| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
October 2, 2008 - 3:43am
#1
sound of cables from the pro viewpoint
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
You already gave that link at least once before. Recycling are you? By the way, he is only a record producer/recording engineer, hardly the best source of accurate information.
What dup does not mention and viewers would be astounded to learn is that there are no requirements to become a recording "engineer". All one has to do to become a "recording engineer" is be able to turn knobs and place the mics. One could literally be a high school dropout. If one has a degree, it could be in a completely different field than electronics.
No wonder we get so many crappy sounding CDs.
Mic placement is critical, takes experience, knowledge, along with setting them correctly, now back to words, "engineer" isn't an engineer unless you have a degree, or certificiate of such, it's a legal issue, in Tx, and many other states, they clamp down on everyone calling themselves "engineer" No engineering degree, os equiv, you ain't an engineer, recording engineer, is misused etc...like UL approved....wurds mean something. Yeah someone involved in making the records, is hardly a good choice, better to get the info from....reviewers, that hear things, of imagination? Or ad copy. Turning the correct KNOB, can make all the difference. No wonder there are so many crappy sounding vinyl records.
Sorry dup, but anyone can learn to place a mic. And no, they also call themselves record producers in some cases. They also like using the word "pro" to inflate their importance. Kinda like "worker", then all workers being called "assistant manager". A producer can be anything, no qualifications required at all.
Sometimes they may use the term "engineer" in conversation to bolster their status, when they are not engineers.
Look at "pro" equipment, inferior recording equipment, junk, crap. Would not touch that junk for home use.
No wonder we get so many crappy sounding CDs.
I agree. If you guys want to see real engineers, you should hang out with custodial engineers. Those guys will teach you a thing or two about cable placement.
Re: Pro equipment being junk, if that's the stuff that's being used to record music, then you can't get any better than the source that's used to record during your playback. Garbage in, garbage out.
Right on Alex. We can only play back what is produced, what we are given to playback.
On the other hand these guys DO use expensive stuff- sorry, but I love it when I'M right too! Some of the BEST in the biz...
http://transparentcable.com/products/reviews/thepros.html
Old topic.
But just so the thread is complete:
Doug is right, there are many top people - especially mastering engineers - using specialty cables, as well as amps, speakers, power conditioners, etc., all the stuff that DUP hates.
Sounds like things are changing for the better Elk. Maple shade also does things a bit better.
Noe of this is new. Mastering engineers have been using such stuff for years.
MS, don't they sell magic wires, that are thinner than they should be? Is there any music on that label worth listening too, I tried, but that stuff is unlistenable. If I had magic wires, would it make it tolerable? What da hell is that stuff? If that is why you think magic wires work, there is a problem. Couple of secret wood things also...now you're dealing with some real audio stuff. Don't worry where the mics are, get some magic wires, and vodoo wood.
So you don't do testing. Just excuses for not being scientific.
________
Elk,
Good this has been around, just have not heard anything about it. Thanks for the heads up.
I suspect this is generally not known among the audiophile community as there has been relatively little interest in the recording side of things until recently. John Marks has done a great job introducing products from the pro world of interest to audiophiles, and there are more and more crossover products, such as the Benchmark DAC.
Hopefully this continues as it benefits both sides.
Hardly, no Presonus, no Joe Meek, no Lavry....very very limited.
Fine DUP. No degree, not an engineer by definition. I would think that you, more than most here, would acknowledge real world knowledge and skills over a paid for paper document that may or may not reflect a persons useful knowledge.
I know plenty of your "real engineers" that are completely useless.
Movie/Video tracks mastered via analog tape and targeted for DVD release... Probably not the best example for your case.
Hold on just sec sasaudio. I just noticed this on your forum:
Looks to me like someone on that forum is trying to avoid scientific scrutiny.
Care to explain?
Doing analog with the correct equipment large open reel machines, that is always the only way to do analog, m, not vinyl snap crackle pop. Always said reel reel is analog done right. Not records, as so many keep claiming, reel reel is the way to do it, and yet all the analog freaks don't use reel reel, they are analog wanna be's. Including the MF dude claiming vinyl is analog done right, any analog freak needs reel reel otherwise they are posers.
Good catch Scott. This is typical of vendors who claim to be scientific, but in reality cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.
And that would be why? High-end digital recording is nothing more than trying to acheive what good analogue tape had all along. Many on that list are well known to be the absolute best in the industry and have the awards to prove it.
DVD audio? Hello? It's crap. Compressed digital files not even on par with CD quality, which ain't exactly great stuff. Only now, with the advent of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is there even an option of uncompressed audio streams, which also only recently is even supported by makers of AV receivers. DVD was only better than one thing: VHS. It never was close to real film, which in case you haven't noticed is analogue.
Digital film making has also only recently equalled real film, and it's still debated among most directors and cinematographers as what is the way to go. I stand by my example. The point is these guys time an again make amazing sounding recordings whether for film, musicians, or both and they care about every step, including wires. The results speak for themselves.
My point exactly.
So is your point that because some engineers use and believe in exotic cables (the original topic) for mixes that eventually end up mixed down to DVD the idea is invalidated? DVD sound is less than optimal because of the final standard, not the mix/mastering that happens before hand. Plus, most of the mix is pretty well established for the original film, which can and does usually have higher fidelity. Anyway, that was only one aspect of the link.
The point is that contrary to some anti-cable guys like DUP, engineers can and do put effort into making sure the entire recording and mixing chain is accounted for- this includes the wire. That was really my only point I was wanted to make. This discussion has been pretty well beaten to death and beyond in any number of former posts, but somehow DUP never tires of it.
The orginal analog tapes had teh hi fidelity, too bad when you used teh LP to listen to it, you missed 75% of teh orginal signal, then came SACD and there you get to the original tapes. LP is a very faulty medium. It served well in it's time, it has been surpassed big time, in all aspects of recorded sound with digital. If you want to hear teh original mater recordings at home, the LP ain't doing it, but when they put it onto DSD SACD, now you can hear those large high speed tapes, without having to have a $100K tape machine, let alone find the tape itself....if these recording dudes still use analog tape, where are they getting it from, or do they keep using some old stuff that is deteriorating with each use? One of teh last producers of high end large format tapes, stopped Quntegy....do these guys have a secret stash of tapes? Probably not, then they digitaize it for safe keeping.
The topic is "sound of cables from the pro viewpoint". You have added "exotic" to the mix.
The use of very high quality cables is valid and is used in all of the top recording facilities around the world. For example:
http://www.recordplant.com/
That facility has some of the best equipment on the planet and they have lost or forgotten more awards than your reference example has won.
So, the recordplant buy and use only the best possible equipment.
Are they advertising the cable they use? No.
Can you find any reference to what cables they use? No.
Why?
Then there is this:
http://mixonline.com/
Where are the reviews? Where are the discussions, debates, ads? I counted one review for bulk multichannel mic cable and didn't see one ad.
No ads because its a given what cable is going to be used.
Why?
Because its just not that big a deal. Most if not all top recording studios use bulk Mogami or Canare and make their own interconnects.
http://www.thecablefactory.net/differences.php
Any studio that shows off the cables they use are focused on the wrong things and are likely trying to divert your attention away from what they don
Top QUALITY is different than magic sounding, which is sold to the gullible. top quality, means robust, doesn't fail, keeps doing what it should under any conditions, like live on stage beatings. Magic is wires that claim you can now all of a sudden smell roses where there used to be garlic. Quality wires always mattered, but they don't cost $10,000 for an 8 ft interconnect. Nuetrik, Switchcraft, Belden, Carol Cable, Proco Sound. Nothing magical, just made right. How come in pro magazines they advertise real stuff, in audiophile mags they always advertise the magic BS? Where do teh gullible hang out?
Chinese swag connectors, never seem to feel right, nor do they fit smooth and precise like a Neutrik or Switchcraft, there is a different there, in non magical issues. When the wire mfg discusses how his magic twist of the month sounds better, it's nonsense. AQ has reptiles, rock formation models, and flights of fancy collections, birds rocks, rivers, reptiles, yupper, some very professional specs. Which flavor is best sounding this month.
I probably shouldn't jump in on this one but can't help myself. Although capacitance and inductance for normal length cable runs (I speak of speaker and interconnect here) in the audio frequency range should be inconsequential but I must admit that I have heard differences in both ICs and speaker cables. You would expect things that are in the signal path to effect sonics; both are and to a degree, both do. But when it comes to exotic power cables (far removed from the signal path), I draw the line. Sorry guys but that last 5 or 6 feet of AC distribution ain't gonna make a hill-o-beans bit of difference. If those $1K power cords ARE making a difference, it's visual not audible. Now let me don my asbestos suit....ok flame away.
Agreed. The capacitance, inductance and resistance together form a filter that affects frequency response and phase coherence. This needs to be understood and accounted for. Which means one has to know these specs in order deal with them. The cables I reference both publish their specs. Here is one example from Mogami:
http://www.mogamicable.com/Bulk/micr_cables/quad_micr/quad_micr.htm
One of my favorite cables for building mic cables and patch cords. Great stuff.
And it comes in lots of colors!
I think we actually more or less agree with each other- I just wanted to clarify before. For the record, although I do place value in cable choice, I am not an advocate of spending out of proportion to other equipment, or accepting claims at face value for that matter. I've heard a number of those Transparent cables and they do sound great, but the prices are WAY out in outer space for my tastes. I have my system wired with pretty reasonably Audioquest ICs and some Stereovox speaker cable that is more expensive, but worth it to me.
As you said, I buy with my ears and with my own internal threshold of what makes monetary sense compared to what kind of equipment I have, etc. I would expect others to do that too, but many seem incapable of ever entertaining the idea that wire could be important or have any positive effect- it's probably because they can't hear over their own ranting!
Hi Scott,
There are several reasons for not allowing DBT testing on my forum.
1) The incessant arguements. The forum is about my equipment and other tweeks etc. Not constant arguements and bickering that some want to start. I am going to have a peaceful forum, not a violent one.
2) Almost no one does dbt testing correctly. One reason is lack of communications between fields, disciplines.
I would like to present just a couple of problems, one being "habituation to stimuli" and the other is "cochlea fatigue", which can horribly skew results by two many ABs (back and forths) are perform per session, which almost all do.
I would appreciate it if you would at least ask me, before accusing me.
Take care.
Actually, plain old DVD-Video (DVD-V) has always supported up to 24 bit, 96 kHz lossless PCM. See the DVD FAQ for details.
The 24/96 is limited to 2 channels because of the capacity of the disc. DVD-A gets around this by using MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing). DVD-V is the high res format we always had, but many people didn't realize it.
Once again, this is the kind of misleading vendetta Ethan has had against me. In the "upgrade paths" string, page 4 (in late June of this year) Ethan broke into a conversation I was having with another and tried to intimidate me and my views, attempting to malign me, and posting some obviously inaccurate "typical" room graphs to back up his "beliefs".
I then exposed the clearly inaccurate and misleading data he expressed in the form of "typical" room measurements/graphs. Evidently he was thinking he could pull the wool over mine and the unsuspecting public's eyes.
After that, he tried to change the test conditions multiple times, state conditions in "Accuracy" that were just the opposite of what he had earlier stated in "Upgrade Paths". Of course I caught his misleading attempts time and time again. This went on for approximately 30 days. Ethan should be ashamed of himself for another in a long line of misleading tatics.
The evidence I presented was totally scientific. One such example is using information from Fletcher. So Ehtan's most recent charge against me is just another misleading comment.
By the way, read my above post for more reasons why I do not allow dbt testing on my forum. The reasons are quite different than what Ethan wanted you to believe.
I think we do. Hey, I'll admit that specs aren't everything. The cables I use, although self made, use overly expensive (not insanely) connectors and a nylon outer braid. I can't tell if effects the sound but they do look cool. What's wrong with that?
That sounds like a DUPlicitous implication that I also agree with.
Why not (properly) conduct your own and publish the results so they can be scrutinized? That is after all part of the scientific method.
If you are unwilling or unable to provide credible evidence that support your claims then what you have is a philosophical belief not a scientific fact.
Which, of course, you are entitled to. It just seems a bit hypocritical to condemn others for behavior that you are indulging in.
Why waste the time? As mentioned earlier, some objectivists Some "objectivists" refute anything, whether info from PHDs from electronics, chemistry, physics are quoted etc. It does not take long to see who is playing the marketing game and who is not. (It occurs on every audio forum.)
Remember, it is just as easy for the "objectivists" to manipulate numbers/measurements as those who sell magic rocks. I do not belong to either group as both are exploiting the public.
I am not about to allow constant bullying, bickering, harrassment, and taunting to occur at my forum. Pure and simple Scott.
Very few customers call me and ask for scientific information. They call because they have great things about my products. (Sorry if this sounds like an advertisement.)
Hope this helps Scott.
So, you're saying facts are not helpful in you're case.
Which is exacty what makes the whole discussion
philosophical
You are right on the money here (so to speak).
Again, if you are unwilling or unable to provide credible evidence that support your claims then what you have is a philosophical belief not a scientific fact.
That is right. Almost all my customers don't even want to hear me expound science. I have lost untold sales because I have attempted to against their wishes. So now I do not unless they ask. Usually they hear my stuff sounds good and so they order it.
Does not make any difference. Just because I do not publish any info does not mean my beliefs are not true. It just means you have not seen the evidence. Truth, per se, does not demand that you believe, or even see the evidence. Truth stands alone apart from anyone.
Whether you believe wire sounds different or the same is your personal choice. But I do not like stuff being crammed down my throat by some wannabees, and we know who they are.
Why can't you perform your own tests? It might be a nice challenge for you.
Since you have not joined my forum, how do you know what is even being discussed there? You might be surprised. Anyway, you will find it peaceful, without the constant attacks.
Take care Scott.
Just because I do not publish any info does not mean my beliefs are not true.
Believe what ever you want, convince others to believe what ever you want. Just don't call it fact unless you can prove it.
Call it experienced observation backed by (currently) unquantifiable measurement technology if you prefer. At least that would be closer to the truth.
I don't.
I apologize if my posts feel like attacks. I have tried to stay on topic, keep the debate civil and avoid personal remarks. Sometimes I get carried away in the fervor to defend my position. I may have stepped over the line. If I offended you, or anyone else for that matter, I apologize for that as well, it was not my intention to attack anyone.
Please don't confuse my diatribe on the difference between fact and philosophy as an attack on you or your products. I am sure you take the utmost care in producing the best possible products. I am in no position to make any kind of judgement in that regard. It is ultimately up to the individual to decide what works for them.
Seriously?
I have no problem with not caring or not being interested, but people have not purchased your product because additional information was made available to them?
So if a potential customer has MORE information on your products, then they don't buy it? Is the data, information that bad,that they then change their minds? See, specs and tests matter,products. Top quality stuff has data and specs which support their high quality. If your data and specs make people not buy, I suspect you might not have as good a product as you claim? Christ, even cooling fans have specs and numbers to support their functionality, how else would you buy the correct fan for the purpose you need it for, air CFM, noise, size etc. Specs matter, unless you are covering up something that is not so good?
The specs can easily be seen on my individual preamplifier pages so they already have access to that information if they so desire. But many times they don't want that information expounded to them. Try forcing it on them and see how often they hang up on you dup.
By the way dup, my products list superior specs at the bottom of each preamp page. Too bad you did not bother to check before accusing me.
Yes Elk, I have to be very careful when a potential customer approaches me. I wait until they actually request specs etc. As you already know, I do scientific measurements as well as proprietary scientific listening tests, but I wait for them to express an interest in specs before proceeding further. I have seen them get offended, even calling me one of those measurement guys, and I never hear from them again.
Usually they just want to get a description of the sound, and procede from there. I respect their individual priorities.
Take care Elk.
Proprietary listening???? Come on now, you listen in a way no one else does? 3 ears? I bet it's all in HEAR if it's so special.!! https://www.mixbooks.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ID=1797
By the way I did read teh specs on your page, they are imcomplete and not impressive. What is teh slew rates? You mention magic frozen wires, that is hardly a spec, that's a commercial for nonsense. Specs baby specs. Slew rates, freq range is mediocre, hardly superior, this is not to bash your stuff, but since you claim such high and mighty superiority, I'm not getting the vibe from anything I read, I do see they are high priced for what the specs tell me is bland mediocrity. you don't use 6N1P tube, why not? Others have moved up to that from other types, IM% no specs,
Got it.
This makes sense in context.
The only "vendetta" going on is the one you started against me, totally unprovoked. If you have evidence of me being the first to toss stones please post a link now for all to see and I will apologize immediately.
Ah, now that's the Steve I know.
--Ethan
Read my last post again dup. It is the way one performs the listening tests. Wow.
It is the way one does listening tests? A double HUH? Proprietary listening, I read your last post, it doesn't say HOW you listen that is so different that it's proprietary. Is your comphrehension a bit off, YOU said your listening is PROPRIETARY, do you even know what that means? So i asked, how is your's so different that it is PROPRIETARY. I gotta hear this method of listening, please explain your methods, maybe you do it naked? Or dressed in a frogman's suit, cus this sounds really FISHY. Blinky the 3 eyed FISH may have a mamal cousin, YOU, with 3 ears!!!!
Here are the "incomplete specs" Dup failed to mention.
11A Tube Preamplifier SPECIFICATIONS:
Frequency Response: 20 - 25 khz (less than -.1db, 100pf, 100k load)
Gain: 21db gain, approx.
Total Harmonic Distortion at 2 vrms: 0.015% or less plus noise. (typically -76 db, No global feedback)
Signal Polarity: Inverts
Input Impedance: 25k ohms
Min. Amplifier Input Impedance: 20k ohms
Volume Controls: 2
Tape Loops: 1 (for dubbing etc.), None for B11A
Line Inputs: 5 (3 for B11A)
Preamp. Outputs: 2
Tube Regulation: Yes
Tubes: JJ E88CC (Superior to other E88cc/6dj8 types, 6sn7, or 5687 for low distortion.)
Line Cord Length: 6 feet standard cryod Jenalabs "Basic"
Power Consumption: 27 watts
Power Requirements: 120 Volts AC, 50/60hz
Dimensions: 19" front
3 5/8" high (without any feet)
4 1/4" high (with spikes installed)
14 1/4" deep (counting knobs and jacks)
Actual Weight: 17 lbs.
If you understood design, or tube specs, you would have understood why a 6n1p is not used in my design. But for you, let's do a quick mini-course in electronics.
The plate resistance is too high for excellent wide bandwidth using the 6np1.
If -.1db from 20-25khz is not that high (which beats many preamplifiers, so it is at the echelon) what is??? By the way, dup, try figuring the FR at -1db, or -3db points.
The distortion of the 6np1 is at least 20db higher than the JJE88cc. The JJ is even lower than the 6SN7gtb and 5687 by nearly 15db or more.
And figure the slew rate yourself dup. In an amplifier the slew rate varies according to power and bandwidth. An amplifier with a 20khz bandwidth at 500 watts will have a higher slew rate than a 100 watt amplifier and 40khz bandwidth. So which is better dup??
Does this answer your questions dup?????
Why is a pre amp and IC the only things that can be checked for true accuracy, what the heck does that mean, anyway? Of course you sell only pre amps and IC's correct? Hmmmmm, are you still in a frogman's suit, I smell some CARP.
Wow. I was having a conversation when you interrupted with your insinuations and condescending attitude in "Upgrade paths", pages 4,5,6..
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...e=2&fpart=4
I requested you be careful with your insinuations in that string, remember. So how am I guilty of a vendetta against you?
Are you accusing me because I presented scientific evidence of you manipulating the data in your "typical" room graphs? (Which you never were able to refute.) Evidence is evidence no matter who presents it. Are you saying I should have "performed" a cover up so you could look good while taking advantage of the unsuspecting public?
Pages