[floresjc]

And keep in mind, he didn't want the whole 200 ft roll, he wanted just enough cabling to do the 5.1, which having seen his house, he probably could have done with under 100 ft.

[cacophony777]

Well it anecdotal and not double blind, but....

A number of years ago a co-worker was "discussing" (okay, arguing) with me that cables didn't make a difference.  I made up a set of Kimber 8TCs and asked him to try them.  A couple of days later he came to me and basically said "Holy Shit!"  Apparently there was enough of a difference for him to make that proclamation, so he paid me for the wires (I think I sold them to him at cost) and walked away convinced.

Sounds like it's not blind at all 

[floresjc]

Hello

Its because in the recording studio, its the instruments that manufacture the sound, everything
else captures it.

I think Jim's point is that if you don't capture the instrument in a realistic way, all the fancy source equipment in the world isn't going to fix it. And if its good enough for that task, its good enough for playback.

If the recording studio stuff "stinks" what good does it do to have an expensive uber quality source?

[werd]

I think Jim's point is that if you don't capture the instrument in a realistic way, all the fancy source equipment in the world isn't going to fix it. And if its good enough for that task, its good enough for playback.

If the recording studio stuff "stinks" what good does it do to have an expensive uber quality source?

I know and it will sound lousy through those great pair of speakers....

[floresjc]

I know and it will sound lousy through those great pair of speakers....

That doesn't make any sense.

But you still haven't answered the question. If the studios haven't bought into much of the audiophile marketing industry hype, then what purpose does it serve having a super high end source, or more relevantly, replacing the source first in a system upgrade?

Or more concisely, what practical purpose does it serve to have a playback source thats some multiplier better than the recording system?

Whether you have a bad recording or a good recording, its going to sound about as good as its going to get on some good speakers. The only thing a souped up source gives you is more shillness on a bad recording, and the extra resolution on a good recording won't matter because your speakers won't resolve it. Hence the balance. 

[wywires]

If the recording stinks the quality source will reveal all the flaws. Likewise if it's a great recording you will reveal the stellar performace, engineering, etc. and pass that information to your speakers. Assuming poor amplification doesn't fail to pass it through unfettered.

[floresjc]

If the recording stinks the quality source will reveal all the flaws. Likewise if it's a great recording you will reveal the stellar performace, engineering, etc. and pass that information to your speakers. Assuming poor amplification doesn't fail to pass it through unfettered.

Or the Pre, or the DAC or the speakers themselves can resolve it. Hooking the uber source up to my Rocket 760's is a tremendous waste of thousands of dollars, they couldn't show you any data you are paying for outside of what an el cheapo source woulda costed you. Now if you have some SoundScapes, then yah, bring on the Uber source. But if you have have SoundScape kind of scratch, then the uber source is a walk in the park.

[jsalk]

It looks like we have regressed back to the days of Stereo Review and Julian Hersch where conventional wisdom suggested that speakers should be at least 50% of one's total stereo budget, all amplifiers sound the same, turntables and tonearms have no affect on sound. Seems clear there is an agenda going on here...just an observation.

No agenda here.  If someone feels a certain cable makes a difference, I have no problem with that.  I'm not saying they don't.  All I'm saying is that I have no personal experience, nor have the blind tests I have conducted demonstrated, that there is a difference to be had.  So I can't very well tell someone to upgrade cables when I have nothing to base that recommendation on.

I am VERY certain people do hear a difference when upgrading cables.  The human brain is wired to produce that result.  But I have no evidence that cognitive dissonance is not totally responsible for that difference.  I have yet to see a single test where someone who did not know which cables were installed was able to correctly identify the "superior" cable with any degree of statistical significance.  If such tests exist, I would love to see the write-up.

I happen to use $2000 speaker cables (designed by Carl Smith who spent his entire career designing critical, high-performance testing cables for Bell Labs).  But I can't say they sound any better than cables I made from 12 gauge oxygen-free copper wire I purchased in bulk.

At one time I swore I heard an incredible difference when switching to Carl's cables.  But I expected to hear a difference.  So I conducted some blind tests and any differences in audio quality perceived by the participants was statistically insignificant.  My home brew cables got just as many #1 votes as Carl's cables.  The conclusion I was forced to draw was that his cables were certainly no worse than my home-brew cables, but more I could not say.  If a group of relatively experienced audiophiles are unable to identify a difference in a blind test, you would have a hard time coming to the conclusion that the cables made a difference.

Two years ago at Rocky Mountain Audiofest, we conducted another blind test with a manufacturer of high-end cables.  This time, we used 16 gauge Radio Shack hook-up wire as a control.  Even though there should have been a significant difference and representatives of the cable company should have known what to listen for, they were no better able to identify their cables than we were. After about six tests, both cables received about 50% of the #1 votes. 

Again, that does not mean their cables were not better (one would think they would be), but blind tests were not able to confirm any difference.  The only conclusion we could reach after that test was that their $1500 cables were no worse than 16 gauge Radio Shack hook-up wire. How could we say more?

I am not here to promote any agenda.  I would love nothing more than to be able to identify cables that made a significant sonic difference.  But at this point, I simply can't.  If others are confident cables do make a difference, I have no argument with that. I have never pretended to have all the answers.   I am not here to challenge or otherwise influence any one's beliefs, only to convey my personal experience (as flawed as some may consider that to be). And I remain totally open to new discoveries that fly in the face of my current thinking.  That is the way we learn.

Isn't this fun!

- Jim

[rajacat]

floresjc,

Why do you use fancy BJC for your speaker cable when ordinary lamp cord is just as good for less money? Also why buy AVA amps when you could get a high powered cheap mass market receiver that would do the job? BTW don't most modern receivers have very good specs?

-Roy

[eclein]

Isn't this fun!

- Jim

I'm having a Blast!!!! But, hey your results may vary!!

[floresjc]

floresjc,

Why do you use fancy BJC for your speaker cable when ordinary lamp cord is just as good for less money? Also why buy AVA amps when you could get a high powered cheap mass market receiver that would do the job? BTW don't most modern receivers have very good specs?

-Roy

I don't think BJC is all that fancy, its under 50 cents a foot shipped, made in America. A far cry from something like Kimber Cables or Monster. For comparison on the HDMI cable, a 6 ft length at Best Buy is $99, its like $5 at Blue Jeans. I went to Home Depot/Lowes (I actually go alot), and 12 gauge wire is not that much cheaper when I looked at the spool, something like 40 cents a foot with a clear jacket (no go with the wife there for the exposed portions). I also do an in-wall install, so I like the extra jacketing on the Belden. All in all, lamp cord and Belden wire are sitting right next to each other on the value curve, while Monster is a fair ways down the line in terms of marginal utility.


I chose to go with AVA due to several reasons. One is that I wanted to try separates, I figure with the foray into high end audio, I would leave myself room for upgrades of individual pieces if I so desired. Two, Frank has good prices for what he offers. I wasn't going to buy an 8 thousand dollar amp when he could build a good one for a thousand. Something like the Denon 4806 was $4-4.5k. My Outlaw 990 I bought used from another Salk member for like 300 bucks, so all told, I could get my custom installed theater electronics for less than 3K with a much more reliable upgrade path.

When I auditioned, I listened to the SongTowers at Swerdlow's house using lamp wire and like a 70wpc receiver he bought used. Sounded great. Same for when I visited Dennis Murphy's, he was using lamp cord and an AVA rebuild. 

[werd]

That doesn't make any sense.

But you still haven't answered the question. If the studios haven't bought into much of the audiophile marketing industry hype, then what purpose does it serve having a super high end source, or more relevantly, replacing the source first in a system upgrade?

Or more concisely, what practical purpose does it serve to have a playback source thats some multiplier better than the recording system?

Whether you have a bad recording or a good recording, its going to sound about as good as its going to get on some good speakers. The only thing a souped up source gives you is more shillness on a bad recording, and the extra resolution on a good recording won't matter because your speakers won't resolve it. Hence the balance.

I didnt realize there was question there, sorry. Just because you have a lousy recording that doesnt negate the importance of good TT or cd. Everything you hear from those speakers are result of that source. The source is where it all starts, it sets everything up. If you neglect this the only thing you will end up with is
something comparable to a ghetto box.... hehe and even worse on bad recordings. 

Shillness isnt always the result of a bad recording but more often a bad source and its polutions of high freq noise infecting your tunes off cd. Good cabling and conditioning stategy is as important as the source itself.
There is no doubt that amplification and speakers crossovers pick up this noise. The only way to control this is by paying attention to quality cable runs and proper ac control. Its about the hardest thing to get right next to getting a decent TT setup right.

[Nuance]

floresjc,

Why do you use fancy BJC for your speaker cable when ordinary lamp cord is just as good for less money? Also why buy AVA amps when you could get a high powered cheap mass market receiver that would do the job? BTW don't most modern receivers have very good specs?

-Roy

Either you're being comical or you obviously haven't read the entire thread, because if you did you'd know that no one is saying those things don't make a difference.  You would also know those exact pieces of equipment DID makes a difference in floresjc's system.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were trying to be funny.

[kingdeezie]

In terms of accurate, I mean the ability of the source to read the source material.

An analog turntable is a nifty machine and is capable of making some good sounding music. But its crude and less accurate than a CD.

If I wanted you to map the terrain outside your house, say your walk or street, what do you think would be the better method? Taking a 2x4 and pushing it around like a mower and recording all the terrain data or flying a laser over the area and doing a scan? This is essentially the difference between a tonearm reading grooves and a CD laser reading a disc. Its like shooting fish in a barrel. There's a whole other argument about whether digital sampling is between the live event and the source material is a big factor, but thats outside the realm of this thread. Although you'd certainly have to question whether you take the most marvelous recording in the world and read it inaccurately enough, does it matter?

I have never said analog sounds bad, it does not. But a turntable is not a very accurate device compared to any modern digital system. There's more data lost in the best tonearm or moderately dusty vinyl than there is on a CD system.

I see what you are saying here, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

An LP and a CD are two different things, so using the analogy of a 2x4 versus a laser to map out the same terrain does not apply.

If what you are trying to say is that analog is more prone to performance issues related to external factors such as isolation, dust, static, etc, etc, etc; then I will agree with you there.

That makes modern digital equipment more efficient in design, not more accurate in its ability to reproduce music.

I guess at this point I am arguing rhetoric, but describing something as accurate in stereo terms means to me that it accurately portrays the music that is being played through it.

Its like looking at two different speakers.

One speaker could present a horrible load on any amplifier its attached to and be 84 DBs efficient. It might require significant amplification research and selection in order to get it to work its best.

The other speaker could be a 16 OHM benign load and be 103 DB efficient that could run on any amp in the world.

You wouldn't call the former speaker less accurate because it requires special consideration and effort; you would just call the later speaker more efficient.   

[werd]

Everybody just ignore Nuance....... not only is he a troll but he's a dumb one.......

[Russell Dawkins]

Strangely enough, after all this talk, I still think cacophony777 nailed it in the very first post as to percentages, if you allow the slight change of 3% for the CD transport/player/DAC instead of 0% for the transport.

CD player (0%)
DAC (3%)
Pre-amp (5%)
Amp (10%)
Interconnects (1%)
Speaker wire (1%)
Speakers (80%)

And what is "Shillness", by the way?

[floresjc]

A good source is desirable, so is good cables, and all that. Its just not limiting. Its kind of like a computer, the newest video game is going to smoke a graphics card and max it out, way before your CPU goes up in smoke. Thats not to say its not important to have a good CPU (you have to feed the graphics card you know), but the first thing to do to bump up performance is bump up the graphics card and the money should go there appropriately.

This really isn't rocket science (I know, my degree is in Rocket science). Look at any source component or amp you want. You are going to get number like .00003% THD or +-0.1dB or some really small error source from an input signal 10Hz - 20KHz. Your speakers are a wall compared to that. First off, I don't think there is a speaker out there that is +-3 db, let alone 1db to 10Hz. Most subs can't do that. So even before you get down to it, the electronics are putting out more than your speakers can readily replicate. Two, when you look at the "standard region" of 20Hz to 20KHz, speakers being +- 3dB is *much* bigger error than a piece of electrical gear running less than a dB margin of error. The error between two electronic components is virtually negligible compared to this 2dB chasm that exists betwee your woofer and the electronic signal.

The argument is not that electronics do not matter, they do, and they have their own sonic characteristics, they just aren't limiting. Your speaker is killing itself trying to keep up with +-1 dB at 20Hz (when its down 6dB or more) and you guys are talking about switching out components that measure virtually identical on this scale.

[werd]

Strangely enough, after all this talk, I still think cacophony777 nailed it in the very first post as to percentages, if you allow the slight change of 3% for the CD transport/player/DAC instead of 0% for the transport.

CD player (0%)
DAC (3%)
Pre-amp (5%)
Amp (10%)
Interconnects (1%)
Speaker wire (1%)
Speakers (80%)

And what is "Shillness", by the way?

you are about to find out...... 

[floresjc]

I see what you are saying here, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

An LP and a CD are two different things, so using the analogy of a 2x4 versus a laser to map out the same terrain does not apply.

If what you are trying to say is that analog is more prone to performance issues related to external factors such as isolation, dust, static, etc, etc, etc; then I will agree with you there.

That makes modern digital equipment more efficient in design, not more accurate in its ability to reproduce music.

I guess at this point I am arguing rhetoric, but describing something as accurate in stereo terms means to me that it accurately portrays the music that is being played through it.

Its like looking at two different speakers.

One speaker could present a horrible load on any amplifier its attached to and be 84 DBs efficient. It might require significant amplification research and selection in order to get it to work its best.

The other speaker could be a 16 OHM benign load and be 103 DB efficient that could run on any amp in the world.

You wouldn't call the former speaker less accurate because it requires special consideration and effort; you would just call the later speaker more efficient.

I don't think its quite like speakers. Your 84dB speaker is an HT3, and lets say Jim's HTS home theater speaker is the 103dB. One takes more power to run than the other, but the amps are the same technology, and the same physics happen, you just need more output in one amp than the other.

LP and CD technologies are totally different in mechanics. One is a friction based system, a needle running over a groove, and all the problems it entails. The other is a light reading a disc, and all the problems it entails. The LP is reading continuous data, if it mucks it up, it just distorts the sound wave it has read (say a piece of dirt got in the groove). The CD on the other hand is built to be hyper accurate, because it has to be. When you are reading discrete 1's and 0's you can't just make one a 2 and call it a day, it either drops it, or ECC's it.

The major difference between LP's and CD's is the initial transfer process. And its a well fought out battle, but irrelevant here. Some like the continuous analog recording, others say the digital sampling is fine, and it will forever be hashed out in cyberspace. But in terms of reading the data on the medium you buy, its no contest, a CD player is more accurate to whats on the medium. You may take issue with the medium itself, but again, thats a different battle. Just look at your wireless router, out of all the gazillion of digital packets that are sent and received its like one in every million or billion are errors or dropped. And thats on wifi with everything in the world being RF and hitting the 2.4Ghz band. If you looked at your hardwired data, its even better. Analog can't come close to that.

[cacophony777]

This really isn't rocket science (I know, my degree is in Rocket science). Look at any source component or amp you want. You are going to get number like .00003% THD or +-0.1dB or some really small error source from an input signal 10Hz - 20KHz. Your speakers are a wall compared to that. First off, I don't think there is a speaker out there that is +-3 db, let alone 1db to 10Hz. Most subs can't do that. So even before you get down to it, the electronics are putting out more than your speakers can readily replicate. Two, when you look at the "standard region" of 20Hz to 20KHz, speakers being +- 3dB is *much* bigger error than a piece of electrical gear running less than a dB margin of error. The error between two electronic components is virtually negligible compared to this 2dB chasm that exists betwee your woofer and the electronic signal.

Jim made a very similar point earlier in this thread so I guess great minds think alike!