Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by AudioLoup, Aug 2, 2017.
Thank you for not taking offense, as absolutely none was intended.
Out of curiosity (and not to derail), what are the Macs in question and can you clarify on which specs that don't measure well?
This is a good watch which led me to the general opinion I have now. I find it really hard to dispute his view when the other side of the argument refuses to bring any science to the table.
Let's look at some assumed values, MM cart.
L for cartridge 400 mH, Xl = 2.8 x f Ohm
C for total circuit 300 pF, Xc = 530,000/f Ohm
R for phono input 47,000 Ohm
At 50 Hz
Net X -10,460 (capacitive)
Phase angle = net X/R = 12.5 degrees
At 16,000 Hz
Net X 45,170 (inductive)
Ph ang 44 deg
imo the ideal is to have the lo and high freq Z as matched as closely as possible and the low freq phase angle low. This way the low freq will be in phase and the hi and low freqs see ~ the same load. You also want to keep the resonant freq = 1/(2 Pi sqrt(L x C)) low < 1000 Hz. It's a balancing act. Try getting them balanced in the vocal range.
net X 2270
Ph ang < 3 deg
does this filtering have anything to do with the RIAA curve? It may, you boost low and attenuate highs during playback, as you can see the low freq Z is less than the high freq?
Hahaha if you want to stirr up the people, you have to post something by Ethan Winer!
Haha oh dear have a committed a faux pas?
My mind isn’t completely made up on the matter but it’s hard to argue with it when he explains everything in terms that make sense to me. If one cable was more revealing than another, surely that extra level of detail would be measurable.
I tend to disagree with your last sentence more than I agree with it.
Wouldn't we all like to know.
Or maybe it depends.
Yup, but plenty audiophiles rely solely on their perception.
This is more or less the other end of the spectrum.
I think his audiophile channel has a lot of good and reliable content, but I have strong doubts about this one...
He keeps it very nuanced though, I like that.
Could you elaborate on your experience?
There are many people in here who will tell you they heard a clear difference between two pairs of cable and who am I to argue, if I was sat next to them maybe I would hear it too.
The part I struggle with is that if you recorded two clearly different sounding sources it would be reflected in the waveform somehow, this is logical to me but we never see any evidence of this.
So in the end I’m confused, one side has a argument based on proven facts and the other seems to rely on the human perception of things.
Nothing more than a gut feeling based on experiences and how well I think the most precise and accurate test equipment can measure these "extremely subtle nuances" (for lack of a better term and summing up all the mumbo jumbo audiophiles like to talk about) that I believe some peoples' hearing are capable of picking up on. One of those "bell curve distribution" things (top 0.xxx% or whatever % you want) that apply to many things in life, hearing being one of them IMHO.
If it can wiggle your speakers, you can measure it.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Ethan's objective analyses is something we can do with more of, IMHO.
Former Chord Chorus and Atlas Navigator owner here. Both of these came in at over £200 each and I used both in a series of setups for a few years.
Then, hello Fisual. Modest pricing. Hand built. £35 for their Havana (now Havana XL). Goodbye Chord, goodbye Atlas.
And yes, they're that good.
Perhaps you'll share which measurements reflect that wiggle....the one's that reflect the dynamic nature of music that you're referring to.
In my personal opinion, based on 40 years of making a living with audio, I've never run across anyone that misses the mark in a greater way than that self proclaimed "expert". He should team up with the self proclaimed "scientist" to get the perfect team headed in all the wrong directions! Just image the view that conjures up....makes the proper name come to mind for those types.
I remember reading all the audio magazines that used to be out before the hobby started to recede.
The equipment reviewers would say things that seemed like total nonsense to me, but the very real possibility existed that maybe it was just I who couldn't hear what they're talking about.
In my own system, I use pro audio speakers--JBL JRX 225s--instead of hif fi speakers; they sound perfectly good to me.
Used them on the bandstand. Use them in my man cave.
Even a gigging musician doesn't always have "golden ears,' I guess.
Cornets and trumpets sound very, very similar to me.
So do Les Pauls and Strats.
But I apparently still played pretty well. They gave me a degree, after all.
And I could certainly tell the difference in my own wheelhouse--Rhodes and Wurlys back then. Or Farfisas and Voxes.
Love the new digital keys and wish they were around in my prime.
Could you elaborate on this?
If you want to miss out on the true emotion and joy that audio can bring to your life, then subscribe to the "three tests tell you all you need to know" idea. A real true path to average, at best, audio.
What's that mean? What 3 tests?
It's hard to imagine not being able to have an amazing sounding system with nice, properly placed speakers, an amp with enough power to properly drive the speakers, and a rebook recording.
Much better than relying on somebody else's, particularly when they have no clue of what good sound is and how to achieve it.
Thanks for posting this. His process and explanation does a lot of good for the audiophile and it's revealing that the ultra high cost cable manufacturers didn't submit any of their products for this demonstration.
I dont know about that, the emotion and joy I get from music doesn’t come from my rca cables.
Everyone’s entitled to an opinion though!
Maybe the mods should ban replies on all threads about cables. Because the conversation always moves in one direction... downhill
Separate names with a comma.