[miklorsmith]

I have my switch-mode power supplies on a cheap brickwall filter.  All the analog supplies are plugged into a quality, network-free power strip.  When I've done power conditioning it has made the sound worse.  I believe folks who have different experiences and assume I have unusually clean power.  Simple lesson - you might or might not benefit from conditioning.  Depending on the situation, a person might benefit more from buying better gear.

However, the amp/speaker/room interface is primary for all rooms.  Don't think of it in terms of "better" speakers without determining which will fit the space best.  How big of a room were the speakers designed for?  What size rooms and what layout have they worked well?  Bad bass will wreck whatever that $10k CDP might be sending your way.

[BrianM]

Mike-
Which quality, network-free power strip do you use?

[miklorsmith]

It's the Naim-approved Wiremold strip.  Mine's the 6-outlet version, I wish I would have gotten the 9.

[BrianM]

It's the Naim-approved Wiremold strip.  Mine's the 6-outlet version, I wish I would have gotten the 9.

I take it you don't have your amp plugged into a separate AC line?  I'm going to compare one of these Wiremolds to what I have (ordinary computer grade surge protector) to see if I can hear a diff.

[miklorsmith]

My amp du jour is the RWA 70.2s - they aren't too picky about what they're plugged in to.     The Wiremold is a high-quality strip at a reasonable price.  It's definitely worth trying.

[BrianM]

My amp du jour is the RWA 70.2s - they aren't too picky about what they're plugged in to.    

Ah.  No, I don't expect they would be...

[*Scotty*]

Hey Mike,was this the power strip you were referring to? See link below
http://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.asp?SKU=533-9218&MPN=L10320&R=533%2D9218&sid=47FAB5804CD0E17F
Scotty

[miklorsmith]

That looks like it.  I paid the exorbitant audiophile price of like $50 a few years ago though.   

I don't know if there are any internal differences between this one and the expensive audiophile version.  It's totally possible they're the same.

[BrianM]

It's the same model number as Naim recommends anyway.

[*Scotty*]

I wouldn't be surprised if you paid extra for the audiophile seal of approval, I hate it when that happens.   
Scotty

[miklorsmith]

Me neither, though if I paid an extra $20 3 years ago for something I still use I think that would be like the 9th worst audio decision I've made since.  At the time I wasn't savvy enough to consider there might be a cheaper outlet for the same thing.

[doug s.]

I have my switch-mode power supplies on a cheap brickwall filter.  All the analog supplies are plugged into a quality, network-free power strip.  When I've done power conditioning it has made the sound worse.  I believe folks who have different experiences and assume I have unusually clean power.  Simple lesson - you might or might not benefit from conditioning.  Depending on the situation, a person might benefit more from buying better gear...

even if you have the cleanest most stable power extant, it will not help what a specific component is sending back into your system.  digital gear is notorious for this.  try plugging your dac & transport into their own individual isolation transformers & report back...     no need to break the bank, either - pick one up on ebay for ~+/-$25.  (tho shipping may be more than the purchase price, lol!)

doug s.

[Daygloworange]

I believe a lot of times, the power issues can be improved upon inside the components themselves.

I probably said it before, but it's worth saying again, that the power supply upgrades I made to my transport (Bolder modded SB 3) were nothing short of amazing in terms of sonic performance with all else being equal.

My system is minimalist. Modded SB 3 feeding directly in a ATI 1202 (SS) power amp. No power conditioning. Dead quiet, and amazingly improved detail, resolution and dynamics due to the reworked power supply.

I am now having my digital studio recorder's power supply reworked.

Imo pro audio isn't that great either. Take a look at the junk parts (including  electrolytic capacitors, up to dozens of op amps in the signal path etc) used in most recording studio equipment.

You're right.

I come from a 20 year background in pro audio. I thought that I was in a higher league (equipment wise)from consumer playback due to ignorance of what 2 channel consumer audio playback is capable of.

I was wrong.

It's all good now, though. 

Cheers   

[Steve]

"If not:  Synergy."

But there are different levels of synergy. The problem is that the typical way a system is setup causes all the components and speaker/room interface to be  variables. We are back at square one. They are all important to one extent or another.

I would suggest that one get the most accurate electronic components to begin with, as a foundation. Cut down on the number of variables one has to deal with, and then deal with the left over variables.

Controlling the bass resonances and first reflections is rather simple, yet cannot be finalized without the rest of the system being in tip top condition, which includes the best electronics (or one can afford). One is not giong to be happy if one's system has an electronic component that is harsh, brittle, syrupy etc, regardless if the room is properly tamed.

I think a person has to start with what they know can be tested for accuracy to cut down on the number of problems that need solving.

The end result will be better synergy, more accurate/lively music.

Cheers.

[Housteau]

I would suggest that one get the most accurate electronic components to begin with, as a foundation. Cut down on the number of variables one has to deal with, and then deal with the left over variables.

I understand where you are coming from here.  It makes perfectly good sense to start with a known good.  However, the term accuracy can mean very different things to different people.  For some that may entail objective measurement.  For others that means listening to what passes the most unaltered musical signal.  That is subjective.  As was mentioned earlier. some tube amps may measure worse in some areas than their solid state cousins, but subjectively be the more desired component due to how it passes the musical signal.

I guess what I am trying to say is that each time we try to cut down on those variables, it just presents others.  I don't think it is just that easy, except for the clean power thing.  That does make sense to be held steady as a known good.

[Steve]

 "However, the term accuracy can mean very different things to different people.  For some that may entail objective measurement.  For others that means listening to what passes the most unaltered musical signal."

I was going to edit my above post (you beat me to it) to include that what some conclude as neutral, transparent, output equals input, is in fact a guess and not factual. The specs can be splendid, yet the replication of the input is not accurate by any means. My feeling is, if the output sounds different than the input, what good are the specs?  I try to get my specs to be as good as possible, esp FR and distortion, but listening is the final test.


I think one would be very surprised to find how far off electronic components (that are touted as untainting the music, "neutral", superior, and with superior specs) are from being actually true to the input, using both typical listening evaluations and using specs as a guide.

There are multiple ways of performing sophisticated listening tests, but they are not simple by any means. The testing typically requires weeks, if not months, to obtain the results and know the results are accurate.

As mentioned earlier, only the preamplifier and ICs can be tested this way. This, as you allude to, means some electronics components cannot be tested. Those are the variables, but at least the total number of variables can be reduced if one desires.

Cheers.

[darrenyeats]

There is another view - and I shall put it brutally - that a lot of the perceived differences between electronics live in the mind of the listener. This is the principle reason people perceive that "the music" doesn't get reproduced despite measurements showing that the signals are being accurately produced.

In pro audio signal=music. In audiophile land, somehow music is different to signal. You can have an accurate, clean signal, but somehow it doesn't capture the music.

As I said audiophilia is a philosophy and more of a sociological phenomenon than anything to do with a discussion of physics or engineering principles.

Any "reviews" that aren't verified blind don't mean a hill of beans to me. Would you like it any clearer?

One might go back to the car analogy. One might decide to buy a Porsche Boxter because it is a car with a true racing heritage, a quality product, beautiful to look at, enjoyable to drive and is a premium brand. But one doesn't claim it is quicker than a Lancia Evo FQ-400. It just isn't. If we were to take the "audiophile" attitude, we would claim the Boxter is quicker. If anyone contradicted we would insist it was just because the contradictor hadn't driven the Boxter. If the contradictor offered to check the performance figures we would claim figures don't represent real driving. If the contradictor timed a Boxter and an FQ-400 around a track or stretch of road with a stop-watch we would insist that despite all evidence, the Boxter seems quicker therefore it must be quicker! Any attempt to reason with us will be met by arguments that the stop-watch is faulty (there is some aspect of time that it doesn't capture) or that some of the scientific method of timing cars on race tracks or roads is just wrong. Just because we think the Boxter seems quicker.

There is one problem with the analogy, which is that there are many aspects of "performance" for a car: top speed, acceleration, cornering, handling balance, laptime on circuit A, circuit B etc. For an audio source or interconnect there is only one performance parameter that matters - JUST ONE - and that is low noise and distortion (also referred to as transparency). Not even room acoustics or unpredictable speaker loads come into it. So the picture is much much simpler for audio sources or interconnects than cars. Of course, transparency doesn't sound good to some people or in some systems so that means transparency isn't really transparency. Fie!

YMMV. Please take it in the spirit intended, which is good-natured.
Darren

[rajacat]

Ah, yes you put it so brutally. Of course it is only your opinion. My opinion is that there are some audio phenomena  that engineers have trouble measuring such as perceived space around the instruments and holographic presentation. Now you said that there was just one parameter that mattered and then you proceeded to list two: low noise and distortion. Could your linear mind grasp that there could be other types of measurement that science has yet to discover or are you of the opinion that there is nothing else to learn? Certainly that is not being open minded which I think is a prerequisite for advancement in any scientific endeavor.

-Roy

[TONEPUB]

So please explain to me what the correct measurement for tonality is
and how you can tell how a component is going to recreate accurate
tonality by looking at some specs.

Why does amplifier A do a fantastic job with reproducing all the tonal
and spatial cues of an acoustic intrument, while amplifier B does not.

Just curious.

If you want to totally buy into the measurement thing, that's great,
but please don't tell me that your way is the only way to go.

Low noise and low distortion are only the beginning.  Any capable
designer can accomplish that.  If that's the only criteria for judging
gear, there's no point in going much further.

[TONEPUB]

And if we take the car analogy a step further its the same thing there as well.

If we compare a BMW M5, a Corvette ZO6, a Porsche 997 twin turbo and maybe
throw in a Viper (and I've driven all of these cars) on paper the specs for braking,
acceleration and cornering are pretty close.  Top speeds are about the same, give
or take, as are 0-60 times and braking 70-0 but upon driving them (and perhaps
we throw in an Aston Martin and a Ferrari 430), they all achieve what they do
in a different manner.

Just because a car will pull a g on a skid pad, doesn't mean it will react to
transition breaking the same way, or hold its composure through a series
of bumpy turns the same way, etc., etc., so again the "feel thing" does
enter into the equation.

Much as I'd like to think otherwise, there's more to it than just science.

Ask ten race car drivers how they like their car set up and they will all
tell you something different as well, so if it just came down to data, race
engineers wouldn't have much to do.