[ginetto61]

1. Whether or not it's "just marketing" depends on which "audio designers" you're talking about, what product the part is in and who that product is aimed at.

Hi ! i am an avid reader of interviews with the designers of famous line preamps ... like John Curl, Nelson Pass, ecc. and of reviews of TOTL preamps ... those belonging for instance to the Stereophile Class A and similar. Taking for instance John Curl for its top preamp CTC Blowtorch he has selected and modified a mono stepped attenuator from TKD i think
https://www.remusic.it/The-Blowtorch-Preamp-95f1a700?MasterId=g1_547

For example, Penny & Giles rotary or linear pots are extremely common in high end Pro-Audio equipment for two reasons: Firstly, they are very robustly engineered. This is vital because the pots maybe adjusted dozens or many hundreds of times a day, pretty much every day for years and by people (engineers) who typically don't personally own the equipment and therefore may not be especially careful/gentle with it. And Secondly, they are very precisely engineered. They're very accurate with low noise/distortion, which is important because there can be several of them "in the chain" in series, starting with the the mic pre-amp pot virtually at the beginning of the chain, which could be amplified by as much as 1,000 times, by the end of the mastering process. In your case though (a consumer), it IS effectively "just marketing" because the pots are NOT going to be subject to anywhere near the sort of physical abuse they have to endure in a studio/pro-audio environment

the secret of good sound is indeed to keep noise and distortion low. Problem is to establish how much noise and distortion a common pot can introduce. I understand that you say that is minimal, order of magnitude less than the other parts. Ok. Agreed. Still i understand some commercial preamps used them
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/any-active-passive-preamps-with-penny-giles-pot

speaking of mic preamps i understand some very well reviewed actually come with stepped gain controls (the Maselec, the ART and the Neve) and not a pot by the way

AND because: 1a. True but anything you, the consumer does is NOT at the beginning of the chain, it's at the very end of the chain! The beginning of the chain is the musician/sound source, then comes the microphone and then the mic pre-amp (with a rotary pot), after that we'll have the trim pot on the desk and probably a further dozen or more subsequent pots in the chain, although for the last 1-2 decades more of these pots are now digital/virtual (though not necessarily all).

i am referring to the playback chain beginning with the playback device preamp and so on of course ... a recording is what it is
Still i much prefer a so so master played back on a great system than on a cheap system. Much prefer. Unfortunately because quality of reproduction usually comes at a price

2. Any decent DAC, even a cheap one, should be insensitive to incoming jitter beyond the limits of audibility, regardless of optical or any other transport protocol.

I see. I have one in which the jitter suppression has been taken into consideration. I am quite happy with my Apogee dac no particular complain. Even with a cheap usb to spdif converter the sound is quite ok ... maybe not the best in the world but quite musical.

3. Sure, if it's broken or faulty, otherwise it has no audible impact on sound let alone a "huge impact". Even the pots in mic pre-amps don't have a "huge impact on sound" and their "impact" is probably up to about 1,000 times more "huge" than the impact of the pot on your speaker pre-amp!
3a. Professional mic pre-amp units always (as far as I recall) have stepped pots, mainly for the precise calibration they allow relative to the other input channels/mics. But again, this is at the beginning of the chain, pretty much every subsequent pot in the production chain is not stepped.

i have found that cheap pots have often poor performance at high attenuations .. one channel starts before the other ... unacceptable. I have found also that many preamps have too much voltage gain as well ... often 6 times And this exacerbates the issue above. Two single pots is not handy at all.

4. That would be a thread you should probably start in one of the other forums on head-fi, because this is the Sound Science subforum, not the Sound Stories subforum.

not at all a problem for me to move it to another more proper location ... better still i will look in the DIY section for threads about pots asa i finish the reply.

Although, if "what the results have been" are objective, then those results would be appropriate here.
1. I would very much like to see the results of those experiments, if as you claim, they show "the sound was quite different".
1a. Hang on, are these the results of your "experiments"? If so, then you seem to have actually done some informal, subjective comparisons, NOT "some experiments"! And if so, you do NOT know if you actually compared "a 10k Alps Blue Velvet with a 10k log stepped attenuator" or if in fact you just compared your perception/s!

i think i said that i do not know if the Alps blue was fake ... that is very possible. I bought it from ebay i guess ... so the comparison can be not fair.
We were two and we had the same exact feeling. But again i will ask in the DIY section ... i am sure someone has replaced the pot in some units even only because of malfunction of course.

How is listening at low level "very telling" to you? The frequency response of human hearing/perception is NOT the same at different listening levels, see "equal loudness contours". So, "a sort of completeness in the sound with all the frequencies rendered at the same level" at a typical listening level will NOT sound like "all the frequencies are rendered at the same level" at a low listening level, it would sound significantly bass light.

i meant that i can hear all the instruments more clearly .... with some systems more than with others. I do not feel the urge of raising the volume to hear more of the recordings.
But this is OT i agree.

1. Sure, there are some silly audiophile RCA cables that are "hugely expensive" but standard RCA connectors are no more expensive that BNC connectors. And, BNC connectors are almost never used for analogue audio signals, even in professional audio.

Yes i know. It is a connector for digital signals i think. But if i understand well requirements for digital signals are more severe than for analog. If it were expensive ok i see the reason not to use them in cheap units ... but it is extremely cheap ! 5 USD for a 1 meter terminated cable ! and it passes the signal in a spectacular way ... only a stupid would not use it especially for high quality equipment. And the distinction between analog and digital cables will vanish ... a cable for all low level signals.
And the more i think about it the more i have the desire to replace all rca in my units with bnc ... and at a point i will do it Asa i will have more time and space above all ... i am always on the move lately.

In pro-audio, unbalanced analogue audio signals virtually always use 1/4" Jack connectors and balanced uses XLR.

1a. Again in pro-audio, BNC is virtually never used for digital audio signals, with the exception of some MADI variants. Typically it's XLR again or d-sub connectors for multi-channel.

yes i know and i like XLRs ... my dac has XLR out so i had to buy a preamp with XLR in I agree that if they are good for professionals are more than good also for me Professionals depend on their equipment for salary.

1b. Scopes are one of the few applications where I've seen BNC connectors for (unbalanced) audio connections. BUT, using a BNC connector is not necessarily the "superior by design" choice. A connector that simply pulls out (does not lock) is the superior design in some situations. For example, in a consumer situation, where the cables might be exposed and caught/tripped on, it's obviously "superior" to just have the cable pull free rather than pulling the connected unit to the ground. And, if electric guitars used BNC connectors instead of jacks, quite a few guitarists would have inadvertently snapped their own necks, which in music circles would be decidedly "un-cool" compared to drug or alcohol overdose, suicide or being shot to death!

i live alone and cables are on the back of the units ... i will pay attention thanks for the advice. If i were a guitar player my approach would be completely different i guess. I am not saying that BNC can be good also for handcuffing criminals ... but for low level signals both analog and digital i think they are quite the ultimate solution. I like them even more than balanced cables ... just think about the very demanding video cables ... they also often are bnc terminations
I really do not understand why they are not more popular ... that locking mechanism ... the contact of the hot pin ... everything says quality

2. Two potential reasons: Firstly, personal preference, for example "bass-heads" EQ significantly more bass and Secondly, when reproducing recordings, the speakers/HPs, listening room acoustics or an individual's hearing may not have the frequency response expected by those who created the recording, in these cases EQ can often be used to somewhat compensate. G

Ok but i ask YOU if you EQ or not. Let's be clear. I am not at all against EQ and digital EQ in particular. I will try it at some point.
For headphones it can be more tricky but it could work well the same. There is just a stage more in the chain.
This is an interesting topic indeed but OT. Anyway i follow your advice i look in the DIY sections for discussion about volume attenuators.
Thank you very much indeed for the very kind and valuable advice.
Kind regards, gino

 

[bigshot]

the secret of good sound is indeed to keep noise and distortion low. Problem is to establish how much noise and distortion a common pot can introduce.

Line by line responses like yours make me glaze over and just read the beginning and the end in hopes that there is a summation there. Noise and distortion are measurable. Thresholds of audibility are testable. The science has been done here. Volume pots are not a problem.

And in case you weren't aware, Gregorio is a professional sound engineer who has taught the subject. He uses EQ in his daily work, as do all sound engineers. It's a tool, and digital audio has made it clean and accurate. Back in the 70s, analogue equalizers had spill, noise and most of all grounding issues. None of that exists any more.

 

[ginetto61]

Now this, I have some experience with. The RCA ports on the back of my vintage EQ box are not exactly perfect. I remember one of the ports in particular, allowing one of the connectors to go on barely snug at all. Where as my modern S.M.S.L SP200 amp, its RCA ports, allow me to get a very tight fit, with my Monoprice RCA cables.
XLR does have its place, but like you said, its not usually found in the consumer market. You don't find XLR on consumer gear, there's none on my computer, nor TV, nor vintage EQ box. The only thing that has XLR is in that new SP200 amp of mine. But if everything were to have XLR connections, then at least you would have a good solid locking connection to not have to worry about.

Hi ! i had the same issue with vintage gear ... the reason is that RCAs are made with too wide tolerances i guess. This sounds bad to me. I prefer more precision on such and important part. XLRs are much better of course ... they are designed and built for professionals. I understand balanced connections are a must for professionals.
I wanted to buy the SMSL SP200 but then i learned about the pot issues ... and replacing it with a better one could be tricky for size compatibility. But i was shocked about its electrical performance. It must be very transparent to the source.

 

[ginetto61]

There's no such thing as perfectly balanced speakers. Even if there was, it wouldn't be balanced any more the second you put them in your living room. My system is calibrated to my own target curve using EQ. It's all digital though using HDMI and Apple dock. No RCA connectors left.
Removing tone controls from an amp is like removing the steering wheel of a car and resolving to just drive on straight roads.

This is very interesting. I do not know what tone controls are ... no one of my preamps have them. Maybe i am loosing a lot ... i guess you refer to speakers ? because it looks tricky to me EQ headphones. I do not say that is not doable ... these days my main source is some kind of computer or streaming unit I am trying to set up a Nvidia Shield android tv box but it is a nightmare ... i could not get through the installation. It is the 1st time it happens. What they are doing in Nvidia ...
From there i will try a HDMI digital extractor or a usb to spdif converter compatible. The sound can be very good indeed from what i have read.
Thanks again, gino

 

[ginetto61]

Line by line responses like yours make me glaze over and just read the beginning and the end in hopes that there is a summation there. Noise and distortion are measurable. Thresholds of audibility are testable. The science has been done here. Volume pots are not a problem.
And in case you weren't aware, Gregorio is a professional sound engineer who has taught the subject. He uses EQ in his daily work, as do all sound engineers. It's a tool, and digital audio has made it clean and accurate. Back in the 70s, analogue equalizers had spill, noise and most of all grounding issues. None of that exists any more.

Hi i confess i did not know about Mr Gregorio CV (is he Italian ?) Sorry if i sounded unpolite. Moreover i have not any experience about digital EQ as well. Never tried ... maybe i should. No one of my friends use EQ in their system. But for sure they are not professional.
I think i should move from this sound science section and move to the sound voodoo section ?
Seriously i have never thought about EQ ... could it work also in a small room ? i will look in the forum for specific threads on the subject.
Even if my section could be more the DIY one ... i feel the urge to do something ... or at least modifying something ... for fun.
Thanks a lot, gino

 

[bigshot]

Vintage gear is far below even inexpensive modern electronics. High quality components are now built in bulk and really good stock parts are common even in cheap stuff. I have an interest in obsolete technology too, but that isn't about fidelity. Modern midrange equipment wins that hands down.

Audiophiles resist EQ. Professional sound engineers use it every day without any qualms. EQ is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used for good or for bad. But mid range transducers that have been EQed to balance out response imbalances can sound as good as high end ones. That includes headphones. If a set of headphones has the ability to produce a tone sweep loud without distorting, they can be made to sound however you want.

For speakers, EQ is absolutely necessary. The average living room, even acoustically good ones, have a huge impact on the response you hear from the main listening position. There is nothing you can do that is more effective at improving the sound of a speaker system than to calibrate the response with EQ. The other thing that helps is room treatment, which is another way of addressing the same problem. I'm a big fan of Ethan Winer. He is really good at explaining principles and giving advice that helps. He talks about EQ plugins at 24:12. Lots of good stuff in here.

You'd be surprised about the caliber of people who participate in this group. I've been here for over 15 years and I learn from the "regulars" here every day. We get a lot of trolls here, so we may not seem as friendly as other groups at first glance, but if you listen and participate with honesty, you can get along great here and learn a lot.

 

[bigshot]

I just watched this interview... Ethan tells it like it is. If he ever came back to this group, he'd get a lot of flack from the people who are on my case. He even calls out the company that I got banned from Head-Fi for a year for calling out! He also mentions Amir's trick of cranking the volume on the ring out to discern noise floors.

 

[ginetto61]

Vintage gear is far below even inexpensive modern electronics. High quality components are now built in bulk and really good stock parts are common even in cheap stuff. I have an interest in obsolete technology too, but that isn't about fidelity. Modern midrange equipment wins that hands down.

Hi ! you introduce now a topic very dear to me. I was a teen in the 70s and could not afford nice hifi i can find now on the used things market for reasonable cash.
Thank you very much for your valuable advice. I understand the issue of parts quality better now than in the past ... but what about amp design ? is it now really better than then ?
especially from a musical point of view. Measurements can be easily compared but what about sound ? i ask this because many people state that those designs simpler than current design can sound more musically satisfying. If this is can be confirmed it would be interesting to update parts and keep the design. I had a power amp from Nikko ... the Alpha II I like its sound a lot before destroying it. The build was a little tricky but a lot of nice thing ... dual mono ... good power supply A really nice piece of electronics

Audiophiles resist EQ. Professional sound engineers use it every day without any qualms. EQ is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used for good or for bad. But mid range transducers that have been EQed to balance out response imbalances can sound as good as high end ones. That includes headphones. If a set of headphones has the ability to produce a tone sweep loud without distorting, they can be made to sound however you want.

this is very interesting but not easy to do I doubt audiophiles even take care of the acoustic of their listening rooms another very important issue. They focus more the equipment in the end. I see some feticism in them. Usually they buy equipment to get a feeling of pride from the ownership. Look for instance can be very decisive for them. Not for me that i try to listen in the dark ... i want to focus only on sound. I could use a eye mask actually ... much simpler

For speakers, EQ is absolutely necessary. The average living room, even acoustically good ones, have a huge impact on the response you hear from the main listening position. There is nothing you can do that is more effective at improving the sound of a speaker system than to calibrate the response with EQ. The other thing that helps is room treatment, which is another way of addressing the same problem.

thank you very much I will think about that when i will settle down probably asa i will get retired (and hopefully not dumb) I think that EQ is much more doable than acoustic treatment but i understand they are two different things But i will try something for sure

I'm a big fan of Ethan Winer. He is really good at explaining principles and giving advice that helps. He talks about EQ plugins at 24:12. Lots of good stuff in here.

Yes i know him and i watched this one very interesting as well

You'd be surprised about the caliber of people who participate in this group. I've been here for over 15 years and I learn from the "regulars" here every day. We get a lot of trolls here, so we may not seem as friendly as other groups at first glance, but if you listen and participate with honesty, you can get along great here and learn a lot.

Thanks a lot again and so i am really in the right place as i am fiercely trying to understand something Not an easy task ... i am slow to learn If not i would be a designer for sure ... i have a huge respect for designers in general
I am very interested in measurements in general. My next step would be to try to measure noise from preamps. I have just to find a good usb sound card to start. They can have their own noise i guess. If you have any suggestion i would be really grateful.
I found very clear an explanation about noise ... often someone talk about the noise carpet (floor is less explicative because usually floor is very flat differently from noise).
The carpet pile is noise ... it can be very long (high noise) or very short (low noise). If i drop a small object (sonic detail) on a long pile carpet i cannot spot it Not so on a short pile carpet.
Then noise hides small details.
Instead distortion is even surprising ... you drop some small objects on the carpet and then you find more objects than those you have thrown on it ... how can this be accepted ?

https://www.nti-audio.com/portals/0/pic/news/FX100-THD-Spectrum-540.jpg

Thanks again and kind regards, gino

 

[castleofargh]

I found very clear an explanation about noise ... often someone talk about the noise carpet (floor is less explicative because usually floor is very flat differently from noise).
The carpet pile is noise ... it can be very long (high noise) or very short (low noise). If i drop a small object (sonic detail) on a long pile carpet i cannot spot it Not so on a short pile carpet.
Then noise hides small details.
Instead distortion is even surprising ... you drop some small objects on the carpet and then you find more objects than those you have thrown on it ... how can this be accepted ?

Except that in this representation, ambient noise from the room is usually a massive carpet while the noise from a volume pot is a small film of material under it. Also to stay in the context of music, every other sound on the track would also be some gigantic carpet placed over the ambient noise carpet. Music has way more chances to mask small music details than low level noises have. Auditory masking is going to be more effective with louder masks.

In a different way for a similar result, distortions are a change in the shape of the wave. So for a pure tone, that means clear new frequencies in the signal and that's naturally worrisome. But once again, it is mostly because we forget music. How many of your favorite songs are made exclusively of pure tone spread far away from one another? In practice a song will be a recording of glorious distortion machines we tend to call instruments ^_^. All the harmonics recorded are very likely to mask a lot of low level sounds, and will be louder than a good deal of distortions caused by a DAC, amp, and even some of the headphone's distortions.
The old tube amps had very noticeable distortions(that people tend to like), it wasn't uncommon for such amp to have THD around 4%(that's not even 30dB below signal). So of course chances were that some of those harmonics would be heard. Auditory masking is still possible but more conditional.
If a headphone has distortion near 4%THD anywhere but in the subs, we shoot it to stop it from suffering. But it remains that the diaphragm is never going to push air exactly in the way the electrical signal tells it to. A headphone will distort the signal and create more than just THD. If we forget high distortion tube amps and consider using something clean for modern standards, then the headphone should be the biggest contributor in term of distortions. Some might be audible and yes they might contribute to masking even more low level sounds that somehow didn't get psychoacoustically masked by music and ambient noises(lucky few).

My point being that the hunt for noise and distortions makes sense in general. We want our music, not more. Anybody interested in fidelity will care about that. But the hunt can lead us to obsess over stuff that will not have any audible benefit. The self noise from a rotary pot while you're not turning it, clearly falls in that group of irrelevant tiny stuff. Maybe some pot will cause audible noises while you turn it, and some people really hate it, but that's a different issue IMO.

 

[ginetto61]

Hi ! thank you very much for the very helpful advice. I think i have had all the answers i needed. Yes i was worried about noise and distortion introduced by pots and i was wrong. The only doubt left is about the fake parts issue. I understand fake pots are very common. I remember the price for an Alps Blue for instance being quite higher in the past years. Maybe i was using a not original part ... many high level preamps actually use it even today with i guess great result. Thanks again for make things much more clear to me. Kind regards, gino

 

[gregorio]

[1] Hi ! i am an avid reader of interviews with the designers of famous line preamps ... like John Curl, Nelson Pass, ecc. and of reviews of TOTL preamps ... those belonging for instance to the Stereophile Class A and similar.
[2] the secret of good sound is indeed to keep noise and distortion low.
[2a] Problem is to establish how much noise and distortion a common pot can introduce. I understand that you say that is minimal, order of magnitude less than the other parts. [3] Ok. Agreed. Still i understand some commercial preamps used them..
[4] speaking of mic preamps i understand some very well reviewed actually come with stepped gain controls (the Maselec, the ART and the Neve) and not a pot by the way
[5] i am referring to the playback chain beginning with the playback device preamp and so on of course ... a recording is what it is

1. Careful with that! Interviews with designers of audiophile equipment and reviews of audiophile equipment are effectively marketing and as such they typically use pseudoscience and/or other complete nonsense in order to sell to gullible audiophiles. So, neither audiophile interviews nor audiophile reviews are acceptable sources of reliable/accurate information here.

2. No it's NOT, quite the opposite in fact, the secret of good sound is to keep the distortion moderately or very high! A recording with no distortion would be almost un-listenable, including recordings of acoustic instruments. Of course though, it depends on what distortion, where it occurs and whether it's subjectively desirable or not, which typically (though not always) means we don't want audible distortion from the audio reproduction equipment. Noise is a little more complex but certainly there are extremely common situations where again, we do NOT want to keep it low, where in fact we deliberately add noise, virtually all films and narrative TV for example.
2a. No, that's NOT a problem at all, any decent pot produces noise/distortion way below audibility. I imagine it *might* be a problem for some particularly poorly made Chinese pots that cost just a couple of cents but you're not going to find such pots even on fairly cheap gear.

3. Yes, audiophile equipment very commonly contains all sorts of parts that make absolutely no audible difference whatsoever, they're used purely for audiophile marketing purposes.

4. There's two serious problems with your assertion: Firstly, you're again relying on "reviews". Even if a review is accurate, what is the reference of "very well" reviewed? Is it fidelity (objective measurements/determinations of signal accuracy) or is it subjective impressions of what sounds pleasing? And Secondly, as I already mentioned, nearly all external mic-pre units have stepped gain controls (with the exception of some more recent remote controlled mic-pres) but the output then goes to a "trim" control, which is almost always a pot! Internal mic pres (those built-in to mixing desks) are typically pots, especially those that don't then have a trim control. By way of explanation: I've used all the mic-pres you mentioned, some of them (Neve for example) quite extensively, plus many other "very well" reviewed/respected ones, Avalon, Grace, SSL, API, etc. Despite the reviews, the difference between modern budget mic-pres and the most highly regarded/expensive is tiny! However, with pop/rock genres it's very common to drive the mic-pre to produce distortion. In the case of SSL and some others, this distortion is euphonic (subjectively pleasing), which is why they're "very well" reviewed/regarded. BUT, this audible distortion is caused by the design/topology (tubes for example), NOT the pots!

5. Sorry, this doesn't make much sense to me. By definition, isn't the first thing in the "playback chain", what you are actually playing back? Sure, "a recording is what it is" but obviously, you cannot just ignore the recording on the basis that there's nothing you can do about it, because what you are playing back obviously defines a "playback chain". This mistake is made by many audiophiles and results in all kinds of nonsense assertions! For example, let's say we have very noisy pot, producing say -70dB of noise and we use it to playback a recording with a fairly typical/low noise floor of -50dBFS, ignoring all other noise (listening environment, speakers, etc.), what would be the noise floor? ... It would be -50dB, as defined by the recording! More precisely, it would actually be -49.96dB but a difference of 0.04dB is way below audibility and if any pot in my mic-pres (or trim controls) actually produced as much as -70dB of noise, it would be sent straight back to the manufacturer as "faulty"!

As others have stated, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Unless the volume control in your playback chain is of such horrendous quality that it's effectively faulty, it will have NO audible impact on the overall sound!

[6] I see. I have one in which the jitter suppression has been taken into consideration.
[6a] Even with a cheap usb to spdif converter the sound is quite ok ... maybe not the best in the world but quite musical.
[7] i think i said that i do not know if the Alps blue was fake ... that is very possible. I bought it from ebay i guess ... so the comparison can be not fair.
[7a] We were two and we had the same exact feeling.
[8] i meant that i can hear all the instruments more clearly .... with some systems more than with others.

6. Jitter suppression has been "taken into consideration" in every DAC on the market.
6a. Providing it's not faulty, there will be NO audible difference between a cheap or an expensive converter. Hopefully though it is NOT "quite musical" because there is obviously nothing "musical" about converting a square wave signal in the MegaHertz range into another square wave signal in the MegaHertz range!

7. It doesn't matter if the Blue Alps pot was fake or not, because unless you did a controlled experiment you didn't compare pots, you compared your perception biases!
7a. Isn't that assertion off-topic? The topic is the "impact of the volume control on the overall sound", not the "impact of the volume control on the overall feelings".

8. Unless all the systems you have tested are faulty (EG. Introduce serious distortion at moderate listening levels), then this assertion is backwards.

[9] Yes i know. It is a connector for digital signals i think.
[9a] But if i understand well requirements for digital signals are more severe than for analog.
[9b] If it were expensive ok i see the reason not to use them in cheap units ... but it is extremely cheap ! 5 USD for a 1 meter terminated cable ! and it passes the signal in a spectacular way ...
[9c] only a stupid would not use it especially for high quality equipment.
[9d] And the distinction between analog and digital cables will vanish ... a cable for all low level signals.
[9e] And the more i think about it the more i have the desire to replace all rca in my units with bnc ... and at a point i will do it
[10] Ok but i ask YOU if you EQ or not.
[10a] There is just a stage more in the chain.
[11] Anyway i follow your advice i look in the DIY sections for discussion about volume attenuators.
[12] Hi i confess i did not know about Mr Gregorio CV (is he Italian ?)

9. No, with the exception of MADI it's not used for digital signals in music recording. Most commonly, BNC connectors aren't used at all and if they are, it's usually for timing/clock signals.
9a. Different but not necessarily more severe. In fact the requirements for digital cables/connectors are often less severe than those for analogue. Think about ethernet cables for example.
9b. They are cheap but not significantly different to XLR, RCA or Jacks and they don't pass a signal in any more a spectacular way then other connectors.
9c. So all the top recording studios are "stupid" are they?
9d. Actually BNC connectors are a poor choice for low level signals, worse than many others. BNC are better suited to higher level signals, they're almost always used with simple coax cable, which is unsuitable for many audio applications where a balanced connection is required/preferable.
9e. That's entirely up to you but they won't make any audible difference to sound quality/fidelity.

10 Yes, I do. I commonly use up to about 50 of them at the same time, plus the one in my monitor chain and, so does pretty much every other commercial recording studio!
10a. What difference is one more going to make? And if you're just talking about the playback chain, then it's not one more, it's the same as the monitoring/playback chain in all commercial studios.

11. Make sure it's an "impressions" type forum rather than a factual/science forum!

12. No, I'm English, although my father was Italian. I didn't take your responses as impolite, just somewhat misguided and lastly, my CV isn't relevant here, just the science/facts.

G

 

[ginetto61]

1. Careful with that! Interviews with designers of audiophile equipment and reviews of audiophile
equipment are effectively marketing and as such they typically use pseudoscience and/or other complete nonsense in order to sell to gullible audiophiles. So,neither audiophile interviews nor audiophile reviews are acceptable sources of reliable/accurate information here.

Hi again ! i think i have to re-think to my approach entirely then. I thought designers were men of science in the end. It's marketing. Message well received. Thanks a lot !

2. No it's NOT, quite the opposite in fact, the secret of good sound is to keep the distortion moderately or very high! A recording with no distortion would be almost un-listenable, including recordings of acoustic instruments.
Of course though, it depends on what distortion, where it occurs and whether it's subjectively desirable or not, which typically (though not always) means we don't want audible distortion from the audio reproduction equipment. Noise is a little more complex but certainly there are extremely common situations where again, we do NOT want to keep it low, where in fact we deliberately add noise, virtually all films and narrative TV for example.

Well i am mostly interested in audio equipment of course. Not generation but reproduction of sounds. Clearly distortion is fundamental for instance for electric guitar playing rock music. The concept of audible distortion it is new to me. I have always salivated for the lowest distortion and noise measurements.
For this fact i have never considered buying a tube power amp and very seldom a tube preamp even if i find that they sound beautiful.

2a. No, that's NOT a problem at all, any decent pot produces noise/distortion way below audibility. I imagine it *might* be a problem for some particularly poorly made Chinese pots that cost just a couple of cents but you're not going to find such pots even on fairly cheap gear.

Fine ! no more question on pots. This is also a very good conclusion because those exotic pots like Penny & Gilles cost a fortune. Wonderful but not needed at all for consumer use. Beautiful they are ... for sure.

3. Yes, audiophile equipment very commonly contains all sorts of parts that make absolutely no audible difference whatsoever, they're used purely for audiophile marketing purposes.

Perfect! still if someone is buying used more reliable parts make the buy less risky ? like sealed pots instead of open ones for instance

4. There's two serious problems with your assertion: Firstly, you're again relying on "reviews". Even if a review is accurate, what is the reference of "very well" reviewed? Is it fidelity (objective measurements/determinations of signal accuracy) or is it subjective impressions of what sounds pleasing? And Secondly, as I already mentioned, nearly all external mic-pre units have stepped gain controls (with the exception of some more recent remote controlled mic-pres) ...

may i ask why have stepped gain controls and not pots ?

but the output then goes to a "trim" control, which is almost always a pot! Internal mic pres (those built-in to mixing desks) are typically pots, especially those that don't then have a trim control

perfect. I see. And actually mixing desks also very expensive ones have all pots. I have never seen mixer with stepped attenuators for sure. That is an evidence that they are up to even the most demanding task.

By way of explanation: I've used all the mic-pres you mentioned, some of them (Neve for example) quite extensively, plus many other "very well" reviewed/respected ones, Avalon, Grace, SSL, API, etc. Despite the reviews, the difference between modern budget mic-pres and the most highly regarded/expensive is tiny! However, with pop/rock genres it's very common to drive the mic-pre to produce distortion. In the case of SSL and some others, this distortion is euphonic (subjectively pleasing), which is why they're "very well" reviewed/regarded. BUT, this audible distortion is caused by the design/topology (tubes for example), NOT the pots!

Very clear. I think that some mic preamps use also line transformers to give a flavour to the sound. Pots do not have a sound. I get it.

5. Sorry, this doesn't make much sense to me. By definition, isn't the first thing in the "playback chain", what you are actually playing back? Sure, "a recording is what it is" but obviously, you cannot just ignore the recording on the basis that there's nothing you can do about it, because what you are playing back obviously defines a "playback chain". This mistake is made by many audiophiles and results in all kinds of nonsense assertions! For example, let's say we have very noisy pot, producing say -70dB of noise and we use it to playback a recording with a fairly typical/low noise floor of -50dBFS, ignoring all other noise (listening environment, speakers, etc.), what would be the noise floor? ... It would be -50dB, as defined by the recording! More precisely, it would actually be -49.96dB but a difference of 0.04dB is way below audibility and if any pot in my mic-pres (or trim controls) actually produced as much as -70dB of noise, it would be sent straight back to the manufacturer as "faulty"!
As others have stated, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Unless the volume control in your playback chain is of such horrendous quality that it's effectively faulty, it will have NO audible impact on the overall sound!

I was clearly looking in the wrong direction. Like looking at the speck and not seeing the beam ... and it is also very true. Pots can be noisy only when they turn ... not when the level is set. I will look at digital EQ because i listen mostly from the pc if not only ... there must be some SW usable

6. Jitter suppression has been "taken into consideration" in every DAC on the market. 6a. Providing it's not faulty, there will be NO audible difference between a cheap or an expensive converter. Hopefully though it is NOT "quite musical" because there is obviously nothing "musical" about converting a square wave signal in the MegaHertz range into another square wave signal in the MegaHertz range!

Thank you very much again. But dac was less of a problem in my mind. I am quite ok with what i have at hand. No need to upgrade.
I have to study instead how to EQ effictively. Analog or digital ? where in the chain ? i will look for specific info about that

7. It doesn't matter if the Blue Alps pot was fake or not, because unless you did a controlled experiment you didn't compare pots, you compared your perception biases!
7a. Isn't that assertion off-topic? The topic is the "impact of the volume control on the overall sound", not the "impact of the volume control on the overall feelings".

Yes but listening music generates also emotions. Sometimes the sound is beautiful ... other times is ugly, unpleasant ... ok there are a lot of things going on.
But some people who had their pots replaced with another part report that they like the sound more. There was a guy passing from an Alps Blue to a Dact attenuator and felt differences for the better.

8. Unless all the systems you have tested are faulty (EG. Introduce serious distortion at moderate listening levels), then this assertion is backwards.
9. No, with the exception of MADI it's not used for digital signals in music recording. Most commonly, BNC connectors aren't used at all and if they are, it's usually for timing/clock signals.

When i think to a digital signal i think immediately at scopes and they have BNC at the inputs/outputs. And also in the old lan cards the connections was BNC if i am not wrong.

9a. Different but not necessarily more severe. In fact the requirements for digital cables/connectors are often less severe than those for analogue. Think about ethernet cables for example. 9b. They are cheap but not significantly different to XLR, RCA or Jacks and they don't pass a signal in any more a spectacular way then other connectors.

I was thinking the exact opposite really. Thanks for the very useful advice. I read so many words about spdif signals being very sensitive to impedance that i got confused.

9c. So all the top recording studios are "stupid" are they?

I really do not think so. Do you mean that recording engineers are better source of information than hifi audio designers ? that is very important to me because i like read words from experts. So i will stop reading audio magazine for once.

9d. Actually BNC connectors are a poor choice for low level signals, worse than many others. BNC are better suited to higher level signals, they're almost always used with simple coax cable, which is unsuitable for many audio applications where a balanced connection is required/preferable.
9e. That's entirely up to you but they won't make any audible difference to sound quality/fidelity.

i use both and actually with balanced connections i have never had noise issues ... to be clear i have only had issues when i was using a balanced headphone amp with an unbalanced source. I had some hum that stopped using it balanced.

About EQ

10 Yes, I do. I commonly use up to about 50 of them at the same time, plus the one in my monitor chain and, so does pretty much every other commercial recording studio!

Good ! i will study more about EQ in home listening situations. Among my friends nobody EQ ... they are purist they say. And yes they read the same magazines i read Not professional magazines clearly but audiophile ones

10a. What difference is one more going to make? And if you're just talking about the playback chain, then it's not one more, it's the same as the monitoring/playback chain in all commercial studios.

11. Make sure it's an "impressions" type forum rather than a factual/science forum! [/quote]
I will try to understand that ... but i have the feeling that the results will not be backed by measurements for sure. Just listening impressions ...

12. No, I'm English, although my father was Italian. I didn't take your responses as impolite, just somewhat misguided and lastly, my CV isn't relevant here, just the science/facts. G

Perfect ! thank you very much indeed for the precious advice. It is quite a Copernican revolution for me ... i was clearly brainwashed by my readings.
The selection of information sources is really fundamental. From now on i will look more to recording professionals than audio designers even if their prose will be more gaunt and essential. But audio is not literature i understand
Thanks a lot for the very educational advice. You also saved me to do silly things like buy a Penny & Gilles pot to put in a cheap preamp for instance and hoping that the move would make a world of difference.
Kindest regards, gino

 

[KeithPhantom]

No it's NOT, quite the opposite in fact, the secret of good sound is to keep the distortion moderately or very high! A recording with no distortion would be almost un-listenable, including recordings of acoustic instruments. Of course though, it depends on what distortion, where it occurs and whether it's subjectively desirable or not, which typically (though not always) means we don't want audible distortion from the audio reproduction equipment. Noise is a little more complex but certainly there are extremely common situations where again, we do NOT want to keep it low, where in fact we deliberately add noise, virtually all films and narrative TV for example.

The creative process of music uses distortion to enhance and please the subjective perception of the music and it is a valid use of it. When reproducing a recording, the best practice is to lower all distortions and noise to a minimum.

Also, why almost all electrostatic amps/energisers are tube-based? I would like to buy Stax, but I don't see many solid-state amplifiers. I know there are the Stax ones, but, aren't there other options?

 

[bigshot]

Personally, I think a lot of audiophiles look at things without establishing a context for them... they look at the distortion specs, or response deviation, or the amount of noise in a particular part of the chain... and they never relate that to the thresholds of hearing. We had a guy come in here arguing that CD specs are inadequate- the bare minimum for a noise floor is -120dB. He said a symphony orchestra is capable of peaks of +120dB, so you need that much all the way down. But he didn't take into account that a sustained blast of sound at 120dB is at the threshold of pain, and is likely to incur hearing damage. Likewise, he didn't take into account that the concert hall itself has a noise floor of over 30dB just from traffic noise outside and air conditioning. He also didn't take into account that most commercially recorded music isn't mixed with a dynamic range beyond about 55dB. He didn't take into account that the decibel scale is logarithmic- the bigger the numbers get, the bigger the difference in perceived loudness. He was using one metric to judge- the volume of a symphony orchestra- without taking anything else into account. And that was leading his conclusions into lala land.

How many decibels is a loud listening level compared to a normal listening level? What does a wider dynamic range sound like in music? What does a 10kHz tone sound like and what part does it play in music? What do distortion specs refer to in terms of the loudness of the distortion compared to the signal? What is the difference between perceiving distortion in a test tone as opposed to hearing distortion under music. How do human ears work, and most of all what can they hear and what can't they? The answers to these questions are more important than anything you read in articles and reviews on high end audio equipment.

In the AES videos in my sig file, Ethan Winer creates examples of what the sorts of things audiophiles worry about actually sound like. Once you've heard for yourself, you have to shake your head and wonder why people pay great deals of money to achieve sound quality they can't even hear. The truth is, you can go to Amazon and buy any DAC at any price point and the chances are VERY good that it will sound just as good as the best DACs. In the interview I posted a couple of posts back, Winer points to a tiny dirt cheap DAC he tested that did just that. The same goes for amps. You can research op amps and volume pots and pore over spec sheets to choose the best amp; but the truth is, you're probably judging based on criteria you can't even hear.

My job is to get jobs done right. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's to approach your problem in a hierarchical manner. Start with the broad strokes and work your way down. Don't focus on details, because they don't get you anywhere. Start with the big stuff and address that first. Then the secondary stuff, and so on. At some point, you'll reach a point where further polishing doesn't gain you anything. That's where you stop.

With home audio, the biggest issues are the quality of the transducers and user interface. The transducers are where the rubber meets the road. They actually *make* the sound. The user interface is something you interact with every time you use a piece of equipment. When it comes to electronics, like DACs, amps and players, functionality and features is the primary consideration. Sound fidelity used to be an issue back in the 70s, but it isn't an issue any more. I've done controlled listening tests of every amp, DAC or player I've ever bought. I've compared a $40 Walmart DVD player to a $1400 DAC/amp. I've compared phones to home players. I've compared all kinds of things... and I have yet to find anything that sounds audibly different from anything else. I've asked here in this group for examples of modern home audio electronics that sound clearly different, and no one has ever been able to point me to a specific model to compare.

We live in a golden age of home entertainment hardware. In the 70s, there was good stuff and crappy stuff, and the prices reflected that. That isn't true any more. We are flooded with high fidelity, low cost options. This is great for consumers, but it's lousy for high end audio salesmen. How do they convince you to pay a lot more for their fancy DAC or amp when a cheap one sounds the same? The answer is to distract you with irrelevant details.

There is a specific agenda at work in audiophilia. It is skewed heavily to the people selling stuff to you. Review sites, websites like this, magazines... their bread and butter is ad sales to manufacturers, so their content is designed to favor the people paying them all that money. They call it "editorial" and pretend that they are unbiased and impartial. That isn't true. They won't bite the hand that feeds them. You need to read beneath the surface of all that "advertorial" blather and pick out the truth that they are mixing into bologna like walnuts in jello. That can be difficult if you haven't taken the time yourself to understand how digital audio works, what you can and can't hear, and establish priorities for attacking the problem of achieving great sound. We get people in this group all the time who are either too intellectually lazy or too intellectually challenged to do their homework and sort out the bull. The ones who know the least seem to be the loudest!