[Stereocilia]

MUSICAL MILLENNIUM.
If a technology is not suitable for music, you should not adopt it even if it is a high-tech.
Every technology should contribute to music reproduction.
The SR-009 is the product of the repeated research trip to technology and material search without deviating from our stance to return to live sound and music always with refined sensitivity.
 
http://www.stax.co.jp/Export/SR009e.html
 
The Stax SR009 ear speakers could arguably be the best engineered and best sounding head gear on the planet. Stax amps and ear speakers are designed to work synergistically together, a perfect match.
 
 http://www.cardas.com/insights_low_eddy.php
 
 Cardas’ cable design incorporates, Golden Ratio, Constant Q, Cross-Field, pure copper Litz, conductor technology. Why should I use it? What will it do for my system?
 
http://www.cardas.com/insights_why.php
 
It is said, wire is just wire. In reality, a high-end audio cable must balance resistance, capacitance, inductance, conductance, velocity of propagation, RF radiation and absorption, mechanical resonance, strand interaction, high filtering, reflections, electrical resonance, dissipation factors, envelope delay, phase distortion, harmonic distortion, structural return loss, corrosion, cross-talk, bridge-tap and the interaction of these and a hundred other things. As a high-end cable manufacturer, Cardas Audio strives to address every detail of cable and conductor construction, no matter how small.
 
Why should I use Cardas interconnect cables when my amp PCB is made with low cost "grainy" copper conductors?
 
If your signal chain is only as good as the lowest quality components, why don't we see more integrated system designed for the head market using state of the art material science from input to output. (the whole enchilada)
 
It's one thing to make a great sounding headphone, another to make a great sounding amp, another to make a great sounding source and so on..
 
The current availability of synergistic integrated head systems seems limited, take Grado for example, the Grado head amp is not the best match for Grado cans.
 
I would like to see more matched systems that actually live up to the hype. I know the super picky heads want the very best material science can offer at each and every conductor / component, a homogeneous materials match from I/O. A wire with gain    
 
           
 
 

 

[Steve Eddy]

It is said, wire is just wire. In reality, a high-end audio cable must balance resistance, capacitance, inductance, conductance, velocity of propagation, RF radiation and absorption, mechanical resonance, strand interaction, high filtering, reflections, electrical resonance, dissipation factors, envelope delay, phase distortion, harmonic distortion, structural return loss, corrosion, cross-talk, bridge-tap and the interaction of these and a hundred other things. As a high-end cable manufacturer, Cardas Audio strives to address every detail of cable and conductor construction, no matter how small.

Do you have even the slightest understanding of any of what you just said above?

se

 

[Stereocilia]

More than I care to admit and enough to know that it sounds like hype.
 

 
What I'm trying to convey.. take solder for example different mix ratios have different electrical properties some would argue that the quality and application of solder can influence the final sound...I'm saying why use solder at all? Or at least why not design circuits with minimal or no joints? How can that be done you might be thinking, I don't have the answer, maybe 3D circuit printing
 
It is very reasonable to say that it doesn't make a difference that a new manufacturing technique that uses no solder would sound different than a circuit that uses solder, I don't know ?? 

 

[Stereocilia]

 
The phonograph was invented in 1877 by Thomas Edison
 
 
 

 
Look how far its come...are we there yet ?? Can it get any better ? better meaning appreciable
 
 
 
 
♫ When the music's over Turn out the lights ♫

 

[castleofargh]

  Look how far its come...are we there yet ?? Can it get any better ? better meaning appreciable

is appreciable always better? if so, then yes striving for a wire with gain is the right idea. but I'm not sure that's really what you're looking for when I read the sponsored ad nonsense in the first post? synergistic what? were you maybe looking for this ? http://www.synergisticresearch.com/featured/hot-headphone-optimized-transducer/

 
stax, they said themselves that they stopped going for an ideal result but instead asked some people what they preferred, because they felt like the best wasn't what people liked the most(of course that could just be a marketing way to say "we failed"). so much for a wire with gain. they still do one of the best stuff, but just to clear things up about what we're really looking for. best as "we like" or best as in "best signal fidelity"?
 
 
Cardas ... Golden Ratio???? seriously? why not fractal cable? 
 
conductor technology!!!
a cable using some electrically conductive technology, amazing! like, a wire. now I get why they're expensive.

 
 
 
anyway what sets the limits for a system is the bottleneck, DACs are crazy good, amps are pretty good, headphones are relatively bad to the point that none can really be called audibly transparent. so of course we can make source PCBs with graphene nanotubes and worry about the best of the best of everything. the most destructive element in the signal path will still be the headphone by far, so why bother?
and the sound recorded is only as good as the microphones used, and the darn record still has 9 out of 10 chances to be overly compressed and most likely a little clipped. that's something we could improve and it doesn't even require a new technology. in fact we had it right at some point and then the marketing guys came in with the loudness war.
 
when that is done, and headphones are great thanks to some new tech, and something is done so that they lose that 180degree imaging because records are made for speakers, then I will, like everybody else, be wiling to look into improving what's already good.

 

[Steve Eddy]

More than I care to admit and enough to know that it sounds like hype.

I wonder. I mean, why do you say resistance and conductance, when conductance is simply the reciprocal of resistivity whose practical consequence is just simple resistance? And velocity of propagation? Do you get impatient waiting a few nanoseconds for the signal to make it down a cable after you press play? And a host of other meaningless terms. You make it seem like it takes some real effort to design an audibly transparent cable, when that problem was solved over a century ago.

What I'm trying to convey.. take solder for example different mix ratios have different electrical properties some would argue that the quality and application of solder can influence the final sound...

Those who argue that don't actually have an argument. Just empty claims.

Sure, a physically bad solder joint can cause problems. It can fail, become intermittent, or result in a high enough resistance that it can cause problems under certain circumstances. But if done right, bad solder joints are extremely rare.

I'm saying why use solder at all? Or at least why not design circuits with minimal or no joints?

Because it works well? Sure, you can do whatever you want, but you seem to be looking for solutions to problems that don't really exist.

It is very reasonable to say that it doesn't make a difference that a new manufacturing technique that uses no solder would sound different than a circuit that uses solder, I don't know ?? 

Since audibly transparent electronics have been available for many years (transducers are a different matter), your hypothesis doesn't seem very reasonable.

se

 

[Speedskater]

It is said, wire is just wire. In reality, a high-end audio cable must balance resistance, capacitance, inductance, conductance, velocity of propagation, RF radiation and absorption, mechanical resonance, strand interaction, high filtering, reflections, electrical resonance, dissipation factors, envelope delay, phase distortion, harmonic distortion, structural return loss, corrosion, cross-talk, bridge-tap and the interaction of these and a hundred other things. As a high-end cable manufacturer, Cardas Audio strives to address every detail of cable and conductor construction, no matter how small.
 
With regard to analog audio interconnects, much of this is trivial, out of context or non applicable.
The only important question about an interconnect is:
'Is the audio signal at the far end the same as at the near end?'

 

[Stereocilia]

 

Sure, a physically bad solder joint can cause problems. It can fail, become intermittent, or result in a high enough resistance that it can cause problems under certain circumstances. But if done right, bad solder joints are extremely rare.
Because it works well? Sure, you can do whatever you want, but you seem to be looking for solutions to problems that don't really exist.
 

 
http://www.circuitnet.com/experts/experts_questions.shtml  "Ask the Experts Questions" I found these question on the first 11 pages out of 147
 
Reliability of Automated Soldering vs. Hand Soldering
Problems with Insufficient Barrel Fill
Trouble Soldering a PC104 Connector
Organic Flux Residue Concerns
PCBA Inspection Process Causing Damage
Tombstoning Dilemma
Copper Dissolution Rate
Can a Few Contaminated Joints Cause an Assembly to Fail RoHS Compliance?
QFN Test Failures Caused by Flux
Un-cleaned PCB Assemblies Potted
 
Contrary to your belief...flux and solder does not always work well and problems do exist

 

[Steve Eddy]

Contrary to your belief...flux and solder does not always work well and problems do exist

And yet billions of electronic devices are produced each year that work just fine.

You just seem to be throwing as much Schiit against the wall as possible and hoping something sticks. You don't seem interested in any sort of meaningful discussion, and I don't see that you have any particular point to make. You just seem to be trying to feed some sort of audiophile neurosis.

se

 

[Stereocilia]

 
stax, they said themselves that they stopped going for an ideal result but instead asked some people what they preferred, because they felt like the best wasn't what people liked the most(of course that could just be a marketing way to say "we failed"). so much for a wire with gain. they still do one of the best stuff, but just to clear things up about what we're really looking for. best as "we like" or best as in "best signal fidelity"?
 
 

 
Can you provide a link that backs this statement up? It helps to have a link
 
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/chinese-speaker-maker-edifier-purchases-famous-electrostatic-headphone-maker-stax
 
According to the link above.. Stax has not stopped going for the ideal result, Stax is trying to reach a broader market with new designs at lower cost to stay competitive while remaining solvent 

 

[Stereocilia]

And yet billions of electronic devices are produced each year that work just fine.

 

 
Are we going to include toaster ovens in this thread or just audio circuits? Yes, I have head gear that works just fine but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about brainstorming what better than fine might be.
 
Better =  your taste and preference
 
Example: I like the sound of tubes but the low end leaves me wanting more. Possible solution: Newly designed tubes that hit harder    

 

[Steve Eddy]

Are we going to include toaster ovens in this threads or just audio circuits and yes I have head gear that works just fine but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about brainstorming what better than fine might be.

Ok. I'll let others feed your neurosis.

se

 

[Stereocilia]

Ok. I'll let others feed your neurosis.

se

 
Because my 50 some posts to date suggest audio neurosis while your 5000 plus posting suggests that your not obsessive about audio at all, just saying

 

[Steve Eddy]

Because my 50 some posts to date suggest audio neurosis while your 5000 plus posting suggests that your not obsessive about audio at all, just saying

Passion and neurosis are not one and the same.

The iPad that I am using to write this has what Apple calls a Retina display. What that means is that the pixel density is so high that individual pixels can't be distinguished with the naked eye.

The equivalent of your argument here would be that the pixel density should be higher still. Why? Just... "because."

That's a neurosis in my opinion. And as I said, I'll let others feed it.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Because my 50 some posts to date suggest audio neurosis while your 5000 plus posting suggests that your not obsessive about audio at all, just saying

Oh, by the way. You just registered here in March of this year. I've been registered here for twelve years. So your 50 vs. 5,000 posts "argument" is a load of nonsense.

se