[reflex]

I agree, powercables are like getting a close to twice as good amp, preamp, source sometimes!!

Imperial

Based on what? 

A power cable simply provides power to the unit, period. As long as it is made properly (sufficient AWG, shielding, etc), attributing additional sonic improvements is psychoacoustic "at best", and snake oil at it's worst.

There is enough mis-information already without adding to it by extolling engineering magic to power cable change. This subject has been beat to death in other threads, and no one has provided any actual engineering data to support their claims, only subjective psychoacoustic improvement. (IMO).     

I think you have this backwards...or feel "power cord believers" see it this way.  Power cords DO NOT attribute additional sonic improvements.  What they do is minimize sonic degradation by providing better shielding to the power supplies they provide current to.  Only in that way could anyone possibly believe they "improve" a system.  Clean glasses help you see better, but they don't improve your eyesight.  There's no "psychoacoustic" effects going on here.  You can believe they are "snake oil" if you choose.  It's your system.

[warnerwh]

There's no doubt the room acoustics can make or break any system worthy of being classified as high end.   Until the room is done there's no way someone knows what their system sounds like.  The difference can easily be more than changing speakers in a brands line.  The fact that room treatment is inexpensive for the improvement you get it wins for first priority.

If I put together a system for myself or anybody else the first that needs to be addressed is the room.  Many people have wonderful systems that don't sound anything near their potential because of the room. 

[Freo-1]

I agree, powercables are like getting a close to twice as good amp, preamp, source sometimes!!

Imperial

Based on what? 

A power cable simply provides power to the unit, period. As long as it is made properly (sufficient AWG, shielding, etc), attributing additional sonic improvements is psychoacoustic "at best", and snake oil at it's worst.

There is enough mis-information already without adding to it by extolling engineering magic to power cable change. This subject has been beat to death in other threads, and no one has provided any actual engineering data to support their claims, only subjective psychoacoustic improvement. (IMO).     

I think you have this backwards...or feel "power cord believers" see it this way.  Power cords DO NOT attribute additional sonic improvements.  What they do is minimize sonic degradation by providing better shielding to the power supplies they provide current to.  Only in that way could anyone possibly believe they "improve" a system.  Clean glasses help you see better, but they don't improve your eyesight.  There's no "psychoacoustic" effects going on here.  You can believe they are "snake oil" if you choose.  It's your system.

No disrespect, what "Based on what?" You provide no engineering data to support your claim.

A power cord does not "clean up the glass" at all.      As long as the manufacture of the equipment (and let's be honest..most of the equipment people have that are in this forum already provide decent power cords), manufactured it according to good engineering principals, this improvement claimed is strictly psychoacoustic.

Now, if you wish to talk about cleaning up the power input to the system, THAT can provide some of the improvements attributed to changing power cords. 

[reflex]

There's no doubt the room acoustics can make or break any system worthy of being classified as high end.   Until the room is done there's no way someone knows what their system sounds like.  The difference can easily be more than changing speakers in a brands line.  The fact that room treatment is inexpensive for the improvement you get it wins for first priority.

If I put together a system for myself or anybody else the first that needs to be addressed is the room.  Many people have wonderful systems that don't sound anything near their potential because of the room. 

Absolutely.  A few years ago I had an opportunity to hear what was probably a $250K+ system at a large cable manufacturer's facility.  The room was so overdamped I'd have to quality it as one of the most uninspiring, lifeless audio systems I've ever heard.  I've enjoyed sub $1k systems far more than the strangulation that was going on with all that good gear.

[Imperial]

I agree, powercables are like getting a close to twice as good amp, preamp, source sometimes!!

Imperial

Based on what? 

A power cable simply provides power to the unit, period. As long as it is made properly (sufficient AWG, shielding, etc), attributing additional sonic improvements is psychoacoustic "at best", and snake oil at it's worst.

There is enough mis-information already without adding to it by extolling engineering magic to power cable change. This subject has been beat to death in other threads, and no one has provided any actual engineering data to support their claims, only subjective psychoacoustic improvement. (IMO).     

Of course..., my mistake...   (No, that would be my LEFT sock..)
Like you said, they provide a connection to the grid...


Imperial

[Freo-1]

There's no doubt the room acoustics can make or break any system worthy of being classified as high end.   Until the room is done there's no way someone knows what their system sounds like.  The difference can easily be more than changing speakers in a brands line.  The fact that room treatment is inexpensive for the improvement you get it wins for first priority.

If I put together a system for myself or anybody else the first that needs to be addressed is the room.  Many people have wonderful systems that don't sound anything near their potential because of the room. 

Absolutely.  A few years ago I had an opportunity to hear what was probably a $250K+ system at a large cable manufacturer's facility.  The room was so overdamped I'd have to quality it as one of the most uninspiring, lifeless audio systems I've ever heard.  I've enjoyed sub $1k systems far more than the strangulation that was going on with all that good gear.

Now this is something we can agree on. 

The room can very much play havoc with accurate sound reproduction.

[reflex]

I agree, powercables are like getting a close to twice as good amp, preamp, source sometimes!!

Imperial

Based on what? 

A power cable simply provides power to the unit, period. As long as it is made properly (sufficient AWG, shielding, etc), attributing additional sonic improvements is psychoacoustic "at best", and snake oil at it's worst.

There is enough mis-information already without adding to it by extolling engineering magic to power cable change. This subject has been beat to death in other threads, and no one has provided any actual engineering data to support their claims, only subjective psychoacoustic improvement. (IMO).     

I think you have this backwards...or feel "power cord believers" see it this way.  Power cords DO NOT attribute additional sonic improvements.  What they do is minimize sonic degradation by providing better shielding to the power supplies they provide current to.  Only in that way could anyone possibly believe they "improve" a system.  Clean glasses help you see better, but they don't improve your eyesight.  There's no "psychoacoustic" effects going on here.  You can believe they are "snake oil" if you choose.  It's your system.

No disrespect, what "Based on what?" You provide no engineering data to support your claim.

A power cord does not "clean up the glass" at all.      As long as the manufacture of the equipment (and let's be honest..most of the equipment people have that are in this forum already provide decent power cords), manufactured it according to good engineering principals, this improvement claimed is strictly psychoacoustic.

Now, if you wish to talk about cleaning up the power input to the system, THAT can provide some of the improvements attributed to changing power cords. 

Based on the improvement in smoothness, resolution/detail, dynamics and dimensionality that I hear.  That I perceive.  Do I have to have engineering papers for everything I might hear?  Do you need to quanitatively describe why you have enjoyed a good steak and have scientific measurements that support your enjoyment?  Do you have engineering data that would support any or all of the claims you might make regarding your own personal system and personal audio observations over your listening years?  Numbers quantify, perception qualifies.  They don't always cooralate.

I like that you used the word "decent" to describe the power cords that you say manufacturers include with their equipment.  You don't believe the definition for the word "decent" and the word "good" are exactly the same, do you?  Do you want a decent component in your system or a good one?

No disrespect either...I understand your arguement completely.  I'm just not sure we're really on the same page with how we each view what a better (not expensive) power cord might contribute to a system's overall performance.

[darrenyeats]

5.  Preamplifier: I originally thought this to be a lower priority. But after reading some of the input here I am starting to change
                       my mind.

I was going to leave it there, but the idea of someone going out and spending thousands on a preamp prompts me to post again. 

A modern CD-type source (SB3 or Transporter included) has the right output sensitivity and impedance to drive a power amp. In fact many people, me included, use attenuators when avoiding a preamp in order to stay in the upper reaches of the volume band for normal listening.

The benefits of using a digital volume control on the SB3 beyond a few db of attenuation are arguable - IMHO even then it's better on balance. As for the Transporter and some other modern sources/DACs their SNR is such that using a digital volume control will out-perform the world's best performing preamp due to the attenuation being 100% transparent for 16 bit material (the signal remains well above the noise floor and there are no physical distortions). No preamp's sound is as good as "no sound at all". Ok Doug, now I've explained it I admit there are a few qualifications!
Darren

[Steve]

"If you assume (and that can always be a big mistake  ) that the speaker designer did as much as possible when voicing their speaker to give it, at the very least, an accurate frequency response curve, by not having issues in the room/equipment/cabling that they used during design, then a shifted upper frequency response, leading to "brightness" should not be a problem with most properly voiced speakers."

>Problem is manufacturers use a reference system, when "voicing" their test comoponent. And how accurate is their reference system?? Not very in most cases. The finished product becomes very dependent on how good their reference system is. That is the problem with simply "voicing" a component.

>One would be surprised how the frequency response varies with different speakers. I have heard them. (And yes, amplifier speaker interface is also a problem as mentioned above. Damping factor etc) Some speakers are absolutely horrible and were "voiced" using inaccurate "reference" systems and rooms to begin with. That is part of the problem, inferior associated "reference" electronics.

 "If you hear brightness from a speaker, or harshness (some may perceive this as an effect of brightness), then most probably what you are hearing is some other component creating/sending this response shift to the speaker."

>"Voicing" their speakers using inferior electronics, so that the system is "dark" will produce a bright speaker, which is what we do not want.

"The room itself may be causing the speaker to sound bright and any speaker placed in the same room would also have this quality."

>Very true. But one won't know for sure if one is using inferior electronics (source, preamp, amp etc), or the speaker.

"It's easier to get a speaker to to reproduce high frequencies (the quality of which will be determined by tweeter choice and crossover quality) than it is to get it to reproduce lower frequencies (we're talking "quantity" here).  A speaker that might sound bright to almost anyone in a system with marginal accompanying components might all of a sudden sound "open, detailed and revealing" when those problems were corrected."

>The question I pose is, how does one know which electronics is marginal and which is not? And how does one know if the speaker is really a reference? Something in the system has to be the reference/accurate, and the preamp/ICs are the ONLY components that can actually be tested for accuracy/transparency vs wire or 'nothing". Then work with the rest of the system, room etc.  

"I've had a number of friends comment recently, who finally took my recommendation and inserted quality power cords in their systems, that the harshness and/or brightness of other cables and their systems in general greatly diminished when they corrected the problem rather than putting a bandaid on it by covering it up with lessor choices."

>Respectfully, how does one know the ICs, power cords were not the bandages, tone controls, by modding the response? What would the system sound like with the proper electronics and speakers to begin with?

>Another possibility could be that the manufacturer had such a poor reference system that he identify the problem to begin with, and thus supply the correct stock power cord?

>Once the preamp and ICs are found to be accurate, then we can work with the other components in the system. And it is easier because we have eliminated a couple of variables, the preamp and the ICs. If the new amp/source sounds bad, we know it isn't the preamps/ICs fault.

One also does not have to continually purchase preamps/ICs, and the additional matching power cords since the preamp is accurate with the high quality stock cord. A large savings there.

Cheers.

[Imperial]

No disrespect, what "Based on what?" You provide no engineering data to support your claim.

Just a hint... this ain't "the lab" ...

Now, let's stop the arguing about these powercables.
People are voicing their opinions, you don't agree, state so, and move on!!

Please..  

(I know, I did make this whole thing start... sorry about that!!  )

And I have designed a few A/C cleaners and cables, only DIY but still, there is a scientific approach
behind it all, I assure you.. it is sound. But that will have to be talked about in another thread..

Imperial

[reflex]

There's a valid agruement for "less is more".  No component in the audio chain can improve the sound of the system.  All they can do is degrade less.  If a source could be developed that had enough output to drive the speaker AND connect directly to it, then the other possible degrading components could be eliminated from the chain.

[reflex]

"If you assume (and that can always be a big mistake  ) that the speaker designer did as much as possible when voicing their speaker to give it, at the very least, an accurate frequency response curve, by not having issues in the room/equipment/cabling that they used during design, then a shifted upper frequency response, leading to "brightness" should not be a problem with most properly voiced speakers."

>Problem is manufacturers use a reference system, when "voicing" their test comoponent. And how accurate is their reference system?? Not very in most cases. The finished product becomes very dependent on how good their reference system is. That is the problem with simply "voicing" a component.

>One would be surprised how the frequency response varies with different speakers. I have heard them. (And yes, amplifier speaker interface is also a problem as mentioned above. Damping factor etc) Some speakers are absolutely horrible and were "voiced" using inaccurate "reference" systems and rooms to begin with. That is part of the problem, inferior associated "reference" electronics.

 "If you hear brightness from a speaker, or harshness (some may perceive this as an effect of brightness), then most probably what you are hearing is some other component creating/sending this response shift to the speaker."

>"Voicing" their speakers using inferior electronics, so that the system is "dark" will produce a bright speaker, which is what we do not want.

"The room itself may be causing the speaker to sound bright and any speaker placed in the same room would also have this quality."

>Very true. But one won't know for sure if one is using inferior electronics (source, preamp, amp etc), or the speaker.

"It's easier to get a speaker to to reproduce high frequencies (the quality of which will be determined by tweeter choice and crossover quality) than it is to get it to reproduce lower frequencies (we're talking "quantity" here).  A speaker that might sound bright to almost anyone in a system with marginal accompanying components might all of a sudden sound "open, detailed and revealing" when those problems were corrected."

>The question I pose is, how does one know which electronics is marginal and which is not? And how does one know if the speaker is really a reference? Something in the system has to be the reference/accurate, and the preamp/ICs are the ONLY components that can actually be tested for accuracy/transparency vs wire or 'nothing". Then work with the rest of the system, room etc.  

"I've had a number of friends comment recently, who finally took my recommendation and inserted quality power cords in their systems, that the harshness and/or brightness of other cables and their systems in general greatly diminished when they corrected the problem rather than putting a bandaid on it by covering it up with lessor choices."

>Respectfully, how does one know the ICs, power cords were not the bandages, tone controls, by modding the response? What would the system sound like with the proper electronics and speakers to begin with?

>Another possibility could be that the manufacturer had such a poor reference system that he identify the problem to begin with, and thus supply the correct stock power cord?

>Once the preamp and ICs are found to be accurate, then we can work with the other components in the system. And it is easier because we have eliminated a couple of variables, the preamp and the ICs. If the new amp/source sounds bad, we know it isn't the preamps/ICs fault.

One also does not have to continually purchase preamps/ICs, and the additional matching power cords since the preamp is accurate with the high quality stock cord. A large savings there.

Cheers.

Steve:

You make alot of valid points.  There's always a risk that the speaker manufacturer has not a clue as to how to minimize the effect the associated equipment used and room is having on his speaker.  Those guys typically lose out in the long run.  I'm not saying that no speaker is really bright...or veiled...muted...dark...whatever.  It's just that being in this business every day, all day for all these years, I've heard far too many speakers being passed off as "bright" when in reality they were "right" when the other problems of the system/room were solved.

It's hard to determine where to start...what to have as your reference, your starting point of neutrality, when choosing other parts of the system chain.  Maybe it would be best to start in the middle (preamp) and work outwards in both directions.

[Steve]

"The benefits of using a digital volume control on the SB3 beyond a few db of attenuation are arguable - IMHO even then it's better on balance. As for the Transporter and some other modern sources/DACs their SNR is such that using a digital volume control will out-perform the world's best performing preamp due to the attenuation being 100% transparent for 16 bit material (the signal remains well above the noise floor and there are no physical distortions). No preamp's sound is as good as "no sound at all". Ok Doug, now I've explained it I admit there are a few qualifications!
Darren"

I would have to respectably disagree with that comment Darren. First, the analog gainstage in the CD players analog output is not that good. That is why I bypass the analog stage in every player I have, if possible. The players analog stage is one good way to mess up the sound. Switch to a dac and the same. Also no need for a tube stage as there is not enough room to do it right.

[Steve]

I understand Reflex. Your point is well taken. I agree with you in that a room could be bright. All I am trying to say is if we obtain an accurate preamp/IC, and then work with the electronics/speakers, causes of problems might be easier to determine, such as a bright room, source etc.

Of course if the problem does lie in the room, then we may have to work with what we have, if we can not correct the problem.

Thanks for the conversation Reflex. Most enjoyable.
Cheers.

Off for a nap, lunch, and testing a Mk|| Cal Audio Labs player.

[reflex]

Steve:

It has been enjoyable, hasn't it?  I think you're absolutely right about starting with the preamp/ic as a basis for building an accurate system.  And then move out in both directions...to the beginning of the chain, and the end, from there.  With that said, I still feel the speaker/room has the greatest impact on the final result.  It will be the final voice of the system.  Hopefully, with nothing else in the chain getting in the way too much of how we hear that voice.

[darrenyeats]

I would have to respectably disagree with that comment Darren. First, the analog gainstage in the CD players analog output is not that good. That is why I bypass the analog stage in every player I have, if possible. The players analog stage is one good way to mess up the sound. Switch to a dac and the same. Also no need for a tube stage as there is not enough room to do it right.

Steve, thanks for your post.

I'm not totally sure what you mean. When using a digital volume control, instead of plugging the interconnect from your source into the preamp input you plug the same interconnect into your power amp input. That's the only difference so I'm not sure what you mean about avoiding analogue stages. A digital volume control doesn't reroute the signal through a different part of the player's circuitry. Rather it reduces the volume in the digital domain - and that's all. But maybe I'm misinterpreting your comments? If so I apologise.
Darren

[Steve]

Steve:

It has been enjoyable, hasn't it?  I think you're absolutely right about starting with the preamp/ic as a basis for building an accurate system.  And then move out in both directions...to the beginning of the chain, and the end, from there.  With that said, I still feel the speaker/room has the greatest impact on the final result.  It will be the final voice of the system.  Hopefully, with nothing else in the chain getting in the way too much of how we hear that voice.

A quick I agree Reflex. One has to make sure the room is tamed. It can sometimes be quite difficult and time consuming.

Take care my friend.
Steve

ps. Just saw your post. Hi Darrenyeats.

If you have an analog amp, the output of your player is analog feeding the analog input of the amplifier, even though the volume control is digital.

Unless your player is different, something new, there is an analog gainstage just before the output jacks and mute section. I bypassed this analog stage, running from the output of the DAC chip. Luckily no filters to mess with on the output of the dac chip in my player. Output Z is very low, close to 10 ohms as informed from the manufacturering engineer.

I get rid of an entire op amp stage, with associated parts.

Cheers. Now time for lunch, a quick nap, and testing, and basketball.   

[reflex]

Steve:

I finally noticed you manufacture a preamp!  

Could it be that you're self-promoting in this thread?!  

Cool...good move...LOL

We should talk...I love tube preamps...and am always looking for ways to improve my system.

[Freo-1]

"The benefits of using a digital volume control on the SB3 beyond a few db of attenuation are arguable - IMHO even then it's better on balance. As for the Transporter and some other modern sources/DACs their SNR is such that using a digital volume control will out-perform the world's best performing preamp due to the attenuation being 100% transparent for 16 bit material (the signal remains well above the noise floor and there are no physical distortions). No preamp's sound is as good as "no sound at all". Ok Doug, now I've explained it I admit there are a few qualifications!
Darren"

I would have to respectably disagree with that comment Darren. First, the analog gainstage in the CD players analog output is not that good. That is why I bypass the analog stage in every player I have, if possible. The players analog stage is one good way to mess up the sound. Switch to a dac and the same. Also no need for a tube stage as there is not enough room to do it right.

I think Steve brings up an excellent point.

In my home theater system, the Denon 5910 takes the firewire output and runs it directly to the Sony DA9000ES, goes through the HATS anti-jitter circuit,  gets converted to SACD (unless it already is an SACD bitstream, and runs directly to the D/A output stage (200WPC MOS-FET). The sound is unique, and I must say, some of the most accurate reproduction I've heard. When using the on-board DAC in the 5919, or any other input int the 9000, you can hear the difference.

I use a tube amp setup for two channel audio (and I love the sonics), but, the Sony ES may actually be more accurate using firewire.

[reflex]

Steve:

It has been enjoyable, hasn't it?  I think you're absolutely right about starting with the preamp/ic as a basis for building an accurate system.  And then move out in both directions...to the beginning of the chain, and the end, from there.  With that said, I still feel the speaker/room has the greatest impact on the final result.  It will be the final voice of the system.  Hopefully, with nothing else in the chain getting in the way too much of how we hear that voice.

A quick I agree Reflex. One has to make sure the room is tamed. It can sometimes be quite difficult and time consuming.

Take care my friend.
Steve

 

What I hate is when folks form opinions and make statements based on no direct personal experience with the subject.  I'm not saying anyone in this thread has done that, necessarily.  I just find it humorous that so many people can have the answer to a question they have not personally spent time researching a valid answer for.  So many feel that quantifying something automatically qualifies it as well.  I use this one as an example when I'm dealing with customers:
36-24-36, blond hair, blue eyes, 5' 2" tall, 105 lbs.  Sound good?  Is she a nice person?  Want to spend your life with her?  Give me the measurement techniques you would use to determine that?

Enjoy the rest of your day, friend...

reflex