Question for Sylvia: Splitting AV output

[DavidW]

Dear Sylvia,

Let's say I have a video device that has an AV output (3-socket RCA, for video,
L & R). Can I connect it to the AV inputs of two other video devices (say a TV
and something else) without loss of quality or blowing anything up? The
connection would be done by having effectively two AV cables (with 3 plugs each)
in parallel connected to said AV output.

[Brad]

Can I chip in here?
Yes it will work, but perhaps not perfectly. It will depend on the
performance of the equipment. The Video portion of the AV signal is
1Vp-p across 75 ohms. Put two devices on that and you will see 0.5Vp-p
across 37 ohms. The weaker signal may cause sync problems (less likely
with modern equipment) and poorer brightness. The audio may similarly
be lower, but you can turn the volume up to compensate. AV switch
boxes are available cheaply, to prevent these signal losses.

[DavidW]

Brad wrote:
> On May 10, 9:51 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Dear Sylvia,
>>
>> Let's say I have a video device that has an AV output (3-socket RCA,
>> for video, L & R). Can I connect it to the AV inputs of two other
>> video devices (say a TV and something else) without loss of quality
>> or blowing anything up? The connection would be done by having
>> effectively two AV cables (with 3 plugs each) in parallel connected
>> to said AV output.
>
> Can I chip in here?

Certainly.

> Yes it will work, but perhaps not perfectly. It will depend on the
> performance of the equipment. The Video portion of the AV signal is
> 1Vp-p across 75 ohms. Put two devices on that and you will see 0.5Vp-p
> across 37 ohms. The weaker signal may cause sync problems (less likely
> with modern equipment) and poorer brightness. The audio may similarly
> be lower, but you can turn the volume up to compensate. AV switch
> boxes are available cheaply, to prevent these signal losses.

Thanks. I thought it was probably a bit dodgy. I assume that a switch box (would
splitter be a better description?) would require its own power supply, with
transformer. I was hoping to avoid that.

[Sylvia Else]

Brad has summerised the issues, and I agree with him, except as far as
the audio is concerned. In my experience, audio inputs have a relatively
high impedance, and I would not expect the same problem.

Beware of creating ground loops.

Sylvia.

[DavidW]

Probably better to ditch it altogether. For example, I don't want to have to
adjust brightness between the split source and other sources. It all sounds too
dodgy.

[Brad]

A switch box and a splitter are not the same thing. A switch box
selects a different input or output, one at a time. A passive splitter
will reduce the output. An active splitter contains an amplifier, so
full output, but requires a power source.

[DavidW]

I misunderstood then. I thought you were suggesting a "switch" that would solve
the signal-loss problem while maintaining the two simultaneous connections. A
passive switch was my first thought and what I'll probably go with, but parallel
connections would be better for my purpose so I thought I'd ask.

[Peter Bowditch]

I bought a cheap plasticy switch on eBay so The World's Finest
Grandson can connect his Wii when he visits without having to climb
behind the furniture. Seems to work without any problems.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Blog at http://peterbowditch.com/wp/
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

[Bob Milutinovic]

"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:kmhs29$tos$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

As Brad and Sylvia have said, you'll have issues with the video signal - not
enough to prevent you from seeing it on both outputs, but more than enough
to drag the video quality into the mud (remember making copies of copies of
VHS tapes, and how good the resulting recording was?).

If you have $47 to spare, grab this; it'll do the job properly for both
audio and video, and has four outputs rather than just two;
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/121073559070

If you want to save a bit of money and have a 12V power supply of reasonable
grunt laying around (1A output should suffice), this one does just the video
for $14; http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/261190349984

Audio isn't a problem unless you're wanting genuinely high fidelity (which I
suspect you're not); as Sylvia points out, most amplifiers have a
comparatively high input impedance (generally several tens of kiloohms or
higher), so there won't be any noticable signal degradation.

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom

[Coach]

Very interesting topic. I have done exactly as the original poster has
done and not noticed any loss of quality. But then again, I could
never see what people were going on about HD tv because I could never
really see the difference unless it was on a very large TV set. I
would have thought that high def tv would mean we'd buy smaller TV's
and sit closer to them, not buy bigger sets, Nobody seems to get
that.

[Sylvia Else]

On 10/05/2013 8:47 PM, Coach wrote:

> Very interesting topic. I have done exactly as the original poster has
> done and not noticed any loss of quality.

Some equipment has an automatic gain control on the video input, which
would obviate most of the adverse effects. But it's not part of the
spec, so trying it in a particular instance is the only way to know
whether it'll work.

Sylvia.

[DavidW]

Bob Milutinovic wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>

>> I misunderstood then. I thought you were suggesting a "switch" that
>> would solve the signal-loss problem while maintaining the two
>> simultaneous connections. A passive switch was my first thought and
>> what I'll probably go with, but parallel connections would be better
>> for my purpose so I thought I'd ask.
>
> As Brad and Sylvia have said, you'll have issues with the video
> signal - not enough to prevent you from seeing it on both outputs,
> but more than enough to drag the video quality into the mud (remember
> making copies of copies of VHS tapes, and how good the resulting
> recording was?).
>
> If you have $47 to spare, grab this; it'll do the job properly for
> both audio and video, and has four outputs rather than just two;
> http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/121073559070
>
> If you want to save a bit of money and have a 12V power supply of
> reasonable grunt laying around (1A output should suffice), this one
> does just the video for $14; http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/261190349984
>
> Audio isn't a problem unless you're wanting genuinely high fidelity
> (which I suspect you're not); as Sylvia points out, most amplifiers
> have a comparatively high input impedance (generally several tens of
> kiloohms or higher), so there won't be any noticable signal
> degradation.

As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have the option
of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and high-quality speakers for
those movies/shows that are worthwhile having hi-fi sound). One of the reasons
for my connection complications is that I prefer the convenience of the plain
TV sound to watch the news or Biggest Loser, but it's not good enough for
Raiders of the Lost Ark. (There are other issues too, such as whether I need a
source to go to recording equpment.)

Thanks for your suggestions. I hoped to avoid another powered device, but I'll
consider it along with a plain switch.

[Jasen Betts]

it's an analogue signal therefore there will be some loss of quality.
You won't blow anything up that wasn't already broken.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Coach]

On May 11, 9:02 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> Bob Milutinovic wrote:
> > "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> >> I misunderstood then. I thought you were suggesting a "switch" that
> >> would solve the signal-loss problem while maintaining the two
> >> simultaneous connections. A passive switch was my first thought and
> >> what I'll probably go with, but parallel connections would be better
> >> for my purpose so I thought I'd ask.
>
> > As Brad and Sylvia have said, you'll have issues with the video
> > signal - not enough to prevent you from seeing it on both outputs,
> > but more than enough to drag the video quality into the mud (remember
> > making copies of copies of VHS tapes, and how good the resulting
> > recording was?).
>
> > If you have $47 to spare, grab this; it'll do the job properly for
> > both audio and video, and has four outputs rather than just two;
> >http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/121073559070
>
> > If you want to save a bit of money and have a 12V power supply of
> > reasonable grunt laying around (1A output should suffice), this one
> > does just the video for $14;http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/261190349984
>
> > Audio isn't a problem unless you're wanting genuinely high fidelity
> > (which I suspect you're not); as Sylvia points out, most amplifiers
> > have a comparatively high input impedance (generally several tens of
> > kiloohms or higher), so there won't be any noticable signal
> > degradation.
>

> As an audiophile I do want <snipped the rest>

I always suspected you were one. My 6th sense is rarely wrong. Stay
away from primary schools you sicko.

[felix_unger]

In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.

> One of the reasons
> for my connection complications is that I prefer the convenience of the plain
> TV sound to watch the news or Biggest Loser, but it's not good enough for
> Raiders of the Lost Ark. (There are other issues too, such as whether I need a
> source to go to recording equpment.)
>
> Thanks for your suggestions. I hoped to avoid another powered device, but I'll
> consider it along with a plain switch.
>
>

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:

>
> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.

True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
faithful reproduction.

Sylvia.

[felix_unger]

That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
reproduction. However, when it comes to Audio/Video systems (surround
sound 5.1, 6.1, 7.1) for watching movies there's no comparison in sound
quality, if only for the fact that analogue audio is only stereo.

>
> Sylvia.

[Trevor]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:avardc...@mid.individual.net...

True idiots you mean, those that actually have a clue (perhaps not such a
big percentage admittedly) know that after adding dither and a
reconstruction filter, there is no quantitisation remaining, only a FAR more
accurate signal than can be obtained by ANY analog recording method
available.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.
>>
>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>> faithful reproduction.
>
> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music reproduction.

Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.

>However, when it comes to Audio/Video systems (surround sound 5.1, 6.1,
>7.1) for watching movies there's no comparison in sound quality, if only
>for the fact that analogue audio is only stereo.

I'd still prefer two HiFi channels to 7.1 low fi channels. Fortunately both
can easily be HiFi, even if they often aren't.

Trevor.

[Sylvia Else]

Of course, but you should never smarten up a chump.

Audiophiles in the UK used to cite the BBC's Radio 3 (a classical music
channel) FM service as the gold standard for analogue purity, blissfully
unaware that the BBC was using digital technology to get the signal from
its studios to the transmitters.

Sylvia.

[Trevor]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:avb7mc...@mid.individual.net...

> Audiophiles in the UK used to cite the BBC's Radio 3 (a classical music
> channel) FM service as the gold standard for analogue purity, blissfully
> unaware that the BBC was using digital technology to get the signal from
> its studios to the transmitters.

Nothing new there. Audiophiles in the early 70's used certain viny records
for demonstration purposes. Some were direct disk analog recordings, but
some were digital recordings using vastly inferior equipment than what we
have these days :-)

I still have a heavy weight, virgin vinyl, 45RPM, 12" "audiophile" disk of
the day, recorded digitally at 14 bits using a VCR and converter. Still
better than one using a tape recorder of course :-)

Trevor.

[felix_unger]

On 13-May-2013 2:16 PM, Trevor wrote:

> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.
>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>> faithful reproduction.
>> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music reproduction.
> Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.

So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

>
>> However, when it comes to Audio/Video systems (surround sound 5.1, 6.1,
>> 7.1) for watching movies there's no comparison in sound quality, if only
>> for the fact that analogue audio is only stereo.
> I'd still prefer two HiFi channels to 7.1 low fi channels. Fortunately both
> can easily be HiFi, even if they often aren't.
>
> Trevor.
>
>
>
>
>

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

�This election is about trust. The choice before the Australian people could not be clearer. It�s more tax or less. It�s more regulation or less. It�s less competence or more. It�s less freedom or more� - Tony Abbott, Federal Opposition Leader

Sept 14th. is National Rubbish Collection day.. ausnet.info/pics/rubbish_collection.jpg

http://www.facebook.com/SupportTonyAbbott

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...

> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not have to
bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their personal notion of
it.
Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their distortion
qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce* a certain musical
"sound", but not a good choice for musical *reproduction* of that sound, and
certainly not when you don't want that distortion at all.

Trevor.

[Rod Speed]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13-May-2013 2:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would
>>>>> suggest.
>>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
>>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>>> faithful reproduction.
>>> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
>>> reproduction.
>> Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.

> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

Because they are brain dead fools that have never
had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

[felix_unger]

So let's see some distortion figures for Hi Fi valve amps vs
transistor/mosfet amps then

[felix_unger]

On 13-May-2013 8:30 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

>
>
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 13-May-2013 2:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>
>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no
>>>>>> 'true'
>>>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would
>>>>>> suggest.
>>>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised
>>>>> approximation to
>>>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>>>> faithful reproduction.
>>>> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
>>>> reproduction.
>>> Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.
>
>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>
> Because they are brain dead fools that have never
> had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

So you're willing to claim there's no difference between CD sound, and
vinyl, or valve amp and transistor? You won't get many HiFi enthusiasts
to agree then.

>
>>>
>>>> However, when it comes to Audio/Video systems (surround sound 5.1,
>>>> 6.1,
>>>> 7.1) for watching movies there's no comparison in sound quality, if
>>>> only
>>>> for the fact that analogue audio is only stereo.
>>> I'd still prefer two HiFi channels to 7.1 low fi channels.
>>> Fortunately both
>>> can easily be HiFi, even if they often aren't.
>
>

[yaputya]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message news:avbu2s...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13-May-2013 7:07 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...
>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not have to
>> bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their personal notion of
>> it.
>> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their distortion
>> qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce* a certain musical
>> "sound", but not a good choice for musical *reproduction* of that sound, and
>> certainly not when you don't want that distortion at all.
>
> So let's see some distortion figures for Hi Fi valve amps vs transistor/mosfet amps then

from SC June 2008 Altitude 3500-SS Stereo Valve Amplifier (RRP $1899)
@32W THD < 0.63% at 1kHz

compare this to two of SCs power amp modules;
from SC January 2004 Studio 350 Audio Amplifier (transistor)
@180W THD < 0.002% at 1kHz

from SC August 2008 Ultra-LD Mk.2 200W Power Amplifier (transistor)
@100W THD < 0.001% at 1kHz

Also, valve amps have very poor damping factors which means the loudspeaker
cone excursions are not tightly controlled, especially in the 'piston' range
below about 500 Hz. (i.e. muddy bass).

[Frank Slootweg]

True audiophiles use vinyl and tubes!


But for *me*, 4BH at 32 Kbps (WMP format) is just fine! :-)

[Rod Speed]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avbuaf...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13-May-2013 8:30 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 13-May-2013 2:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>>
>>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no
>>>>>>> 'true'
>>>>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would
>>>>>>> suggest.
>>>>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>>>>> faithful reproduction.
>>>>> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
>>>>> reproduction.
>>>> Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.
>>
>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>>
>> Because they are brain dead fools that have never
>> had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

> So you're willing to claim there's no difference between CD sound, and
> vinyl, or valve amp and transistor?

No, there clearly is a difference.

But just because they like the sound of valve amps
more than the more accurately reproduced sound
with the best done digital systems doesn�t say a
damned thing about how accurate the valve amp is.

> You won't get many HiFi enthusiasts to agree then.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/05/2013 2:05 PM, Trevor wrote:

**Unless the sampling rate is specified, you cannot state such a thing.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[DavidW]

felix_unger wrote:
> On 11-May-2013 9:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have
>> the option of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and
>> high-quality speakers for those movies/shows that are worthwhile
>> having hi-fi sound).
>
> In that case you will need good quality audio leads.

"Good quality" audio leads are a crock, like gold-plated connectors. Plain
copper wires do a perfectly good job.

[DavidW]

If the quantised approximation is close enough, you cannot hear the difference,
and it does have the advantage of perfect copyability and identical repeat
playings.

[DavidW]

Trevor wrote:
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve
>> amplifiers?
>
> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not
> have to bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their
> personal notion of it.
> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their
> distortion qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce*
> a certain musical "sound", but not a good choice for musical
> *reproduction* of that sound, and certainly not when you don't want
> that distortion at all.

Some people might prefer valve amps just because they "sound" better, not
because they reproduce better. There are so many factors that affect the sound
that gets in your ears - the speakers and the acoustics of the room being two
huge ones. It may be that valve amps in combination with other factors produce a
result that those people enjoy listening to the most.

[felix_unger]

The tonal qualities and smoothness of valve amps is legendary

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
Two old guys on the golf course:
"I can't see where my ball went. Did you see?"
"Yes, but I don't remember"

[felix_unger]

On 14-May-2013 8:28 AM, DavidW wrote:

> felix_unger wrote:
>> On 11-May-2013 9:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>> As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have
>>> the option of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and
>>> high-quality speakers for those movies/shows that are worthwhile
>>> having hi-fi sound).
>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads.
> "Good quality" audio leads are a crock,

That shows how much you know then

> like gold-plated connectors. Plain
> copper wires do a perfectly good job.
>
>

--
rgds,

Pete
-------

[DavidW]

felix_unger wrote:
> On 14-May-2013 8:28 AM, DavidW wrote:
>
>> felix_unger wrote:
>>> On 11-May-2013 9:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>>> As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have
>>>> the option of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and
>>>> high-quality speakers for those movies/shows that are worthwhile
>>>> having hi-fi sound).
>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads.
>> "Good quality" audio leads are a crock,
>
> That shows how much you know then

I thought all you needed was low resistance. You can get that with plain copper
wire of reasonable thickness and as short as possible. In the end, can you hear
the difference?

[Sylvia Else]

The point of gold plating is that gold is a soft metal that doesn't
oxidise, which helps ensure a consistent connection. I've had enough
trouble with poor audio connections to recognise the benefit of that. If
course, better still is a screw clamped connector.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

I think it can be taken as read in context that the sampling rate (and
number of bits sampled) will be high enough that the will be nothing
left of the quantisation noise that is capable of being heard by the
ear. The ear itself is not an analogue device.

Sylvia.

[DavidW]

Yes, gold plating is very useful in electronics to ensure that good contact is
maintained, but you don't need it for speakers. I think my speakers have
gold-plated screw clamps. Looks nice, but the gold is unnecessary.

[Rod Speed]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avdalv...@mid.individual.net...

> On 14-May-2013 8:51 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> Trevor wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve
>>>> amplifiers?
>>> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not
>>> have to bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their
>>> personal notion of it.
>>> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their
>>> distortion qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce*
>>> a certain musical "sound", but not a good choice for musical
>>> *reproduction* of that sound, and certainly not when you don't want
>>> that distortion at all.

>> Some people might prefer valve amps just because they "sound" better, not
>> because they reproduce better. There are so many factors that affect the
>> sound
>> that gets in your ears - the speakers and the acoustics of the room being
>> two
>> huge ones. It may be that valve amps in combination with other factors
>> produce a
>> result that those people enjoy listening to the most.

> The tonal qualities and smoothness of valve amps is legendary

Doesn't mean that its an accurate reproduction of what was recorded.

[Trevor Wilson]

**I take NOTHING as read. Unless the precise specs of the digital system
are specified, there can be no blanket claim that the effects of that
digital system are inaudible.

For instance: There is abundant evidence to prove that a (say) 24/96
digital audio system is preferred by some listeners (in a blind test)
over a 16/44 (CD quality) in a suitably high resolution system, using
otherwise identical material. I would also add that there is
considerable evidence to suggest that many listeners can easily pick the
difference between DACs (Digital to Analogue Converters). In fact, some
of the best DACs are considered to be those manufactured by Philips back
in the late 1980s.

The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.

For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape
(15ips, played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and
vinyl, through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred
over the vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further
testing revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).

FWIW: I have not purchased a (new) vinyl recording since 1988. Recording
companies lst interest in manufacturing quality LPs long ago.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily
very tin and provides a poor choice for speaker connectors. Silver,
which can be plated far more thickly, is a far better choice. It's
superior conductivity is also a bonus.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/05/2013 10:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 14/05/2013 10:15 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 14/05/2013 8:28 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>>> felix_unger wrote:
>>>>> On 11-May-2013 9:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have
>>>>>> the option of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and
>>>>>> high-quality speakers for those movies/shows that are worthwhile
>>>>>> having hi-fi sound).
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads.
>>>>
>>>> "Good quality" audio leads are a crock, like gold-plated connectors.
>>>> Plain copper wires do a perfectly good job.
>>>
>>> The point of gold plating is that gold is a soft metal that doesn't
>>> oxidise, which helps ensure a consistent connection. I've had enough
>>> trouble with poor audio connections to recognise the benefit of that.
>>> If course, better still is a screw clamped connector.
>>
>> Yes, gold plating is very useful in electronics to ensure that good
>> contact is
>> maintained, but you don't need it for speakers. I think my speakers have
>> gold-plated screw clamps. Looks nice, but the gold is unnecessary.
>>
>>
>
> **Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily
> very tin

**That would be: "....very THIN..."


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/05/2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>
>>
>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.
>
> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
> faithful reproduction.

**Bollocks.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/05/2013 6:11 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 13-May-2013 2:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:avatpf...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 13-May-2013 10:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would
>>>>> suggest.
>>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
>>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>>> faithful reproduction.
>>> That's true of course for dedicated audio systems for music
>>> reproduction.
>> Nope, not for any modern digital audio system that isn't broken.
>
> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

**For the same reason that some drivers prefer Model T Fords. They make
a statement about the person.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[felix_unger]

I guess it depends on what equipment you have. I tested various leads on
my audio system years ago and could hear differences between leads. I
even tried household electrical cable, and that can work well as a cheap
alternative. It also depends on the length, as you say. You might not
notice the/much difference between leads if they are very short. Even if
there's no difference in audio quality there can be tonal differences,
which can decide a users preference. I must confess however that I
missed that you were referring specifically to audio leads, since the
discussion was originally about A/V equipment. In the case of quality vs
cheap video leads the difference is very noticeable. I can even see the
difference between the various grades of Monster cable that I use. And
It comes down a lot to experimentation also, and compatibilities due to
differing specifications between various brands- assuming you have a
mixture from different makers as many ppl do. For example I get the best
picture with Monster cable level 1 leads with my Foxtel IQ box. If I use
higher grade the picture is actually worse, because the signal level
becomes too high.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Oh no!! we're out of chocolate!"

[Trevor Wilson]

**Like most over-simplifications, that is wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[felix_unger]

On 14-May-2013 10:03 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 14/05/2013 8:28 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> felix_unger wrote:
>>> On 11-May-2013 9:02 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>>> As an audiophile I do want hi-fi sound on one of the inputs (I have
>>>> the option of directing its audio to a stereo amplifier and
>>>> high-quality speakers for those movies/shows that are worthwhile
>>>> having hi-fi sound).
>>>
>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads.
>>
>> "Good quality" audio leads are a crock, like gold-plated connectors.
>> Plain
>> copper wires do a perfectly good job.
>>
>>
>
> The point of gold plating is that gold is a soft metal that doesn't
> oxidise, which helps ensure a consistent connection.

With audio sockets on the rear panel of amplifiers it's totally
unnecessary since the connection is so tight when the cable is connected
there's no air space for oxidation to occur.

> I've had enough trouble with poor audio connections to recognise the
> benefit of that. If course, better still is a screw clamped connector.
>
> Sylvia.

[felix_unger]

But 'at the end of the day' you have an audio system to listen to music.
What's the point of having a system you can pride yourself on as having
some incredibly low distortion figures if it doesn't sound good to you?
And everybody hears differently.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"I'm not young enough to know everything"

[Sylvia Else]

On 14/05/2013 10:41 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
> system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
> analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.

I didn't say that the ear was digital, but the processing by the ear
involves the generation of nerve pulses by hair cells with the frequency
being encoded into which nerves are triggered, and amplitude by the the
pulse rate. What the brain gets is hardly analogue.

Sylvia

[Rod Speed]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avdidq...@mid.individual.net...

Yes.

> What's the point of having a system you can pride yourself on as having
> some incredibly low distortion figures if it doesn't sound good to you?

Using that line you can just mangle the music electronically
as much as you like so that it sounds even better to you.

And that is in fact precisely what some kids do.

> And everybody hears differently.

Nope.

[Brad]

> And everybody hears differently.

Nope.

Yep.

Our biology might be the same but after several decades of damage I can assure you what I hear will be different to what you hear, regardless of the fact that we may be listening to the same sound source.

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

That's self-contradictory, David. You're essentially saying that
loudspeakers aren't electronic devices.

[DavidW]

felix_unger wrote:
> On 14-May-2013 9:35 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> I thought all you needed was low resistance. You can get that with
>> plain copper wire of reasonable thickness and as short as possible.
>> In the end, can you hear the difference?
>>
>
> I guess it depends on what equipment you have. I tested various leads
> on my audio system years ago and could hear differences between
> leads. I even tried household electrical cable, and that can work
> well as a cheap alternative. It also depends on the length, as you
> say. You might not notice the/much difference between leads if they
> are very short. Even if there's no difference in audio quality there
> can be tonal differences, which can decide a users preference. I must
> confess however that I missed that you were referring specifically to
> audio leads, since the discussion was originally about A/V equipment.
> In the case of quality vs cheap video leads the difference is very
> noticeable. I can even see the difference between the various grades
> of Monster cable that I use. And It comes down a lot to
> experimentation also, and compatibilities due to differing
> specifications between various brands- assuming you have a mixture
> from different makers as many ppl do.

Okay, but others have not heard the difference.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2849/do-expensive-premium-speaker-cables-actually-make-a-difference
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

[DavidW]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> **Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily
>> very tin
>
> **That would be: "....very THIN..."

Just as well you corrected that. I wondered what tin had to do with this.

[felix_unger]

On 14-May-2013 11:59 AM, Brad wrote:

>
>> And everybody hears differently.
> Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
> Our biology might be the same

there are no identical ears.. or any other body parts for that matter

> but after several decades of damage I can assure you what I hear will be different to what you hear, regardless of the fact that we may be listening to the same sound source.

[DavidW]

Not at all. You should have learnt by now not to go after me in the area of
expression and comprehension.

> You're essentially saying that loudspeakers aren't electronic devices.

Nope. I did not say that gold plating is very useful for _all_ connections in
_all_ electronic devices. I said that gold plating is very useful in
electronics, but I did not say to what extent.

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

On May 14, 10:33 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
> > On May 14, 8:15 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> Yes, gold plating is very useful in electronics to ensure that good
> >> contact is maintained, but you don't need it for speakers. I think
> >> my speakers have gold-plated screw clamps. Looks nice, but the gold
> >> is unnecessary.
>
> > That's self-contradictory, David.
>
> Not at all. You should have learnt by now not to go after me in the area of
> expression and comprehension.

I'm not interested in "going after" you or anyone else, David. The
problem with your mode of expression is that it inhibits
comprehension. You're more interested in showing what a dickhead you
can be than in expressing yourself clearly. What I should have learnt
by now is not to bother reading anything you post, since you're just a
deliberately time-wasting cunt.

[DavidW]

Well, that touched a nerve, didn't it?

As for inhibiting comprehension, I would have thought that the very exclusion of
speakers indicated that by "very useful in electronics" I did not mean for _all_
connections. FPGAs are very useful in electronics too, but that doesn't mean
that every circuit should have one.

[Petzl]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:33:16 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>> Some people might prefer valve amps just because they "sound" better, not
>>> because they reproduce better. There are so many factors that affect the
>>> sound
>>> that gets in your ears - the speakers and the acoustics of the room being
>>> two
>>> huge ones. It may be that valve amps in combination with other factors
>>> produce a
>>> result that those people enjoy listening to the most.
>
>> The tonal qualities and smoothness of valve amps is legendary
>
>Doesn't mean that its an accurate reproduction of what was recorded.

Yes, I went to a friends place to play an Album he had a Valve amp the
turn table (top of the line) and four Speakers (top of the line).
There seems to be a "feel" of music as well as audio excellence that
comes into effect. My own system was no slouch but this pleasant feel
of lows and highs can't be digitally shown (yet). Live concerts in
*proper* auditoriums are the way to hear and feel good music
--
Petzl
I started with nothing and I am proud to say I still have most of it left

[felix_unger]

I still prefer component (analog) video to HDMI (digital). It looks
smoother more natural somehow, and better colour. Of course you need to
have good equipment.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Somebody complimented me on my driving today. They
left a little note on the windscreen. It said, 'Parking Fine' "

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avbuaf...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13-May-2013 8:30 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>>

>> Because they are brain dead fools that have never
>> had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>
> So you're willing to claim there's no difference between CD sound, and
> vinyl, or valve amp and transistor? You won't get many HiFi enthusiasts to
> agree then.

Of course there is a difference, thankfully technology has improved greatly,
and the problems with valve amps and vinyl records are not something we have
to put up with any more. That a minority still choose to do so is entirely
their choice, and they are welcome to it.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avd62a...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13/05/2013 2:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>> news:avardc...@mid.individual.net...

>>> On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:

>>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
>>>> audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.
>>>
>>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
>>> the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
>>> faithful reproduction.
>>

>> True idiots you mean, those that actually have a clue (perhaps not such a
>> big percentage admittedly) know that after adding dither and a
>> reconstruction filter, there is no quantitisation remaining, only a FAR
>> more
>> accurate signal than can be obtained by ANY analog recording method
>> available.
>
> **Unless the sampling rate is specified, you cannot state such a thing.

Oh we are in for one of those "I can hear above 22kHz" arguments "but I
don't need to prove it even to myself of course!" :-)
OK, there are higher sampling rate options just for you! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:avdfii...@mid.individual.net...

Everyone gets an opinion which proves nothing about absolute performance,
only their personal auditory/brain connections.

> The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
> system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
> analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.

And can be done so quite well, with performance FAR above any purely analog
system despite your spurious claims.

> For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
> using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape (15ips,
> played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and vinyl,
> through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred over the
> vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further testing
> revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
> contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).

Which is the usual fallacy of using two completely different versions of a
recording and pretending they are the same when all you are testing is the
mastering differences and an individuals preference for one level of FR,
distortion, noise etc. over another.
Preferences are like assholes, everybody has one, and those who think theirs
is the only one that counts are the latter.


> FWIW: <snip>

Bugger all! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:avdita...@mid.individual.net...

Dead right, but then they have no idea what analog is. An "analog" tape
recorder using high frequency bias can be modelled as a sampled system, just
the same as a digital sampled system, but without the binary encoding. Both
use filtering to reconstruct as analog signals in the usual definition of
the word long before they ever reach the speakers, and then the auditory
system changes it all completely once again before it is interpreted by the
brain.
The weakest link of course is the auditory/brain interface, something the
golden ears claim they alone are immune from, as long as they don't ever
have to prove it! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avdaof...@mid.individual.net...

>> "Good quality" audio leads are a crock,
>

> That shows how much you know then

Right, poor quality ones are often mechanically unreliable. Of course good
quality ones are not as expensive as the "magic smoke and mirror" ones :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:kms6uc$7pl$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> felix_unger wrote:
>> I guess it depends on what equipment you have. I tested various leads
>> on my audio system years ago and could hear differences between
>> leads. I even tried household electrical cable, and that can work
>> well as a cheap alternative. It also depends on the length, as you
>> say. You might not notice the/much difference between leads if they
>> are very short. Even if there's no difference in audio quality there
>> can be tonal differences, which can decide a users preference. I must
>> confess however that I missed that you were referring specifically to
>> audio leads, since the discussion was originally about A/V equipment.
>> In the case of quality vs cheap video leads the difference is very
>> noticeable. I can even see the difference between the various grades
>> of Monster cable that I use. And It comes down a lot to
>> experimentation also, and compatibilities due to differing
>> specifications between various brands- assuming you have a mixture
>> from different makers as many ppl do.
>
> Okay, but others have not heard the difference.
> http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2849/do-expensive-premium-speaker-cables-actually-make-a-difference
> http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

That's the beauty of uncontrolled tests conducted by themselves with
significant time gaps and all. You can delude yourself into any result you
like, but as long as you are happy, all is fine. When they claim their self
biased *opinion* to the world as fact though, they look like the idiots that
they are.
However there *are* differences in cables of course, using long lengths of
bell wire with giant amps is silly, and some interconnects have significant
inductance or capacitance that can cause problems in some cases. But the
biggest difference is usually the mechanical qualities.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:avddau...@mid.individual.net...

> The point of gold plating is that gold is a soft metal that doesn't
> oxidise, which helps ensure a consistent connection. I've had enough
> trouble with poor audio connections to recognise the benefit of that. If
> course, better still is a screw clamped connector.

Not necessarily, metal creep under pressure means screw clamps often loosen
over time.

Trevor.

[Trevor Wilson]

**_I_ don't claim to be able to hear past 22kHz. I don't doubt that some
can, however. Back in the 1970s, I worked for a medium sized importer of
hi fi equipment. I was asked to pop down to the new warehouse that the
company had leased. I walked in the door and immediately walked back
out. I found something intolerable about the place. I glanced around and
spotted some ultrasonic burglar alarm sensors. I located the power
supply and shut it off. I was then able to complete my job. I returned a
few days later with a micrphone, preamp, CRO and frequency counter. I
switched the system on and off and was able to see, very clearly, a high
level of 25kHz signal throughout much of the warehouse. Given that I had
already measured my own hearing and found that I could not reliably hear
past 19kHz, I was surprised. However, it is a common fallacy to assume
that human hearing 'cuts off' at 20kHz. It does not. It is severely
attenuated.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:avdfn1...@mid.individual.net...

> **Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily very

> tin and provides a poor choice for speaker connectors. Silver, which can
> be plated far more thickly, is a far better choice. It's superior
> conductivity is also a bonus.

But needs to be kept clean as the tarnish film that can form is not such a
good conductor.

Trevor.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Of course. Up until a few months ago, I might had disregarded the
opinions as nonsense. When a client dropped a 23 year old Marantz CD
player in for service, I took the time to carefully listen to it,
compared to my late model Harman Kardon. My heart sank, within a few
seconds of listening to the Marantz. The HK was not in the same league.
I assumed, as you do, that the printed specs tell me all I need to know.

>
>
>> The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
>> system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
>> analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.
>
> And can be done so quite well, with performance FAR above any purely analog
> system despite your spurious claims.

**And again, SOME digital systems are capable of exceptionally fine
performance. It depends on the system.

>
>
>> For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
>> using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape (15ips,
>> played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and vinyl,
>> through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred over the
>> vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further testing
>> revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
>> contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).
>
> Which is the usual fallacy of using two completely different versions of a
> recording and pretending they are the same when all you are testing is the
> mastering differences and an individuals preference for one level of FR,
> distortion, noise etc. over another.

**Perhaps you failed to read what I wrote.

I had access to the same tapes that the vinyl and the CD was made from.
The music was Neil Diamond's Hot August Night. It was recorded on
analogue tape. The tape I used was a second generation master, stored by
EMI in their vaults. It was the same tape used to manufacture CDs.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor]

"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message

news:kmrpmm$42j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>
>>> In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no
>>> 'true' audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I
>>> would suggest.
>>
>> True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation
>> to the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task
>> of faithful reproduction.
>

> If the quantised approximation is close enough, you cannot hear the
> difference, and it does have the advantage of perfect copyability and
> identical repeat playings.


And an "analog" tape recording is only "quantised" to the magentic particle
size anyway, and "sampled" at the high frequency bias rate! :-)
Not that an audiophool would understand that irony.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message

news:kmrqpd$715$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Trevor wrote:
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve
>>> amplifiers?
>>

>> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not
>> have to bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their
>> personal notion of it.
>> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their
>> distortion qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce*
>> a certain musical "sound", but not a good choice for musical
>> *reproduction* of that sound, and certainly not when you don't want
>> that distortion at all.
>

> Some people might prefer valve amps just because they "sound" better, not
> because they reproduce better.

Right, "sounds better" is purely an opinion everyone gets to make for
themselves.

>There are so many factors that affect the sound that gets in your ears -
>the speakers and the acoustics of the room being two huge ones. It may be
>that valve amps in combination with other factors produce a result that
>those people enjoy listening to the most.

And I have no problem with that, only that they never admit is is purely
their subjective opinion, and find the need to argue some absolute
superiority when there demonstrably is none.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

news:avdalv...@mid.individual.net...
> The tonal qualities of valve amps is legendary

Sure is, that's why everyone uses solid state now :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Brad" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4eed50c1-fee5-47b0...@googlegroups.com...

You hear differently from the time you are born and your own brain starts to
interpret whatever your personal auditory system delivers it.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:avdged...@mid.individual.net...

> On 13/05/2013 6:11 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>

> **For the same reason that some drivers prefer Model T Fords. They make a
> statement about the person.

I'd be more charitable than that, they have an *opinion* it sounds better
*to them* and get to spend their money however they want.
Those who simply want to make a statement usually do it with an expensive
car (or a rare one like your example) expensive jewlery, expensive clothes
etc.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:ave475...@mid.individual.net...
<snip>

>However, it is a common fallacy to assume that human hearing 'cuts off' at
>20kHz. It does not. It is severely attenuated.

As are any remaining HF signals on vinyl and tape. Fortunately we now have
high sample rate digital if you really want to record those ultrasonic
alarms.

Trevor.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Typical bias frequencies lie about 110kHz for most tape systems. A
frequency which is well in excess of a 16/44 digital system. According
to Nyquist, that tells us a theoretical maximum frequency response in
excess of 50kHz. Well past 16/44 digital.




--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Silver easily forms a silver sulphide, which is highly conductive.
Silver oxide does not form easily. In any case, the reason for using
silver lies with it's ability to be thickly and robustly plated on high
current connectors. Something RF engineers have known for decades.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:ave4li...@mid.individual.net...

>> Everyone gets an opinion which proves nothing about absolute performance,
>> only their personal auditory/brain connections.
>
> **Of course. Up until a few months ago, I might had disregarded the
> opinions as nonsense. When a client dropped a 23 year old Marantz CD
> player in for service, I took the time to carefully listen to it, compared
> to my late model Harman Kardon. My heart sank, within a few seconds of
> listening to the Marantz. The HK was not in the same league. I assumed, as
> you do, that the printed specs tell me all I need to know.

Nope, never assume that. I never assume it is easy to audibly compare items
by simply swapping one for the other without carefully controlled test
conditions either.

> **And again, SOME digital systems are capable of exceptionally fine
> performance. It depends on the system.

Of course. The real benefit for most people is even a cheap CD player will
outperform a turntable costing many mutiples of it's price, and while some
CD's are badly mastered, finding vinyl that is *not* badly manufactured is a
far harder ask :-(

>>> For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
>>> using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape
>>> (15ips,
>>> played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and vinyl,
>>> through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred over the
>>> vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further testing
>>> revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
>>> contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).
>>
>> Which is the usual fallacy of using two completely different versions of
>> a
>> recording and pretending they are the same when all you are testing is
>> the
>> mastering differences and an individuals preference for one level of FR,
>> distortion, noise etc. over another.
>
> **Perhaps you failed to read what I wrote.

No, the CD cannot be better than an analog master tape it came from, BUT it
can easily be better than a vinyl copy (or worse if the mastering is bad
enough), AND it can be far better if properly recorded digitally in the
first place.
Your test proved nothing other than your opinion of the different samples
you used for comparison.

> I had access to the same tapes that the vinyl and the CD was made from.

Which were all different after mastering for the different mediums as I
said.

> The music was Neil Diamond's Hot August Night. It was recorded on analogue
> tape. The tape I used was a second generation master, stored by EMI in
> their vaults. It was the same tape used to manufacture CDs.

So you don't understand that there are different processes involved in
getting a tape to vinyl or CD? The differences are easily measured, no need
for aural guessing games other than to establish personal preference of the
changes induced.

Trevor.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/05/2013 5:00 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:avdged...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 13/05/2013 6:11 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>>
>> **For the same reason that some drivers prefer Model T Fords. They make a
>> statement about the person.
>
> I'd be more charitable than that, they have an *opinion* it sounds better
> *to them* and get to spend their money however they want.

**I was being a little flippant. The vast majority own such products as
a statement. SOME listeners use such equipment for valid reasons. They
may include:

* The use of loudspeakers that have been 'voiced' to be used with
certain amplifiers.
* The use of loudspeakers whose impedance characteristic is such that
the vast majority of solid state amplifiers cannot deal with it. Like this:
http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg

> Those who simply want to make a statement usually do it with an expensive
> car (or a rare one like your example) expensive jewlery, expensive clothes
> etc.

**Or this:

http://www.audionote.co.jp/en/products/power_amplifier/ongaku.html

That POS costs a cool $250k and sounds about as good as the output stage
in my TV set. Not quite as much power though.

Or this POS:

http://www.sakurasystems.com/products/47amp.html

Same output stage that you can find in a TV set. It'll set you back
several grand.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:ave7e2...@mid.individual.net...

>
> **Typical bias frequencies lie about 110kHz for most tape systems. A
> frequency which is well in excess of a 16/44 digital system. According to
> Nyquist, that tells us a theoretical maximum frequency response in excess
> of 50kHz. Well past 16/44 digital.

The original argument was sampling and quantisation didn't exist in analog
recording, not that the sample rate may be higher, or in fact lower than the
24/192 systems readily availble these days.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:ave7jb...@mid.individual.net...

Exactly, they are far better for RF use than audio, so that's where you
usually find them.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:ave81e...@mid.individual.net...

> Or this POS:
>
> http://www.sakurasystems.com/products/47amp.html
>
> Same output stage that you can find in a TV set. It'll set you back
> several grand.

It won't set *me* back anything! I sure that buy that sort of crap.

Trevor.

[A Little Bit]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:41:29 +1000, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

> **Of course. Up until a few months ago, I might had disregarded the
> opinions as nonsense. When a client dropped a 23 year old Marantz CD
> player in for service, I took the time to carefully listen to it,
> compared to my late model Harman Kardon. My heart sank, within a few
> seconds of listening to the Marantz. The HK was not in the same league.
> I assumed, as you do, that the printed specs tell me all I need to know.

Which model Marantz? I have a 30 year old Marantz CD-74 that needs repairs (I think the
laser has gone and the tray clunks) and hasn't been used for many years, not sure if that
model is worth doing or not. I also have a 35 year old Yamaha CR-2020 receiver I would
like to restore one day (capacitors would be rooted by now). The receiver is apparently
still a very popular item and my one used to deliver a measured 170W/channel RMS into 8
ohms without distortion, well above what the manufacturer claimed.

[F Murtz]

Silly argument, everyone uses solid state because it is cheaper, easier
to transport etc, nothing to do with tonal qualities, the vast majority
do not carry on about little nuances of reproduction,extremely few carry
on like wine snobs in their field.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

[Trevor]

"F Murtz" <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kmstes$v25$1...@dont-email.me...

> Trevor wrote:
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:avdalv...@mid.individual.net...
>>> The tonal qualities of valve amps is legendary
>>
>> Sure is, that's why everyone uses solid state now :-)
>
> Silly argument, everyone uses solid state because it is cheaper, easier to
> transport etc,

Yep, and a dozen other benefits.

>nothing to do with tonal qualities,

Yep, don't want to add any "tonal qualities"

>the vast majority do not carry on about little nuances of
>reproduction,extremely few carry on like wine snobs in their field.

Yep, happy to listen to the music, not (mass)debate endlessly about personal
preferences.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"A Little Bit" <ti...@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:fnq3p8938l0bqkdul...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:41:29 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:
>> **Of course. Up until a few months ago, I might had disregarded the
>> opinions as nonsense. When a client dropped a 23 year old Marantz CD
>> player in for service, I took the time to carefully listen to it,
>> compared to my late model Harman Kardon. My heart sank, within a few
>> seconds of listening to the Marantz. The HK was not in the same league.
>> I assumed, as you do, that the printed specs tell me all I need to know.
>
> Which model Marantz? I have a 30 year old Marantz CD-74 that needs
> repairs (I think the
> laser has gone and the tray clunks) and hasn't been used for many years,
> not sure if that
> model is worth doing or not. I also have a 35 year old Yamaha CR-2020
> receiver I would
> like to restore one day (capacitors would be rooted by now).

What's the point. FAR better to rip the CD using EAC and accurate rip (that
way you know the bits are the same as the original master) then play from a
media server via a decent DAC. Will guarantee better sound than any normal
CD player. Certainly far better than a 23 or 30YO Marantz! And the added
convenience of endless play lists and no searching for disks, is not to be
ignored IMO.

Trevor.

[Frank Slootweg]

yaputya <yaputya....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message news:avbu2s...@mid.individual.net...

> > On 13-May-2013 7:07 PM, Trevor wrote:
> >
> >> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message

> >> news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...

> >>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

> >> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not have to
> >> bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their personal notion of
> >> it.
> >> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their distortion
> >> qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce* a certain musical
> >> "sound", but not a good choice for musical *reproduction* of that sound, and
> >> certainly not when you don't want that distortion at all.
> >

> > So let's see some distortion figures for Hi Fi valve amps vs transistor/mosfet amps then

Why would we? THD figures are rather meaningless. That they're easy to
measure and quote don't mean they're meaningfull.

> from SC June 2008 Altitude 3500-SS Stereo Valve Amplifier (RRP $1899)
> @32W THD < 0.63% at 1kHz
>
> compare this to two of SCs power amp modules;
> from SC January 2004 Studio 350 Audio Amplifier (transistor)
> @180W THD < 0.002% at 1kHz
>
> from SC August 2008 Ultra-LD Mk.2 200W Power Amplifier (transistor)
> @100W THD < 0.001% at 1kHz
>
> Also, valve amps have very poor damping factors which means the loudspeaker
> cone excursions are not tightly controlled, especially in the 'piston' range
> below about 500 Hz. (i.e. muddy bass).

[DavidW]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> * The use of loudspeakers whose impedance characteristic is such that
> the vast majority of solid state amplifiers cannot deal with it. Like
> this:
> http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg

That's a craaazy-looking impedance graph.

[Trevor Wilson]

**It is pretty nasty, but certainly not unusual for many electrostatic
loudspeakers. The original Quad ESL57 possessed an impedance curve at
low frequencies that went extremely low indeed.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 15/05/2013 12:29 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> yaputya <yaputya....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message news:avbu2s...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 13-May-2013 7:07 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>>
>>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>>>> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not have to
>>>> bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their personal notion of
>>>> it.
>>>> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their distortion
>>>> qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce* a certain musical
>>>> "sound", but not a good choice for musical *reproduction* of that sound, and
>>>> certainly not when you don't want that distortion at all.
>>>
>>> So let's see some distortion figures for Hi Fi valve amps vs transistor/mosfet amps then
>
> Why would we? THD figures are rather meaningless. That they're easy to
> measure and quote don't mean they're meaningfull.

**Utterly and completely untrue. THD figures (comprehensives ones, which
include the spectrum of distortion components) can tell us a great deal
about an audio product. That said, it is also true that beyond certain
limits, further reductions in THD may not be useful for humans. Such
reductions may cause other problems, which can introduce other artefacts
which humans can respond negatively to.

Make no mistake: An amplifier which exhibits (say) 10% THD _IS_
introducing it's own signature into a system and is not acceptable for a
high fidelity reproduction system. An amplifier which exhibits less than
(say) 0.1% THD is not likely to be so compromised. An amplifier which
exhibits less than (say) 0.001% THD is unlikely to be differentiated
from the 0.1% example.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[yaputya]

"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message news:kmsjqm$3uf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message news:avbuaf...@mid.individual.net...

>> On 13-May-2013 8:30 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
>>>

>>> Because they are brain dead fools that have never
>>> had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>
>> So you're willing to claim there's no difference between CD sound, and vinyl, or valve amp and transistor? You won't get many
>> HiFi enthusiasts to agree then.
>
> Of course there is a difference, thankfully technology has improved greatly, and the problems with valve amps and vinyl records
> are not something we have to put up with any more. That a minority still choose to do so is entirely their choice, and they are
> welcome to it.
>
> Trevor.

Too bloody true. These idiots who cling on to expensive antiquated technology seem to forget
all the other problems they have to put up with....if you are stupid enough to spend money
on such crap I guess you will convince yourself it sounds better, or you just have to admit
you are a gullible fool.....
-pops and clicks
-scratches and dust
-turntable noise, wow and flutter, rumble
-stylus wear
-microphonic valves
-valves wear out and lose emission

And despite poor damping factors indicating valve amp output impedances of several ohms,
I bet the fools are also paying for 'Monster Cable' too!!!!


etc. etc.

>
>

[Frank Slootweg]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> On 15/05/2013 12:29 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > yaputya <yaputya....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message news:avbu2s...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> On 13-May-2013 7:07 PM, Trevor wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:avbli5...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?
> >>>> They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not have to
> >>>> bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their personal notion of
> >>>> it.
> >>>> Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their distortion
> >>>> qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce* a certain musical
> >>>> "sound", but not a good choice for musical *reproduction* of that sound, and
> >>>> certainly not when you don't want that distortion at all.
> >>>
> >>> So let's see some distortion figures for Hi Fi valve amps vs transistor/mosfet amps then
> >
> > Why would we? THD figures are rather meaningless. That they're easy to
> > measure and quote don't mean they're meaningfull.
>
> **Utterly and completely untrue. THD figures (comprehensives ones, which
> include the spectrum of distortion components) can tell us a great deal
> about an audio product.

I obviously refered to the *non*-comprehensive ones which yaputya
quoted (but you snipped), i.e. "@XXW THD < 0.YY% at 1kHz". By definition
the "T" in THD makes the THD meaningless if not accompied by a slew of
other relevant/related data. But I know that you know that.

But to be [f|F]rank, it was mainly flame-bait. Sorry that you we're
the one that bit / got hooked.

[...]

[yaputya]

"Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message news:avhgh5...@mid.individual.net...

So you are a troll


>
> [...]

[Frank Slootweg]

Nope, it was a somewhat provocative response to a rather meaningless
specification. People who talk back to/at you aren't neccessarily
trolls. So why the ad Hominem? Don't you have a real argument?

BTW, do you think that a troll would have let Trevor Wilson get away
with his "**Utterly and completely untrue." statement?

[yaputya]

"Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message news:avkr5g...@mid.individual.net...

Amplifier manufacturers nearly always quote the THD at 1kHz, it is a
perfectly valid way to compare amps as the other distortion measurements
will reflect the quality of the 1kHz result.
The manufacturers of the Altitude amp I quoted do the same:
http://www.fountek.net/products.asp?id=114
Note that is the only distortion measuement they mention.

SC measured and plotted the THD vs power and THD vs frequency for
the Altitude and their 200W amp module. Since this is not a binary NG
I cannot post them here, but they clearyly show that the valve amp is
vastly inferior in distortion at all frequencies and powers.

>
> BTW, do you think that a troll would have let Trevor Wilson get away
> with his "**Utterly and completely untrue." statement?

What's the difference between a provocative response and a troll, then?

[felix_unger]

THD is only a reliable measure of amplifier quality and performance if
it is quoted as a maximum over the audio bandwidth at a reasonlble power
output level. eg. 0.01% max THD 20hz - 20Khs @ 40w RMS per channel both
channels driven

>> BTW, do you think that a troll would have let Trevor Wilson get away
>> with his "**Utterly and completely untrue." statement?
> What's the difference between a provocative response and a troll, then?
>
>

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

[Frank Slootweg]

Yes, I do know what manufacturers quote, but, as I said, that does
not make them particularly useful.

*If* it's a very good amp, the 1kHz at XXW THD number will be
representative for other frequencies and power levels.

The point is that most amps are *not* "very good amps", so it's silly
to trust some non-representative single THD number.

> The manufacturers of the Altitude amp I quoted do the same:
> http://www.fountek.net/products.asp?id=114
> Note that is the only distortion measuement they mention.
>
> SC measured and plotted the THD vs power and THD vs frequency for
> the Altitude and their 200W amp module.

*That* is the kind of distortion data I'm referring to, for the
complete frequency and power range.

And then we haven't even touched on crossover distortion and clipping
distortion, nor on the issue that the equal weighing of all harmonics in
THD is a matter of debate.

> Since this is not a binary NG
> I cannot post them here, but they clearyly show that the valve amp is
> vastly inferior in distortion at all frequencies and powers.
>
> > BTW, do you think that a troll would have let Trevor Wilson get
> > away with his "**Utterly and completely untrue." statement?
>
> What's the difference between a provocative response and a troll,
> then?

(IMO (and in my case)) A provocative response is on-topic and intended
to trigger an on-topic response. A troll is just intended to trigger
heated responses, anger, etc., i.e. just the emotions matter, not the
content.

Thanks for your response.

[Trevor]

"Frank Slootweg" <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message

news:avnbue...@mid.individual.net...

>> SC measured and plotted the THD vs power and THD vs frequency for
>> the Altitude and their 200W amp module.
>
> *That* is the kind of distortion data I'm referring to, for the
> complete frequency and power range.
>
> And then we haven't even touched on crossover distortion

Crossover distortion will clearly be shown in THD specs at low power, and is
just as bad (or worse) for any Vacuum tube amp as solid state using the same
amplification class.
Easier and cheaper to build a decent class A solid state amp of the same (or
more) power as a similar VT one these days if low power distortion is your
prime consideration.


>and clipping distortion,

No need to go anywhere near clipping with a modern solid state amp of
course, unlike low power VT amps, since you can get about ten times the
power output for less money.

> nor on the issue that the equal weighing of all harmonics in
> THD is a matter of debate.

If *ALL* harmonics (individually and in total) are below the threshold of
human hearing, as with any good modern solid state amp, (but not with VT
amps) what does it matter?
Why in hell put up with increased even order distortion, just so it makes
the odd order distortion figures look relatively lower, even when they are
actually far higher is absolute terms for example? Only nutbags think like
that. Plenty of those of course :-(
There are plenty of effects processors to digitally add even order
distortion these days if that is what you prefer to clean audio, no need to
buy a valve amp to do it any more.

Trevor.