[nathanm]

I've heard somewheres that they do indeed, but please, someone out there enlighten us!  I'm dying to know!

[Dan Banquer]

Grounding and shielding.

[DVV]

I've heard somewheres that they do indeed, but please, someone out there enlighten us!  I'm dying to know!

"What makes switch boxes sound different?" indeed. Copycat!

All Dan says plus switching. It's not the same thing what is used for switching between different speakers, whether it's a rotary switch (aaarrrgh!!!), a pushbutton job (argh!) or a nice heavy duty, vacuum relay set.

Needless to say, the last is the best, but also most expensive, which is why they are oh so rare.

Cheers,
DVV

[audioengr]

Switchboxes can introduce many of the same things that cables do in addition to multi-metal transitions at the contacts.  These include:
1) capacitance
2) inductance
3) dielectric absorption
4) resistance
5) metallurgical effects - crystal structure

[nathanm]

So if you had a tricked-out vacuum relay switch box would you be able to fairly judge the "sound" of two different cables without the switchbox itself totally corrupting the tonal purity and leveling each cable to the performance of old rusty baling wire?

[DVV]

So if you had a tricked-out vacuum relay switch box would you be able to fairly judge the "sound" of two different cables without the switchbox itself totally corrupting the tonal purity and leveling each cable to the performance of old rusty baling wire?

I'm not saying it's perfect, Nate, but it's easily the best switching method I have ever seen. However, I must warn you that you will need some powerful relays if you don't want them to bottlenck you in case you plan on testing the speakers' power handling as well.

Such relays don't come cheap.

Cheers,
DVV

[audioengr]

If you had a low-capacitance relay (between contacts) and wired the box similar to the way I make IC's, then it would be fairly invisible.  The extra connectors would of course be unavoidable so this would corrupt the sound a little for all trials.

[nathanm]

Thanks guys, that answers my question!

[audiojerry]

Nathan, I told you...  
But, do you believe any of this?
Probably not

Although, I must say, with the type of music you listen to, I'd have a very hard time judging the differences in cables, or anything else for that matter.  

[nathanm]

Sure I believe it.  These guys know their electronics very well.  But what I don't believe is that an infinitesimal improvement in electrical performance, that you have to sit around and concentrate on to hear means jack squat in the larger scheme. Nor do I believe that a 5% improvement is worth an ungodly large price markup, as is the case with most of these $300+ cables.  A lot of folks are laughing all the way to the bank I am sure.

Sooo....the physics of electronics pertain ONLY when listening to lite jazz?  If you put on a rock CD magically these factors of capacitance, inductance and resistance etc. just fly right out the window? Hmmm, well that is VERY interesting!  Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy is it not?  You can only hear minute differences in music you LIKE? Boy, could that possibly mean that it's the MUSIC that matters, not the equipment?   Put on a Limp Bizkit record in the most expensive, technically perfect system ever built and I will still hate it.  Jerry didn't like the Cathedral track I played him because he doesn't like the music, so why should he even care about looking for differences?  Who could blame him?  Likewise I could not much care if a guy going "tzz" sounded like he was 4 feet or 3 feet to the left of me.

If you claim to be able to hear differences in cables then it is fair to assume that you will also be able to hear if said cable is connected to a switchbox or not, right? Or that cable A still sounds different than cable B when you factor in the tone of the switchbox.  Likewise I would imagine that you would be able to hear the difference if a single resistor or capacitor was swapped out in the component.  If a two foot stretch of copper is auidbly different than another two foot stretch of copper, then you're asking me to believe you could hear any number of vanishingly small changes in the entire playback chain.  

But I cannot deny with any certainty what anyone claims they can or cannot hear, I just find it a bit silly to say you CAN hear a difference between A and B but just by themselves, but NOT if factor C is involved.  If a switchbox is going to be so awfully corrupting to the sound then wouldn't each inch of wire also make a difference?  Could you hear the difference between an 8 foot and a 16 foot cable?  There's probably enough metal in the 16 footer to account for what's in the switchbox.

Sitting around and listening to "differences" wether real or imagined, is largely a waste of time in my opinion.  If you don't like what you're listening to in the first place then all the rest is pointless.  If a person is only playing a certain CD to hear special effects or to analyze how each little sound byte is rendered by their system, that to me sounds about as much fun as watching paint dry.  I think disillusionment with a particular album's music over time gives rise to this analytical nonsense.  Obviously the song is no longer moving your emotions if you're listening for the half a millisecond attack of the guitar string or whatever.

Jerry's setup always sounded great each time I heard it because of macro differences; it's all good gear.  I couldn't really care less wether ACME or Furshlugginer Brand cables were used.  It would still sound good.  I heard bigger differences when we changed speakers, but I couldn't hear any meaningful improvement with cables. And I would never pay more for a cable than I did for speakers!

I'm not trying to ream anyone a new asshole here, (just giving audiojerry a hard time, mostly! )  I just think it's too easy to get carried away with this stuff.  It's kinda like walking around with microscopes taped to your eyeballs.  What we really SHOULD be doing is bitching at the record labels about making more natural-sounding recordings with less close-miking techniques.  Don't gate out every background noise.  Use less compression. Don't EQ the drums so much.  The recordings are what really matter, less so what we're using to play them on.  Not surprisingly, the records I always thought had a good recording back when I had compartively crappy equipment have still shown themselves to be good now that I have comparatively better gear.  You can get the notion of recording quality even through a cheap boombox.  Great music is more powerful than any bit of electronic gadgets you can come up with - it will bore through cheap equipment like a blind mole and still move you.  Obviously it's even better if the playback chain sounds great!  But after while you've gotta ask yourself, what's the point in listening with an "ear loupe"?

[DVV]

Sure I believe it.  These guys know their electronics very well.  But what I don't believe is that an infinitesimal improvement in electrical performance, that you have to sit around and concentrate on to hear means jack squat in the larger scheme. Nor do I believe that a 5% improvement is worth an ungodly large price markup, as is the case with most of these $300+ cables.  A lot of folks are laughing all the way to the bank I am sure.

Sooo....the physics of electronics pertain ONLY when listening to lite jazz?  If you put on a rock CD magically these factors of capacitance, inductance and resistance etc. just fly right out the window? Hmmm, well that is VERY interesting!  Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy is it not?  You can only hear minute differences in music you LIKE? Boy, could that possibly mean that it's the MUSIC that matters, not the equipment?   Put on a Limp Bizkit record in the most expensive, technically perfect system ever built and I will still hate it.  Jerry didn't like the Cathedral track I played him because he doesn't like the music, so why should he even care about looking for differences?  Who could blame him?  Likewise I could not much care if a guy going "tzz" sounded like he was 4 feet or 3 feet to the left of me.

Nate, for the above paragraph, I hereby formally invite you to meet and we can cut our fingers to join our blood and be blood brothers. Nothing less will do.

Finally, FINALLY somebody who is not me said it. I am sick and tired of audio vendours and manufacturers and exhibitors all playing light jazz and maybe, just maybe, some sedate chamber music.

But Nate, have you guessed yet why is that?

Because how else can you peddle a teeny-weeny 1.3489 W per side SET amp to the incredibly stupid masses willing to pay for it? Put on anything, ANYTHING a little more dynamic on anything but an exceptionally efficient speaker and that thing dies on you there and then, flattens it out all even like a sledge hammer.

A month ago, we had an audio show in Belgrade. I went there with a vengeance, with just one CD - The Blue Man Group Audio. Oh boy, you should have seen the sour faces when playing song No.5, "Rods and Cones". 95+% of audio exhibited there, by VERY famous names, just about dropped dead at anything but whisper loud. And some of the geeks there used 92 dB/1W/1m speakers with 8W per side tube amps.

The upshot is that the best sound I heard there came from an inexpensive system, consisting of really smal Acoustic Energy speakers, driven by a locally made 60W per side tube job. Now, there's a system I'd buy straight off, it had life, energy, passion, I had every reason i can think of to sit there and enjoy it.

Oh yeah, and it did light jazz just fine, too.

If you claim to be able to hear differences in cables then it is fair to assume that you will also be able to hear if said cable is connected to a switchbox or not, right? Or that cable A still sounds different than cable B when you factor in the tone of the switchbox.  Likewise I would imagine that you would be able to hear the difference if a single resistor or capacitor was swapped out in the component.  If a two foot stretch of copper is auidbly different than another two foot stretch of copper, then you're asking me to believe you could hear any number of vanishingly small changes in the entire playback chain.  

But I cannot deny with any certainty what anyone claims they can or cannot hear, I just find it a bit silly to say you CAN hear a difference between A and B but just by themselves, but NOT if factor C is involved.  If a switchbox is going to be so awfully corrupting to the sound then wouldn't each inch of wire also make a difference?  Could you hear the difference between an 8 foot and a 16 foot cable?  There's probably enough metal in the 16 footer to account for what's in the switchbox.

Sitting around and listening to "differences" wether real or imagined, is largely a waste of time in my opinion.  If you don't like what you're listening to in the first place then all the rest is pointless.  If a person is only playing a certain CD to hear special effects or to analyze how each little sound byte is rendered by their system, that to me sounds about as much fun as watching paint dry.  I think disillusionment with a particular album's music over time gives rise to this analytical nonsense.  Obviously the song is no longer moving your emotions if you're listening for the half a millisecond attack of the guitar string or whatever.

Listen, Nate, forget the finger cutting, you have just been promoted to blood and soul brother anyway. A few more clips like these and I'll start sending you beer money.

Jerry's setup always sounded great each time I heard it because of macro differences; it's all good gear.  I couldn't really care less wether ACME or Furshlugginer Brand cables were used.  It would still sound good.  I heard bigger differences when we changed speakers, but I couldn't hear any meaningful improvement with cables. And I would never pay more for a cable than I did for speakers!

I'm not trying to ream anyone a new asshole here, (just giving audiojerry a hard time, mostly! )  I just think it's too easy to get carried away with this stuff.  It's kinda like walking around with microscopes taped to your eyeballs.  What we really SHOULD be doing is bitching at the record labels about making more natural-sounding recordings with less close-miking techniques.  Don't gate out every background noise.  Use less compression. Don't EQ the drums so much.  The recordings are what really matter, less so what we're using to play them on.  Not surprisingly, the records I always thought had a good recording back when I had compartively crappy equipment have still shown themselves to be good now that I have comparatively better gear.  You can get the notion of recording quality even through a cheap boombox.  Great music is more powerful than any bit of electronic gadgets you can come up with - it will bore through cheap equipment like a blind mole and still move you.  Obviously it's even better if the playback chain sounds great!  But after while you've gotta ask yourself, what's the point in listening with an "ear loupe"?

Sonny, you're too good to be true, heck, you're too good to be natural. Now, THAT'S what James Bongiorno had in mind two years ago in that interview he gave me, when he said we weren't getting real answers because we weren't asking real questions.

Nate just asked them above - thank you from my heart, Nate. Those are the same questions I have been asking for years, and was always told I had to get to the "essence of the matter", whatever the hell that means.

I'm starting a new thread.

Cheers,
DVV

[nathanm]

Glad you liked my overblown tirade DVV, I thought for sure I was gonna get my ass handed to me by someone after that one!  Blood brothers eh?  I'll have to think about that.  You don't have any communicable diseases do you?

I freely admit I've never been to any audio shows so far, but if jazz is what they are playing as demo tracks my guess is that this type of music is chosen for the  "HiFi" EQ character to it.  (lots of bass and treble, scooped out mids) It's relatively sparse, often with each performer doing a solo over the swishy drum groove, so there isn't a lot of "density" in the sound.  Tonally there's the high treble of the cymbals and the deep bass of the...uh, bass. So they like to promote the frequency extremes.  It's a nice-sounding music that isn't too 'stressful' and usually sounds clear.  I dunno, that's my guess.  But notice how they always play great recordings as demos?  Nobody is promoting a piece of gear that makes mediocre to crappy music sound great!  Such gear exists, but they don't come right out and say it.  That's why I don't buy into the idea of total transparency and neutrality.  It assumes the impossible; that what was recorded will be conveyed as the band intended equally well on millions of people's home stereos.  If the kick drum was recorded conservatively so it didn't peg the meters but when I play it back my system is jucing the bass, I don't see the sin in that. (what crappy grammar!)

I've really gotta hear that Blue Man CD.  Audiojerry mentioned it as well.  I've never seen one of their performances, but I do know that people making a lot of acoustic racket in the real world just doesn't have the impact when played on a system.  Still, it is almost a miracle that we can get as close as we do.  There's those Japanese drummer folks that come to mind; don't they wack some 10' diameter drum?  Now how can you expect the pulse of a physical object that big to be transduced through a 1" diaphragm microphone into millivolts and eventually get pumped out through a 12" woofer!?  Seems impossible, yet we do get close.  I always think about large scale fireworks and what they sound like at close range...there's a sound that no stereo in the world could produce! Talk about transient power!  Damn! Okay, now I'm babbling...

[nathanm]

To clarify the bit about a guying going "tzz": that's what Jerry and I listened to.  There's this song (who, I dunno) that has a part where the vocalist makes a hi-hat noise with his mouth and Jerry was pointing out the sound of that (and other details) were what I should be listening for.  Just thought I'd clear that inside joke up a bit!

[DVV]

Glad you liked my overblown tirade DVV, I thought for sure I was gonna get my ass handed to me by someone after that one!  Blood brothers eh?  I'll have to think about that.  You don't have any communicable diseases do you?

Other than intelligence, you mean?  Not that I know of, unless you count my addiction to Tabasco, watermelons and tomatoes as such.

Cheers,
DVV

[DVV]

To clarify the bit about a guying going "tzz": that's what Jerry and I listened to.  There's this song (who, I dunno) that has a part where the vocalist makes a hi-hat noise with his mouth and Jerry was pointing out the sound of that (and other details) were what I should be listening for.  Just thought I'd clear that inside joke up a bit!

As a passionate devil's advocate, I have to defend Jerry on this charge.

If the "tzz" refers to brushes, Jerry rightly pointed them out, as they are extremely hard to reproduce faithfully. They, piano and trumpet are the worst cases for accurate reproduction, disregarding for the moment the problem of bass as caused by small driver cones with a maximum excurions or +/- 0.1 mm (But mamma! Dey look sexy in dat yella woven fibre! Dig da fibre, dog!).

You really should be more attentive during lessons, Nate.

Cheers,
DVV

[nathanm]

I can buy that.  But in this case we were comparing a component that was transmitting digital data only.  The "tzz" sounded swell with both Jerry's cable and my cheaper-but-still-overpriced Homegrown Audio silver lace interconnect, even though to Jerry mine lacked resolution and soundstage. (something I could only identify with an instant switchover if at all, not a 2 minute cable swap)  Now here's something that could be measured could it not?  Couldn't we play 10 seconds of the song through one cable and then through the other and compare bit for bit the resulting data?  If there are differences between the two I could see that being responsible for what Jerry heard, but if they are bit for bit copies then the cable makes no difference if you ask me!

To me the speaker's ability to go "tzz" is more critical than to transmit "tzz" as 00101001001001 etc.  Just my non-techy opinion.  Jerry's system also has the cozy basement vibe going for it.  It's like a little hunting lodge down there.  To me a quiet, small, absorptive room allows you to hear "tzz" more intimately than in a big live area, but yes, surely the gear is a factor.  Then again, maybe the "tzz" didn't make it unscathed through the microphone and preamp? No, more likely the "tzz" was given extra tzzin' goodness thanks to microphone coloration.  Oh yes folks, they add EQ to your precious recordings, like it or not.

As I said, everything about Jerry's system is better than mine.  The difference is that I am still not happy with mine whereas he already has great sound and has moved on to the fine details.  Personally I hope I never make it that far!  I just want a huge, enveloping soundstage (larger than life, not accurate!), killer bass impact and loud albeit non-fatiguing SPL.  Then I don't wanna buy anything else unless it blows up!  Most of that will come with acoustic privacy, the rest with more damn expensive gear!

I guess feel the same way about the inner harmonics of distorted guitar tone.  The system has to get that right too or I'm not happy!  That's what audiophiles basically do; concentrate and obsess about very small things.  I guess that's what makes it an ongoing hobby instead of a means to and end. *sigh*

[DVV]

In a nutshell, Nate, any and every cable used becomes a part of the system. Therefore, it will imprint its own sonic signature on the overall sound, no matter how good, costly, short, or whatever else. The whole trick is for that signature to be as small as possible.

You know, when making audio, the really hard part is defining the component outlay. This can make a surprisingly large difference in sound by outlay only, same board, same dimensions, just how you put them together.

Often, we are reduced to really fine differences.

Cheers,
DVV

[Tyson]

Nate, for a big sound, check out maggies or apogees - definitely larger than life sounding.  Won't play real loud though, and they need a sub for full bass impact, but I haven't heard any other speakers that sound "bigger".  Being a line source and a bipolar radiator will give you a larger than life sound.

Now, if you want big sound and slammin' dynamics, that's gonna cost you. . . I know the RM-40's can give most of it too you, and the RM-X is probably even better, or you might try the excelleray - all big speakers, with large ammounts of radiating area and all above average efficiency.  A Dunlavy SC-V will also get you there also.

[nathanm]

Nate, for a big sound, check out maggies or apogees - definitely larger than life sounding.  Won't play real loud though, and they need a sub for full bass impact, but I haven't heard any other speakers that sound "bigger".  Being a line source and a bipolar radiator will give you a larger than life sound.

Now, if you want big sound and slammin' dynamics, that's gonna cost you. . . I know the RM-40's can give most of it too you, and the RM-X is probably even better, or you might try the excelleray - all big speakers, with large ammounts of radiating area and all above average efficiency.  A Dunlavy SC-V will also get you there also.

That's the thing I notice most about different systems, the intangible "size" of the sound coming out of the speakers.  Placement and room size makes a difference I've noticed but it just seems that all other factors aside, small speakers can't make big sound.  My goal is definitely a zero WAF factor, imposing mammoth of a speaker.  (But I'm torn cause I also like the single full range driver concept.)  In a room just for the rig you don't really care if it dominates the room or not!  The VMPS stuff seems nice, never heard 'em, and perhaps a bit narrow.  If the RMX were anywhere near what I could afford I'm sure they'd be on my shortlist.  But to spend 10 grand on a speaker while still living in an apartment would be absolutely ridiculous.  For now I've picked up a used pair of Norh 6.6s.  At least I got the 'darth vader' finish I like, and the wicked looking cabinet! Heh!

[DVV]

Nate, for a big sound, check out maggies or apogees - definitely larger than life sounding.  Won't play real loud though, and they need a sub for full bass impact, but I haven't heard any other speakers that sound "bigger".  Being a line source and a bipolar radiator will give you a larger than life sound.

Now, if you want big sound and slammin' dynamics, that's gonna cost you. . . I know the RM-40's can give most of it too you, and the RM-X is probably even better, or you might try the excelleray - all big speakers, with large ammounts of radiating area and all above average efficiency.  A Dunlavy SC-V will also get you there also.

That's the thing I notice most about different systems, the intangible "size" of the sound coming out of the speakers.  Placement and room size makes a difference I've noticed but it just seems that all other factors aside, small speakers can't make big sound. ...

Depends how you define "small". If you refer to mini, micro speakers, where some misbegotten son of a donkey tries to get 40 Hz bass from 0.1 cubic foot enclosure, I agree with you completely.

By some criteria, my own 1041 monitors (app. 27.6x15.8x13 inches) could be called small, though at some 61 lbs they are hardly light. Yet with any amount of power over a few milliwatts, they do sound big, far bigger than their actual size, which is really not small at all.

Yet they cannot compare in sheer size to Magneplanars, Apogees, and such like, and while they are not point source (as no dynamic speaker can ever really be, maybe close, but never quite), they will hold their ground against even such revered names. Factor in the price, in my case $1,200 per pair, and you have the deal of a lifetime.

Darn it, those B&M Acoustics guys really didn't have to go out of business.

Cheers,
DVV