Why pick on cables ? - Page 15  

Quote:

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7 


Are we talking about cable electrical quality attributes or how listeners perceive changes in sonic signature and imaging? What direct electrical measurement is associated in how large or deep you perceive a soundstage of a recording to be or instrument placement within it? You are trying to understand if perceived changes are real or not correct? Therefore you measure the output response directly. Electrical properties of cables are indeed well understood and so are many transducer output measurements. Forget that I am using a medical example. It is just a good vehicle to illustrate how vague and subtle changes are proven (or not most of the time). Science is science. This is a similar issue in my opinion.

We are talking about cable electrical quality attributes and how it affects listeners perceived changes in sonic signature and imaging.

The direct electrical measurements associated in how large or deep you perceive a soundstage of a recording to be or instrument placement within it, as far as the cable contribution is concerned, are the cable's electrical properties: it's impulse/frequency response, noise rejection, any non-linear contribution by it, among other well understood characteristics.

Outside of the cable? Well there is how the recording was captured and mastered, how many channels, room interactions, transducer and mic issues, amp contributions, cross-channel contributions, etc. all unrelated to your cable selection however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain 

Irrelevant - though there are interesting possibilities - first you have to show that any changes to the signal once in the system is responsible for that perception (rather than speaker placement and design, mic placement, stereo mixdown, etc.) 

But if the signal from one end of the cable measures the same as when it comes out the other end of the cable, then the cable has not affected the signal, and there is not a change as a result of the cable. That is something direct electrical measurement can show - is there a difference as a result of the cable. If there is none, you need to look elsewhere, by definition and function.

Exactly my point

Quote:

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7 

You guys win.
I will never participate in a discussion in this forum again.

I know the feeling. I hate leaving wrong information out there un-refuted though. Too many people seem to take that as a tacit approval, and then start recommending ridiculous things to unwary new buyers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7 

You guys win.
I will never participate in a discussion in this forum again.

... Dude, I'm not trying to upset you at all, or necessarily "win" a discussion. I personally can tell you that I've been shown wrong in this forum before, and feel grateful for learning something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7 


What direct electrical measurement is associated in how large or deep you perceive a soundstage of a recording to be or instrument placement within it?

That is a function of room acoustics and the microphone placement in the recording venue, and the room acoustics of the listening room and placement of the speakers in it. Inbetween recording venue and listening room is a straight line. Electronics conveys sound more or less faithfully, it doesn't govern the acoustics of the room the sound is captured or played back in.

Soundstage can be degraded with bad specs on channel separation though. But that is rarely a problem with modern electronics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7 

You guys win.
I will never participate in a discussion in this forum again.

have a beer.... chills.....and enjoy our cables :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvandyk 


You know, my buddy has a 500k rig. Wilson Alexandrias, and too much too mention. He also has a professional eq unit. I have forgotten the name. But when he puts that eq in the circuit it degrades the sound. He is convinced he will find the right settings one day?
As for digital eq, it removes resolution immediately when implemented. Turn down 500hz, it removes bits.

Depends on implementation. Say you have 24 bit files. If your equalizer has 32 or 64 bits for arithmetic, bits are likely not lost at that stage (unless going crazy with the settings.) It is possible to scale the output for optimum dynamic range at the output. If you have 24 bits, my best guess is that there is quite a bit of dynamic range there anyway.

As far as professional and competent eqs (digital or analog), one really needs to know how to use them...

Equalization doesn't degrade sound. It balances it and improves it. It works for cheap systems and expensive ones. An unbalanced response can cause frequency masking, sibilance, "veils" over the sound, "tubby" bass, harshness, clipping, overdriving, listening fatigue and a general lack of energy in the sound. Imbalances as low as 1 dB can make a difference.

When you look at a professional mixing board and see all those dials spread out in front of the engineer, those are equalization controls. Pros equalize. They know it's an important part of achieving the sound balance they are looking for. Serious audiophiles should balance their response too if they want to hear what the engineers intend. As for digital equalizers, they are more expensive and a little bit less intuitive to adjust. But they sound better and hold their settings better than analogue equalizers which can drift over time.

If you have a speaker system and you aren't equalizing them, you aren't getting the most out of your speakers. When you said that swapping cables made the biggest improvement in your speaker system in a decade, I knew you weren't equalizing, because EQ would improve the sound of your system by many many orders of magnitude greater than just swapping a wire.

And tell your friend that he can't depend on the automatic EQ settings generated by his unit with the little microphone. If he's spent that much money, he can afford to get someone to come over with a signal generator to do sweeps and set his curve for him. Any competent sound engineer should be able to calibrate it for him in half a day.

Equalization isn't about boosting or changing. It's about *calibrating* your system to match the system the sound mixers used to create the recording. Every recording studio equalizes the output of their studio monitors so the response is perfectly balanced from 20Hz to 20kHz. The speakers in your home are by definition not balanced. Every room and every speaker has a different response.Chaos. If you want to hear what the engineers intended, you have to calibrate your speakers to match theirs... a flat response.

If you don't equalize, I can guarantee you your system is already messing with the balance of the sound. You need to correct that. It doesn't matter if your speakers cost $100 or $10,000. EQ will improve the performance of any speaker.

I'm pretty sure that most digital EQs operate at 24 bit which is more than enough to provide the dynamic range needed.

http://www.dbxpro.com/iEQ31/

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvandyk 


I am not against eq, but I'd rather tackle sound issues without messing with the recording I'm listening to. But I also have a full range system, so I'm not looking to increase bass response etc..
Btw, my system is strictly pedestrian at maybe7k worth of gear and I listen to a lot of lossless audio on hard drives. The 24 bit recordings are nice, but I hear plenty of 16 bit that is just as good or better. As for digital, running WASAPI anyway and a passive preamp.

LOL! Pedestrian is a relative term. 7k does not sound pedestrian to me at all. You can still improve things with 16bits as long as there are no clippings/wrap-around in the arithmetic, and the outputs are properly scaled to the dynamic range of your DAC.

You should shot for equalizing issues and imperfections with your rig - which is at fault for messing with your recording...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvandyk 


Strictly your opinion of course.

I work in production sound as a producer and post production supervisor for TV and CD release. I sit at mixing boards and spend long nights in edit bays. My opinion is based on what I've learned from the people who engineer for a living.