[bigshot]

A friend of mine designs and builds high end sound systems for live venues. He was doing a big show at an outdoor arena that was over 100 miles out of town. As he was setting up, he realized that one run of his speaker wire was missing. He had forgotten to load it in the truck. He sent his assistant to the local Home Depot and told him to buy a whole roll of lamp cord and a big pile of duct tape. He ran the lamp cord from his mixing booth to the stage and taped it down with duct tape because he didn't have the mats to cover the cabling on one side. So one side was his industrial grade speaker cabling, and the other was the stuff on your table lamp at home. When he went to set up his EQ, he was expecting to have to compensate for the crappy cabling. But lo and behold, both sides performed the same. He wouldn't use lamp cord if he didn't have to, but not for sound reasons... rather because it's harder to cover up so people don't trip over it.

 

[drez]

Quote:

It isn't a gross simplification. It's the facts based on the application. For the purposes of playing back music in a home setting, none of that matters. If you have to run cable from one end of the Hollywood Bowl to the other, you might need to consider how you go about doing that. But running a cable from CD player to amp and from amp to speakers on the other side of the living room, it makes no difference whatsoever.
 
Have you tested the line out of an iPod against the output of your DAC? I compared my iPod playing an AIFF file to a well regarded, quite expensive SACD player playing the original CD. Once I had balanced the levels the two sounded identical. I haven't tested against a standalone DAC myself. Feel free to try it.It takes a bit of work to balance the levels, but I bet you'll find the same thing I did.
 
You don't know until you've done the test yourself. I have done the test. I know.

 
Well I don't have a LOD made for my ipod yet, nor knowledge of how to match the line levels.  However with my DAC's both are able to be configured to have the same gain and output voltage, and they do not sound the same, but this could be because one or the other is designed to be coloured.  Possibly something like a Rein X-DAC or Benchmark DAC-1, or Grace M903 would be more difficult to tell apart as they are designed to be transparent.  I should note that my impressions are sighted, so you can feel free to dismiss them, but for my own decision making I consider them adequate.  If I had a chance to compare an ipod line out to any other [neutral] source I could very well come to the same conclusion, but given my subjective, sighted experience with audio gear I would find it hard to believe at this point, but that is just my opinion at this point.

 

[germanium]

Quote:

 
The main difference between live sound and the sound of my stereo is the effect of the hall on the sound. Getting even remotely close to what it sounds like in a concert hall full of people is very difficult to pull off, even with a very good 5:1 system. If I was going to go about trying to replicate that, I would be focusing on the acoustics of the room my speakers are in and the arrangement and balance of the surround speakers. Then I'd try to find a decent synthetic hall ambience... It wouldn't be easy by any means.
 
Using interconnects and op amp modifications to try to recreate live sound would be like trying to fly to the moon by putting a saddle on a mosquito.

 
Note I have not changed any opamps as I already knew that was not the answer as I 've been down that road before. Interconnect are not the answer in my situation either as my output impedance is sufficiently low to make it a non factor.  D.C. coupling & power supply cap mods were my answer. No need for artificial ambience here as ambience retreaval is supurb here with out the adding anything artificial. Recordings where there is natural ambiance sounds very wet with ambience already to the point of being soaked.

 

[Magick Man]

The main difference between live sound and the sound of my stereo is the effect of the hall on the sound. Getting even remotely close to what it sounds like in a concert hall full of people is very difficult to pull off, even with a very good 5:1 system. If I was going to go about trying to replicate that, I would be focusing on the acoustics of the room my speakers are in and the arrangement and balance of the surround speakers. Then I'd try to find a decent synthetic hall ambience... It wouldn't be easy by any means.

Using interconnects and op amp modifications to try to recreate live sound would be like trying to fly to the moon by putting a saddle on a mosquito.

Yeah, the room treatments alone would be very expensive, or the room would have to be built from scratch with just this in mind (even more expensive). I know a guy who did this, a very wealthy attorney. He had the room designed for his audio system, a custom Infinite Wisdom setup. It's better than anything else I've ever heard in my life. With certain recordings you can move around the room and actually hear different aspects of the performance, just as if you were there. It's mind-blowing, however, even this $500k setup has its limitations. Those are mostly related to the recordings themselves, extreme resolution has its drawbacks.

 

[bigshot]

However with my DAC's both are able to be configured to have the same gain and output voltage, and they do not sound the same, but this could be because one or the other is designed to be coloured.

Can you still get your money back on the one with the nonstandard response curve? If so, I would do that while you still can if I was you. A DAC is a lousy place to hardwire tone control settings.

 

[bigshot]

No need for artificial ambience here as ambience retreaval is supurb here with out the adding anything artificial. Recordings where there is natural ambiance sounds very wet with ambience already to the point of being soaked.

Are you running a 5:1 or 7:1 system? You must be doing multichannel to be able to get a natural sounding hall ambience. How big is your room? It can't be too big with smallish speakers like that. How have you managed the correct meshing of the surround channels? How do you prevent reflection? Are all four (or six) speakers the same make and model?

I'm interested, because I have a really good two channel setup, but I haven't been able to come up with a fully satisfactory surround setup. I get an inkling of what's possible with the reproduction of hall ambiences, but it isn't consistent from recording to recording. Too many multichannel mixes treat the rears like another set of mains... I don't want the guitar solo behind me, dammit!

 

[bigshot]

It's mind-blowing, however, even this $500k setup has its limitations. Those are mostly related to the recordings themselves, extreme resolution has its drawbacks.

It isn't so much a matter of resolution, it's getting the precise balance and phase between channels to get the whole thing to mesh into a solid grid. I've found that every speaker you add to a system squares the difficulty in getting it all to mesh properly. Inconsistent and sloppy surround mixes compound the problem.

I have a few classical music and opera blurays with 5:1 sound that work very well. You can really feel the space and get a sense of the spread in front of you and how it relates To the hall around you. But most movies either just put chirping birds or walla back there or mickey mouse the hell out of it with stuff flying all around. I recently saw Yellow Submarine on bluray and the disk sounded great but the surround mix was way overdone.

 

[germanium]

Quote:

Are you running a 5:1 or 7:1 system? You must be doing multichannel to be able to get a natural sounding hall ambience. How big is your room? It can't be too big with smallish speakers like that. How have you managed the correct meshing of the surround channels? How do you prevent reflection? Are all four (or six) speakers the same make and model?
I'm interested, because I have a really good two channel setup, but I haven't been able to come up with a fully satisfactory surround setup. I get an inkling of what's possible with the reproduction of hall ambiences, but it isn't consistent from recording to recording. Too many multichannel mixes treat the rears like another set of mains... I don't want the guitar solo behind me, dammit!

 
I'm using only stereo  It really depends on how it is miked as to whether sounds like it's coming from all around or just on the frontal plane. With miking that capture interchannel phase differences the ambience can come from all sides & so can instruments. Blumlien miking is incredible for this trait (surround from only 2 speakers without artificial enhancement). 

 

[mikeaj]

Seems like I haven't visited this thread for too long, so I'm late.
 
Quote:

One of these days, I'm going to have to fix that wiki page..sigh.. 

 
As I'm sure you're well aware, it's not only on wikipedia.  I've seen it many other places and heard about it several times in real life, so if it's a misconception, it's pretty pervasive.  The problem is that I'm clueless on EMC, and so are most people, unless they work on very specific things.  On the flip side, I've heard from one guy that this makes consulting on EMC problems somewhat lucrative.
 
I'm not particularly convinced that uncontrolled current return paths, loop areas, etc. will make a difference in practice for most unbalanced audio systems (and particularly for headphone systems, which operate with generally shorter cables, lower power, etc.), which is why everybody including the designers and consumers can generally afford to be lazy or ignorant on this issue.  To be honest, most consumers are probably better off not worrying and assuming everything will be fine, since it should except in the fringe cases.
 
Broad oversimplifications are not good science, I'll concede.  We should be more careful.

 

[bigshot]

I'm using only stereo  It really depends on how it is miked as to whether sounds like it's coming from all around or just on the frontal plane.

Your listening room is fairly small? I know what you're talking about. A good two channel system should be able to do that. Getting the full hall ambience of a live performance is a little different sort of a trick. I'm trying to pull that off, but it's complicated. My problem is that my room doubles as a screening room, so the main listening position has to be close to the rear of the room. The rear channels aren't far enough away, and they're smaller than the mains. It gives a good effect for movies, but it isn't easy to create a multichannel ambience with them. I found a good Yamaha receiver that has decent synthetic ambiences, so I'm a little closer. It still sounds better than any theater sound I've ever heard... Except for one pesky narrow high frequency spike that I can't seem to pinpoint. I need my soundmixer friend's help for that.

 

[kiteki]

 
A scientific standard is one that is invariant of the conditions.
 
ps..do you really believe that poorly designed "tests" which confirm preconceived notions is a "scientific standard"?  Your "bar" is far lower than mine.
 

 
Yes, I think this a key point, a lot of the tests are fishy, dissecting them is the scientific standard.
 
 

So good engineering should hang on being verified by DBT?  Do you really thin that is reasonable or even beneficial to the progress of audio technology?

If they're properly conducted and verified, yes I do.

 
He meant, should engineering wait for everything to be verified by DBT?  In some cases the evidence just isn't there yet.  You can't spend your life waiting for everything to be proven.
 
There's a constant flux of theories and prove/disprove, so a lot of people opt for overkill and achieve peace of mind like that, especially in audio since overkill isn't very expensive.
 
 

I don't think the problem is expectation bias. I think the problem is ego. You could do a million perfectly handled scientific tests and it wouldn't please some people, because they have so much invested in their anecdotal, purely subjective opinion that they can't stand being wrong.

I've seen a pattern. The people who cling to the fairy tales the hardest and get the maddest if someone points out their errors are the folks for whom audiophilia isn't a way to listen to music, but rather a vehicle for self pride. No amount of money is too much, because they aren't spending money on electronics and wires- they're spending it on building themselves up. What they really want is for everyone t be impressed by their accomplishment.

 
You keep attacking marketing, audio salesmen and rich people.  I've told you before this is seperate from audio science, you intertwine them like it's the very essence of the conversation.  Just because audio salesmen sharks and high profit cuts exist, it doesn't suddenly invalidate the technology.  It's like saying a certain $600 component is an empty "vehicle for self pride" with no significant sonic differences, so this suddenly necessitates that all components of the same nature should be set on fire.
 
 

Originally Posted by jnjn /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Discuss technical issues if you can.  I note you did not, but rather you attack the individual.
 
I've got news for you.  I'm not your enemy.  Your incomplete understanding of the scientific method, you lack of understanding of where all the audio testing fails that method, and your inability to realize that.... is.
 
jnjn

 
Yes, this part.
 
 

The people who cling to the fairy tales the hardest and get the maddest if someone points out their errors are the folks for whom audiophilia isn't a way to listen to music, but rather a vehicle for self pride.

 
I see far too many objective people cling desperately to their unsupported or inaccurate understandings, and resort instead to personal attacks like the ego card just exercised.
 
cheers, jnjn

 
Indeed some of the objectivists seem to cling very hard to their totality of instrumentation, data and evidence.  Sometimes it feels like, if the evidence or data isn't there, it just doesn't exist.  I wouldn't really call that objectivism at all, it's more like some kind of skepticism and strict adherence to raw data, then to enhance this belief system, the raw data is crystallized to levels beyond what it ever meant in reality.  So it's not objectivism and science, it's skepticism and raw data crystallization.  Then, contrary to what bigshot was saying, it feels like they want to polish their system like a pride of science, well sometimes they are polishing synthetic quartz and not real diamonds.
 
 

Unfortunately, I see that on both sides of the argument.

A person who is investing his self worth in a stereo system is going to have much more reason to defend non-existent differences between cables or CD players.

 
I'll just admit you could be right here and a lot of these people could exist, which invest into expensive audio only to serve as a pretty mirror to look at, but I still don't this should be intertwined with whether the components have real differences or not, in some cases they do, in some cases not.
 
 

The things that *really* matter... speaker design, equalization and room treatment seldom get discussed, and when they do, it's either with vomiting out scientific cut and paste, or in general vagueries that don't help anyone.

I read person after person saying, "room treatment is important" (myself included) but I have yet to see anyone post that has a general grasp of the subject (myself included again).

 
You have personally decided that speaker design, equalizers and room treatment is what matters.  First speaker listeners are a minority on this forum, so you should probably ask some questions here - http://www.stereophile.com/forum.  Second equalizers and room treatment are only tweaking the end signal.  A lot of people are devoted to improving the signal itself, which makes sense.
 
 

It's a fact that differences under ideal circumstances (that is, on the bench) tend to be smaller than under actual application.

 
That's not a fact.
 
 
Quote:

 
[/]
The real problems arise with humans , humans are relatively crap at distinguishing small differences in signals and the human short term audio memory is very short compared to visual memory. Echoic memory is a few 100 ms and short term store is a few seconds, the longer term auditory storage (which allows us to recognize our mothers voice on the phone or Von Karajan vs Solti) does not have the same characteristics, though it is capable of storing quite fine discriminations for voices , a useful evolutionary thing. Consequently a 5 minute gap for a cable swap is going to hide all but the grossest of differences.

 
In other words, the ultra short term audio memory is more accurate with 0.1dB shifts in FR, and the long term audio memory is more accurate at Von Karajan versus Solti.  I see your point relative to cables, since they are passive components with a simple task, however the more intricate and complicated electronics could start to have subtle character differences, which is why certain companies spend so much time listening to electronics in x-fold different combinations.
 
This is just an example, I'm not supporting the Colorfly C4, but I don't think they - or anyone else - is actually expecting the Cirrus Logic CS4398, various capacitor choices, precision clock, and AD823 differences in sound to show up in frequency response, or pretty much anything visible in RMAA, imho.
 
 

 
start using controls,level matching, Blinding in your listening evaluations - then report back to us what you "really" perceive

 
I agree there is an acute lack of blind listening evaluation.
 
 

 
Have you tested the line out of an iPod against the output of your DAC? I compared my iPod playing an AIFF file to a well regarded, quite expensive SACD player playing the original CD. Once I had balanced the levels the two sounded identical. I haven't tested against a standalone DAC myself. Feel free to try it.It takes a bit of work to balance the levels, but I bet you'll find the same thing I did.
 
You don't know until you've done the test yourself. I have done the test. I know.

 
I have done tests like that a lot, and there is definitely a difference.
 
 

A friend of mine designs and builds high end sound systems for live venues. He was doing a big show at an outdoor arena that was over 100 miles out of town. As he was setting up, he realized that one run of his speaker wire was missing. He had forgotten to load it in the truck. He sent his assistant to the local Home Depot and told him to buy a whole roll of lamp cord and a big pile of duct tape. He ran the lamp cord from his mixing booth to the stage and taped it down with duct tape because he didn't have the mats to cover the cabling on one side. So one side was his industrial grade speaker cabling, and the other was the stuff on your table lamp at home. When he went to set up his EQ, he was expecting to have to compensate for the crappy cabling. But lo and behold, both sides performed the same. He wouldn't use lamp cord if he didn't have to, but not for sound reasons... rather because it's harder to cover up so people don't trip over it.

 
Look at post #1004.
 
A lot of people actually use CAT5E or lamp cord since "all wires sound the same".
 
If I didn't have a link to evidence that they actually sound / measure different, I'm sure most users in this thread would assert they sound the same - http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=14082&view=findpost&p=148578
 
It's a scientific system based on streamlining everything to the scope of which has been already evidenced.  With such a system, I imagine advancement to be extremely thin tailed.

 

[Chris J]

You may not care, but other people read threads to find useful information, not fighting between people. If you wish to engage in that, do it via PM. 

I agree with you, I am not interested in reading abusive posts and catty remarks.

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

Guys, I've deleted a few posts which were abusive. Science certainly doesn't back itself up with personal attacks and neither should any of you either.
 
The problem with these discussion is that most people aren't here to attempt to learn anything new and develop a deeper understanding, but only to argue in whatever way they can that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It'd be more useful if people approached the discussion of science in the first way, as the purpose of it IS so that we gain a better understanding of our lives, the world and the universe around us, not fight people over beliefs.

I agree.  However, it appears you've deleted at least one of m's posts directed at me.  As far as I am concerned, he wrote what he saw, and went no further.  While my intent was not what he thought, he still had a valid opinion.  Until we know each other better, that's gonna happen.  No problem with the deletions of course, my posts as well..
 
jnjn

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

Seems like I haven't visited this thread for too long, so I'm late.
 
As I'm sure you're well aware, it's not only on wikipedia.  I've seen it many other places and heard about it several times in real life, so if it's a misconception, it's pretty pervasive.  The problem is that I'm clueless on EMC, and so are most people, unless they work on very specific things.  On the flip side, I've heard from one guy that this makes consulting on EMC problems somewhat lucrative.
 
I'm not particularly convinced that uncontrolled current return paths, loop areas, etc. will make a difference in practice for most unbalanced audio systems (and particularly for headphone systems, which operate with generally shorter cables, lower power, etc.), which is why everybody including the designers and consumers can generally afford to be lazy or ignorant on this issue.  To be honest, most consumers are probably better off not worrying and assuming everything will be fine, since it should except in the fringe cases.
 
Broad oversimplifications are not good science, I'll concede.  We should be more careful.

Sigh...Yes, I see lots of it everywhere.  The problem is that analytical solutions can get so difficult, that using them would mean nothing gets done..The approximations allow good work to be done, but many either didn't understand the tradeoffs, or were never told.  And yes, EMC consulting is very lucrative.  It's a young discipline, so the early on guys can really make a name and fees.
 
That's ok.  For the bulk of the equipment out there, it makes no difference.  I personally use off the shelf inexpensive stuff all unbalanced, as well as the free cords that come with the equipment.  If I come across an EMC based problem, I generally just reroute the cords.  My favorite of all time was running a 125 foot unbalanced pair of interconnects and wrapping them around the extension cord to remove hum and noise being picked up in the building.  Even the EMC consultant that gave a presentation here didn't think that would work...
 
In the high end audio world, the desire to maintain some semblance of soundstage imaging coupled with the boutique power amplifiers/sources conspires to give owners systems which are interconnect and power cord sensitive..The mainstream masses like us?  When a manu builds 100 thousand units, they tend to iron out the problems first.
 
jnjn

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

 
In the high end audio world, the desire to maintain some semblance of soundstage imaging coupled with the boutique power amplifiers/sources conspires to give owners systems which are interconnect and power cord sensitive..The mainstream masses like us?  When a manu builds 100 thousand units, they tend to iron out the problems first.
 
jnjn

 
For example,
 
I used to own a pair of mono Sonic Frontiers Power Amplifiers with 3 pin power cords.
When used straight out of the box the system had a very loud, noisy 60 Hz based hum.
If I remember correctly the product was CSA approved.
I had to re-wire the chassis ground wiring in the power amps to eliminate the hum.
No I didn't cut the ground pin off the the power cords.
 
Anyway, I could not imagine a mainstream audio company releasing a product like that.