrt1pti9pkvou1d9ahrni517@4ax.com>,
> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> In other words how important are components such as speakers, DVD/CD
>> player, amplifier in order to get a good sound?
>>
>> Do gold connections really make a difference to the sound?
>>
>> Does the thickness of cable going to the speakers make much of a
>> difference in sound? I've heard that using monster cable can make a
>> difference.
>>
>> Regards Brian
>>
>>
>>
>
>The weakest component in the chain definitely has to be the end user.
>
>Not so capable links in the signal chain are readily available and used
>over very capable ones because of names, price, color and other
>meaningless reasons.
>
>Read, experiment and apply your findings if any of the things audio is
>of importance to you.
>
>hth,

If I owned many speakers and other components then I could experiment.
From the other replies it looks like the speaker is the weakest link.

Regards Brian
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 3:39:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <424fad1c$0$29865$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, on 04/03/05
at 06:45 PM, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> said:


>"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
>news:424f96bb$4$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com...
>> My experiences with "boxes" has been that equipment differences that
>> are obvious enough to be detected by a group of listeners (who had no
>> particular axe to grind) seemed to disappear when the units were
>> connected to the box. While we might not have agreed on which model
>> sounded "better", we did agree that the box made the comparison more
>> difficult.

>Exactly the purpose of ABX testing! It removes those personal biases
>and does make testing more difficult.
>This is a GOOD thing that you seem to have overlooked because of your
>bias. Most people like to hear a difference, even if they don't care
>which is which. Most feel inadequate if they can't for some reason.
>These people are usually very indignant about proper ABX testing
>proving them wrong.

>MrT.

?? Perhaps I worded my reply poorly, but my "bias" is against the box,
not the protocol. In my opinion, the box masks the units' differences
that were more obvious before we installed the box.

As long as the equipment is reliable, I have no particular bias for or
against any company, design, product, or concept. It either sounds good
to me or it doesn't.

When purchasing, if the differences between unit "A" and unit "B" are
so subtile that you have to agonize for a few hours (with or without
ABX), then use another criteria to choose your unit. If you are in a
research mode, attempting to rank different design techniques, then
you'll have slug it out to the bitter end and decide which device is
"10" and which is "9.999".


-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 6:15:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:424f96bb$4$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com
> In <FJGdnetZYLxea9PfRVn-hg@comcast.com>, on 04/02/05
> at 02:47 PM, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> said:
>
>> "Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
>> news:424edec9$2$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com
>
>>> In my experience, the ABX
>>> box, while the obvious way to proceed, tends to mask the subtile
>>> differences between cables.
>
>> What was your reliable standard of comparison for judging the ABX
>> box?
>
> As I said, while I don't like the ABX hardware,

How many different types of ABX hardware have you personally used?
Which ones?

How about software ABX - PCABX. What experience do you have with it.

> I don't have another protocol that would pass a board of review.

How about ABC/hr?

> It's hard to attack the
> ABX protocol after you accept the idea that the box couldn't
possibly
> influence the sound.

How about PCABX which elimiantes the need for special hardware of any
kind?

> My experiences with "boxes" has been that equipment differences that
> are obvious enough to be detected by a group of listeners (who had
no
> particular axe to grind) seemed to disappear when the units were
> connected to the box.

That is of course because the tests without a box were also tests
without proper controls. The purported differences go away when the
controls are introduced because they were due to the lack of controls.

> While we might not have agreed on which model
> sounded "better", we did agree that the box made the comparison more
> difficult.

In fact most people who say this were using sighted evaluations,
perhaps not even level-matched or time-synched as their baseline
protocol. This is of course totally invalid. So, the comparison is
between a totally invalid procedure as compared to a valid procedure.

> One of the line level ABX designs I found on the web
> (http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm) has the signals go
through
> two contacts in series.

I count 6 sets of contacts, 2 relay contacts and 4 input/output and
cable connector contacts.

>One set of contacts is bad enough.

I think you ought to stay away from real-world audio production
facilities - you'd die!

>Also looking at that design, those level set pots are a problem
because
> some units are sensitive to input impedance.

They are higher resistance than I'm prone to use. I'm a big fan of 5 K
pots.

The biggie with level-set pots like these is cable lengths. Longer
cables are more likely to load down the pots in a frequency-dependent
way than just about any other common audio components.

> There can be frequency
> response changes and slight shifts in the noise floor. (The ABX
level
> controls and the unit's own input level controls could interact.)

That's one nice thing about PCABX - no contacts that change at all.
However, you get about the same results either way.

Furthermore, slight frequency response variations that are common to
both pieces of equipment aren't a problem. Otherwise, we'd never be
able to stand to listen to speakers!

> Years ago, we took the posture that cables are cables, don't bother
me
> with the idea that some sound better. We did this without any
testing.


That would be your problem. We tested the hypothesis and found where
it is a problem and when it is not.

> Eventually, we were uncomfortable enough with this posture that we
> brought a single high tech cable into the shop to play with. We
played
> with it for about a year. Our protocol was that anyone could move
the
> cable at any time with no notice. We all found that we could detect
> where the cable landed because a system would perk up and when we
> checked, we'd find the cable. (the cable was never visible and one
> would have to climb behind a system to look for the cable.) A few
days
> later that system would return to it's usual sound and, on checking,
> we'd find that the cable had moved on.

> While we can't claim "double blind" because one person knew where
the
> cable had landed, that person made no effort to alert anyone that
the
> cable location had changed, and may not have been present on the day
> that someone discovered the move (not every system was used on a
given
> day by every staff member). The obvious flaw in the protocol was
that
> we did not log false locators. (When a staff member felt the cable
had
> moved, but in fact, it had not; or when a staff member did not
notice
> that the cable had moved.)

The obvious flaw is that you are basing a claimed cosmic truth that is
supposed to change all of our lives on a sighted evaluation.

> Even though the cable experiment was not our reason for being, it
> remains a powerful antidotal data point.

I think you mean anecdotal.

Your purported test has no power over me. I think it's hilarious that
you would even repeat it in a serious discussion.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 6:57:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <-eidnYAhNLUqr83fRVn-sw@comcast.com>, on 04/03/05
at 02:15 PM, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> said:

[ ... ]

We are drifting from the original thread, headed toward being mired in
the mud.

>I think you mean anecdotal.

Thanks for the correction

>Your purported test has no power over me. I think it's hilarious that
>you would even repeat it in a serious discussion.

I didn't expect it to have any "power", I was only providing an
anecdote. The only difference between us is that (and this is my
interpretation based on your comments) you seem to feel the ABX box is
neutral, I claim not. I am not trying to discredit the double blind
protocol. I don't find the physical ABX box to be useful, you are
defending it.

My rule of thumb, which has kept me out of lots of trouble over the
years, is that more connections mean more chances for mischief. ABX
adds lots of chances for trouble.

And, I am quite familiar with what happens in an A/V production
facility. There's a huge array of interconnected equipment, it's a
different set of rules. In case of ties or near misses, flexibility and
rock solid reliability win. At home, sonics can win. I am comfortable,
in context, playing with either set of rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:37:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

All ABX does is confirms which one YOU like better in a short
concentrated listening test.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 8:42:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gh9t415uflcaca66bkiddujodmnh7rk4bf@4ax.com...
> From the other replies it looks like the speaker is the weakest link.

I agree with all who put the speaker up as the weak link.
However you need oodles of power to drive them
especially in a big room. Nothing worse than clipping, and
distortion levels rise as maximum power approaches. I'm
experimenting with a high quality (Cyrus) preamp driving
high-quality but professional power amps (InterM) using
a Behringer three way crossover between the Cyrus and
the amps. So far very promising. Just got to choose and
fit new tweeters and replace the temporary car sub with
a properly designed one suitable for a big room.

As for speaker cables- thick and many-stranded. For a long
run I used mains single cable 6 square mm and multi-
strand. Got it from an electrical suppliers. At today's
prices about 60 ukp per 100m I guess. This gave me
excellent bass despite a 15m run, which is the
real test. Your question about why thick cable. A current
flowing though a wire causing a voltage drop. The larger
the current I and the thinner the wire the more this drop
is. Thin wires have higher resistance R and voltage drop
is I times R. So a large current surge will cause a kind
of clipping as the output voltage of the amp is partly
dropped in the speaker wire. Its the speaker cable that
has the large currents in.

Its not really a problem on short runs. The thickest wire
your supplier sells will be fine, no more than about 70p
a metre. I don't think the niceties of low oxygen etc
matters much.

Peter Scott
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 10:08:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:42504446$7$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com
> In <-eidnYAhNLUqr83fRVn-sw@comcast.com>, on 04/03/05
> at 02:15 PM, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> said:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> We are drifting from the original thread, headed toward being mired
in
> the mud.
>
>> I think you mean anecdotal.
>
> Thanks for the correction
>
>> Your purported test has no power over me. I think it's hilarious
that
>> you would even repeat it in a serious discussion.
>
> I didn't expect it to have any "power", I was only providing an
> anecdote.


> The only difference between us is that (and this is my
> interpretation based on your comments) you seem to feel the ABX box
is
> neutral, I claim not.

I never said that.

> I am not trying to discredit the double blind protocol.

Yet you use tests that are not blind as the standard for judging the
the equipment.


> I don't find the physical ABX box to be useful, you are defending
it.

No, I only pointed out that there is no reason to be unreasoningly
paranoid about relay contacts and contacts in general.

> My rule of thumb, which has kept me out of lots of trouble over the
> years, is that more connections mean more chances for mischief.

Like I said, if you don't like connections, stay away from audio
production.

>ABX adds lots of chances for trouble.

You ignore the proven fact that ABX can be done with no additional
connections at all.

> And, I am quite familiar with what happens in an A/V production
> facility.

Than why are you paranoid about relays and interconnections?

> There's a huge array of interconnected equipment, it's a
> different set of rules.

No, there is just one set of laws of physics. There are not two sets
of laws of physics, one for production facilities and one for playback
facilities. Indeed, most of my playback equipment is of the type
commonly used for production.

>In case of ties or near misses, flexibility
> and rock solid reliability win. At home, sonics can win. I am
> comfortable, in context, playing with either set of rules.

This makes no sense at all.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 10:45:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:424f96bb$4$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com...
> My experiences with "boxes" has been that equipment differences that
> are obvious enough to be detected by a group of listeners (who had no
> particular axe to grind) seemed to disappear when the units were
> connected to the box. While we might not have agreed on which model
> sounded "better", we did agree that the box made the comparison more
> difficult.

Exactly the purpose of ABX testing! It removes those personal biases and
does make testing more difficult.
This is a GOOD thing that you seem to have overlooked because of your bias.
Most people like to hear a difference, even if they don't care which is
which. Most feel inadequate if they can't for some reason. These people are
usually very indignant about proper ABX testing proving them wrong.

MrT.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 10:45:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:424fad1c$0$29865$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
> news:424f96bb$4$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com...
>> My experiences with "boxes" has been that equipment differences that
>> are obvious enough to be detected by a group of listeners (who had no
>> particular axe to grind) seemed to disappear when the units were
>> connected to the box. While we might not have agreed on which model
>> sounded "better", we did agree that the box made the comparison more
>> difficult.
>
> Exactly the purpose of ABX testing! It removes those personal biases
> and
> does make testing more difficult.
> This is a GOOD thing that you seem to have overlooked because of your
> bias.
> Most people like to hear a difference, even if they don't care which
> is
> which. Most feel inadequate if they can't for some reason. These
> people are
> usually very indignant about proper ABX testing proving them wrong.

Bravo! Kudos!
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 7:51:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Geoff Wood wrote:
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>
>>I don't know the physics, but temperture rise isn't an issue
>>when boosting a car battery either, but cable guage makes
>>a huge difference in energy transfer.
>
>
> I suggest to test this we should all attach a car battery to our speakers.

Nah, all that does is push the cone way in or out. Hook it up to 120VAC
line voltage if you want a real "buzz", hehehehe.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 8:20:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112567841.363361.88180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

> All ABX does is confirms which one YOU like better in a short
> concentrated listening test.

ABX is not a test of preference at all.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 8:32:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:54:03 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>I don't know the physics, but temperture rise isn't an issue
>when boosting a car battery either, but cable guage makes
>a huge difference in energy transfer.
Oh Really?
I have seen cheapo Aluminum wire booster cables MELT trying to START a
car with a dead battery. I squared losses = HEAT.
But realisticaly, speaker cables should not introduce sizable
resistance with relation to the speaker impedence.
The object is to put most of the amplifiers power into the speaker
voice coil <G>.
I try to use identical wire and length (+/- inch) to each speaker to
make level balance easier.
, _
, | \ MKA: Steve Urbach
, | )erek No JUNK in my email please
, ____|_/ragonsclaw dragonsclawJUNK@JUNKmindspring.com
, / / / Running United Devices "Cure For Cancer" Project 24/7 Have you helped? http://www.grid.org
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 2:26:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Barry Mann wrote:
> While we can't claim "double blind" because one person knew where the
> cable had landed, that person made no effort to alert anyone that the
> cable location had changed, and may not have been present on the day
> that someone discovered the move (not every system was used on a
given
> day by every staff member). The obvious flaw in the protocol was that
> we did not log false locators. (When a staff member felt the cable
had
> moved, but in fact, it had not; or when a staff member did not notice
> that the cable had moved.)

A protocol for testing astrologers, which did not log false
predictions, would be similarly flawed.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 8:23:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 3 Apr 2005 15:37:21 -0700, calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:

> All ABX does is confirms which one YOU like better in a short
>concentrated listening test.

Absolutely not! What ABX does is confirm that you can actually hear a
*difference*. Without an ability to hear a *difference*, you cannot
logically express a *preference* based on sound quality.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 12:58:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9ag151d54plg4gcudi7c9af0hb7r44gl5v@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:54:03 -0500, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't know the physics, but temperture rise isn't an issue
>>when boosting a car battery either, but cable guage makes
>>a huge difference in energy transfer.
> Oh Really?
> I have seen cheapo Aluminum wire booster cables MELT trying to START a
> car with a dead battery. I squared losses = HEAT.
> But realisticaly, speaker cables should not introduce sizable
> resistance with relation to the speaker impedence.
> The object is to put most of the amplifiers power into the speaker
> voice coil <G>.
> I try to use identical wire and length (+/- inch) to each speaker to
> make level balance easier.

Ever worked out or measured what the imbalance would be for a yard
difference ?


geoff
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 12:58:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:58:33 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
<geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:

>
>"Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
>
>Ever worked out or measured what the imbalance would be for a yard
>difference ?
>
>
>geoff
>
A long time ago for small (18ga) copper wire on 16 ohm speakers. Yes,
it is not much (3 feet ~= .005 ohms), but wire is a cheap way to bring
it close to 0 difference.

Hey, we are talking to people here that think Gold contacts are needed
at the terminals to reduce contact resistance. <VBG>
I'm just weird. I like both blinds to be at the same height. Tapes
lined up on their shelf <G>.
, _
, | \ MKA: Steve Urbach
, | )erek No JUNK in my email please
, ____|_/ragonsclaw dragonsclawJUNK@JUNKmindspring.com
, / / / Running United Devices "Cure For Cancer" Project 24/7 Have you helped? http://www.grid.org
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 2:15:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Barry Mann wrote:
> It either sounds good
> to me or it doesn't.
>

What a preposterous statement. Since everything sounds the same nothing
should sound good or bad to you.
!