Cable Thoughts
Kong Kritayakirana
That's correct!
But.....
Interconnect cables are about the strongest links in the audio chain.
They, on input/output basis, given that proper care is made for the connections,
have clearest transparency and greatest front to back depth, deepest and widest
soundstage, most lifelike pace and rhythm blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
How many solder joints, transistors, capacitors, and PCB traces signals have
to travel through in other components?
The signal travels through proper shielded interconnect is like cars zipping
through the Golden Gate bridge while in ANY amplifier it is like backing your
car down Lombard street. (Speaking of driving cars, I have done both the above
so I have first hand subjective experience how hard it is to do either of the
tasks. :) :) :)
And for the subject of speaker cable.....
Open up your amp. Look at what kind of wire is used to route the signal to
the binding post connector. Open up your speakers. Look at what kind of wire
is used to make inductors for your crossover. Look at the voice coil. :) and
see what kind of wire? Using $8000000000 speaker cable is like, using the car
analogy, driving in a winding road in countryside, and when there is a bridge
across a river, make it 50 lanes wide, then go back to small winding road again.
judge for yourself.
Chuck Ross
(Kong Kritayakirana) wrote:
> The chain is as strong as its weakest link, eh?
>
> That's correct!
>
> But.....
>
> Interconnect cables are about the strongest links in the audio chain.
> They, on input/output basis, given that proper care is made for the
connections,
> have clearest transparency and greatest front to back depth, deepest and
widest
> soundstage, most lifelike pace and rhythm blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
>
> How many solder joints, transistors, capacitors, and PCB traces signals have
> to travel through in other components?
Yet, there is no question in my mind that different interconnects do,
indeed, sound different on a system with high resolution. It's not
imaginary...people I know who have little or no high-end listening
experience can hear the differences without even being prompted. It would
be interesting to know why this is true. I expect a whole bunch of
"scientific disclaimers", so, shoot!
>
> The signal travels through proper shielded interconnect is like cars zipping
> through the Golden Gate bridge while in ANY amplifier it is like backing your
> car down Lombard street. (Speaking of driving cars, I have done both the above
> so I have first hand subjective experience how hard it is to do either of the
> tasks. :) :) :)
> And for the subject of speaker cable.....
>
> Open up your amp. Look at what kind of wire is used to route the signal to
> the binding post connector. Open up your speakers. Look at what kind of wire
> is used to make inductors for your crossover. Look at the voice coil. :) and
> see what kind of wire? Using $8000000000 speaker cable is like, using the car
> analogy, driving in a winding road in countryside, and when there is a bridge
> across a river, make it 50 lanes wide, then go back to small winding
road again.
Or, better yet, open up your _SPEAKERS_ and see what kind of thin, little
wires are used to connect drivers to crossovers, etc. Like in the
Thiels...this is hard to believe, but again, I have no doubt that
different speaker cables can sound quite differently on systems with good
resolution. Some systems do, indeed use stuff like Kimber Kable to wire
speakers, but these are exceptions. Does it have something to do with the
design of the system so that it _does_ sound "right" to the designer using
the supplied wires, and that, if "better" wiring is substituted in
speakers, amps, etc., this will throw off the design specs?
I am kind of bored with people who are constantly quoting "scientific"
proofs to disprove cable claims; some of the proofs are valid, but can we
_all_ be wrong about cables sounding differently?
I realize that many other mostly ignored factors can change the sound of a
system besides electronics, cables and speakers, including one's personal
mood on a given day or time, speaker placement ( a couple of inches can
make a large difference in perceived quality ), atmospheric conditions
(humidity, temperature, etc.) and things in the listening room, like a
coffee table being moved makes big differences sometimes. But this is
separate from the cable question.
Chuck
Richard D Pierce
>Or, better yet, open up your _SPEAKERS_ and see what kind of thin, little
>wires are used to connect drivers to crossovers, etc. Like in the
>Thiels...this is hard to believe, but again, I have no doubt that
>different speaker cables can sound quite differently on systems with good
>resolution. Some systems do, indeed use stuff like Kimber Kable to wire
>speakers, but these are exceptions. Does it have something to do with the
>design of the system so that it _does_ sound "right" to the designer using
>the supplied wires, and that, if "better" wiring is substituted in
>speakers, amps, etc., this will throw off the design specs?
No, LOOK AT THE VOICE COIL! A very high quality 10" woofer might have a
2" voice coil wound with 4 layers of 28 gauge wire, for a grand total of
about 100 FEET of cheap, lousy, oxygen-ridden, soft drawn, ordinary,
non-magic, copper wire.
>I am kind of bored with people who are constantly quoting "scientific"
>proofs to disprove cable claims; some of the proofs are valid, but can we
>_all_ be wrong about cables sounding differently?
Nobody is quoting "scientific proofs" to disprove cable AUDIBILITY claims,
what I and others are doing is debunking manufacturers' and other utter
mythical tripe about THEIR ludicrous "scientific proofs" of why it MUST
work, and why we should buy it. Big difference.
>I realize that many other mostly ignored factors can change the sound of a
>system besides electronics, cables and speakers, including one's personal
>mood on a given day or time, speaker placement ( a couple of inches can
>make a large difference in perceived quality ), atmospheric conditions
>(humidity, temperature, etc.) and things in the listening room, like a
>coffee table being moved makes big differences sometimes. But this is
>separate from the cable question.
The internal PC traces, the internal wiring in speakers, and the voice
coils ARE cable questions. like it or not.
If your assertion is true, then a testable and falsifiable experiment that
might result is that you can take a high-quality speakers cable 10' long,
add another 10' of 22 gauge lamp cord, and it will make LESS difference
than the difference between the high-quality speaker cable and the 22
gauge lamp cord alone.
Care to test the results of such a prediction? You may use a real
experiment or a well crafted gedanken, at your leisure.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
Andrew Charles +1 708 979 0800
>Yet, there is no question in my mind that different interconnects do,
>indeed, sound different on a system with high resolution.
I've seen claims like this many times on the net. I'm not trying to
dispute it (or confirm it) but I'm curious if anyone can be more specific
about what "high resolution" means here.
Specifically, it seems like some of the types of changes in sound that have
been attributed to cables should be audible on many non-high end systems.
For example, if a cable rolls off the high frequencies, that change should
be audible on any system that produces those frequencies (however poorly and
regardless of any other problems with the system).
So, what *kind* of resolution is needed to here differences in cables?
Andrew Charles
ac...@intgp1.att.com
Gene
writes:
> I am kind of bored with people who are constantly quoting "scientific"
> proofs to disprove cable claims; some of the proofs are valid, but can
> we _all_ be wrong about cables sounding differently?
Chuck, when double blind tests of cables are performed (even whent they
involve the so called Golden Ears), audible differences are just not
found. If hiding product labels is sufficient to remove a sonic difference
in a product, you can safely assume the differences you heard were not due
to something inherent in the cable itself. Peer pressure, expectations,
the price you paid, the state of your sinus cavities and other factors can
make things sound different without a single chance in the sound source
itself.
You can pose all sorts of arguments as to why a difference should be heard
or can be heard, but if the audio engineers and magazine editors testing
this stuff under controlled conditions find otherwise, the arguments about
differencd just don't wash.
Peace,
Gene
Thor Legvold
should sound alike (they don't seem to, though...), I thought
I'd try a slightly different approach to this discussion by
naming explicitly a cable I've been very pleased with, and has
worked well in my system, both when it was solid-state and now
that it is valve.......
Transparent Audio cables ("super" modell) is what I've found
workds best - i.e. colours the signal the least, as far as my
and my acquaintances ears can determine.
Sorry for being so practical, explicit and direct.
Regards,
--
Thor Legvold | This is the strangest life
NorNeXT User Group leader | I've ever known...
University of Bergen | - Jim Morrison, The Doors
Norway | ed...@edb.uib.no (NeXTmail)
Lon Stowell
>I've seen claims like this many times on the net. I'm not trying to
>dispute it (or confirm it) but I'm curious if anyone can be more specific
>about what "high resolution" means here.
>Specifically, it seems like some of the types of changes in sound that have
>been attributed to cables should be audible on many non-high end systems.
[snip]
>So, what *kind* of resolution is needed to here differences in cables?
If you read between the lines on those postings, you might get the
impression that the posters thereof have absolutely no basic
technical knowledge of either audio or electronics. This would not
be an entirely unfair impression.
Many so-called high end systems, particularly the darlings of the
high-end tweako-nut set, have truly horrid electrical parameters.
Even more of the exotic cables sold to that particular faction
of the high-end set have even worse simple electrical parameters.
Except for transducers like phono cartridges where moving mass is
a significant design consideration, with today's computers it is
not at all difficult to design ANY component that is optimized for
sound without making that component unduly sensitive to input or
output impedance.
One could say that a component which IS unduly sensitive to input
and output impedance, in combination with a cable with excessive
inductance, capacitance, whatever, is poorly designed in that it
is not necessary to compromise those issues to get superlative sound.
Unfortunately this is where ego enters the fray. Make that ego
combined with lack of real knowledge. One could say this is a poor
design (keeping it strictly limited to the sensitivity issue) or
one could go berserk at this suggestion and loudly and screechingly
proclaim the latest "TRVTH" that the offending component is of
"higher resolution". One is saying the same thing, just in a more
acceptable manner to ones empty-walleted ego.
Unanimously 'higher resolution' always means a component where
an exotic cable makes a difference. Cheapshotters would claim
that 'higher resolution' means whatever component Gordon Holt and
ilk have defined as this month's 'higher resolution' component.
Within reason, the resulting flame-fests could be considered a
harmless form of entertainment? Offhand I'd guess that this
particular group would lose much of its input...and the unmoderated
groups would likely vanish.
Richard D Pierce
Thor Legvold <Leg...@edb.uib.no> wrote:
>Not to flame anyones scientific explinations for why all cables
>should sound alike (they don't seem to, though...),
Which "scientific explanations" say that cables SHOULD sound alike. The
one's I've seen here and that I've participated in didn't say that.
I and others have said that IF they do sound different, it's not do to
the pseudo-scientific hooey advanced by marketing departments and
proponents. We did not deny the possibility of cables sounding different.
>I'd try a slightly different approach to this discussion by
>naming explicitly a cable I've been very pleased with, and has
>worked well in my system, both when it was solid-state and now
>that it is valve.......
>
>Transparent Audio cables ("super" modell) is what I've found
>workds best - i.e. colours the signal the least, as far as my
>and my acquaintances ears can determine.
No problem. You have hit upon a solution that clearly satisfies you and I
shall not attempt to advance ANY explanation for why it shouldn't.
If, on the other hand, you had done like others and stated AS FACT that
IT MUST make a difference in systems, or that it made a difference
because of the use of the oil of brisling sardines to lubricate the door
hinges at the factory, THEN issue would be taken, and the battell would
be joined! :-)
But your preference in your context is inarguable by me, try, I shan't.
Chuck Ross
Legvold) wrote:
> Not to flame anyones scientific explinations for why all cables
> should sound alike (they don't seem to, though...), I thought
> I'd try a slightly different approach to this discussion by
> naming explicitly a cable I've been very pleased with, and has
> worked well in my system, both when it was solid-state and now
> that it is valve.......
>
> Transparent Audio cables ("super" modell) is what I've found
> workds best - i.e. colours the signal the least, as far as my
> and my acquaintances ears can determine.
>
This is probably quite system-dependent; I have Transparent cables, but
quickly switched to PBJs when my son-in-law brought his over for
comparison. The Transparents sound a bit bright on the high end on my
system...the PBJs sounded much warmer, had a bottomless low end (sometimes
frightening!). I think my Thiels are a bit sensitive to bright-sounding
cables. The PBJs also just seemed to make some 'problem' discs sound much
more 'natural'.
I am also not intending to flame anyone's opinions, but several careful
listeners had no problem hearing these differences. We discussed the
various "all cables sound the same" posts here and came to the conclusion
that this is a argument, like religion, that no-one can ever "win".
The various 'engineering types" that seem to believe that all cables sound
the same advocate careful A/B comparisons, with hidden labels, and
double-blind procedures. As pointed out in many discussions on this
subject in various publications, this sort of comparison leads to
indefinite results. It's exhausting and subjects one to pressure to hear
differences that may not be apparent with rapid switching.
There's a large group on "The Audiophile Network" that doesn't go along
with the premise that all cables sound the same. I think I have to fall in
that group. We think that the engineering types who try to measure
quantitative differences and fail also fail to either listen, or have an
open mind set. The large group of listeners I know that don't go along
with that think the engineer types are tone deaf.
Obviously a controversy that may never be resolved. Please don't send
flaming E-Mail...you will never change my mind about this. On the other
hand, I'd appreciate mail that backs up my feelings about this.
On another tack, engineer-types don't hesitate when it comes to "which
tubes sound best", whether they be Russian, Yugoslavian or Chinese. I was
always under the impression that a 12AQ7 had to meet the international
standards for tube design. But we all know that some makes seem to sound
better than others.
Another point: amplifiers can test almost identically with regard to
frequency response, transient response, IM/Harmonic/phase distortion, yet
sound quite different playing thru speakers. If there are any engineering
doubters out there, I'd like some comments about this.
Even musicians that I know can tell the differences, and they are the most
difficult to convince; it seems that musicians have the uncanny ability to
listen to the worst possible reproducing system and not fault it...they
seem to fill in the missing stuff with their minds in some manner. But
even the 'worst' of these types >do< hear the differences with higher
quality reproducing systems.
I am rather new to the net...about 2 months or so, and realize that this
sort of discussion may have gone on for a very long time preceding my time
on the net, so if I'm bringing up dead horses, I apologize.
Very sincerely, thanks for listening. It's controversy that makes things move.
Chuck
Darryl Lock
> I am also not intending to flame anyone's opinions, but several careful
> listeners had no problem hearing these differences. We discussed the
> various "all cables sound the same" posts here and came to the conclusion
> that this is a argument, like religion, that no-one can ever "win".
Aah! but it's fun to try.
> The various 'engineering types" that seem to believe that all cables sound
> the same advocate careful A/B comparisons, with hidden labels, and
> double-blind procedures. As pointed out in many discussions on this
> subject in various publications, this sort of comparison leads to
> indefinite results.
Actually, it's more likely to lead to a fair result which doesn't
suit the opinion of the proponent of the 'indefinite result' idea. :-)
> It's exhausting and subjects one to pressure to hear
> differences that may not be apparent with rapid switching.
And despite that pressure, mnay still insist "no difference".
> There's a large group on "The Audiophile Network" that doesn't go along
> with the premise that all cables sound the same. I think I have to fall in
> that group. We think that the engineering types who try to measure
> quantitative differences and fail also fail to either listen, or have an
> open mind set.
Well, I'm an 'engineering type'. Would you believe me if I told you that I
listen _and_ I have an open mind?
>The large group of listeners I know that don't go along
> with that think the engineer types are tone deaf.
Criminal generalisation !
> Obviously a controversy that may never be resolved. Please don't send
> flaming E-Mail...you will never change my mind about this. On the other
> hand, I'd appreciate mail that backs up my feelings about this.
Hmm, you only want to be told that you are correct? :-)
> Another point: amplifiers can test almost identically with regard to
> frequency response, transient response, IM/Harmonic/phase distortion, yet
> sound quite different playing thru speakers. If there are any engineering
> doubters out there, I'd like some comments about this.
Well they wouldn't sound at all if they weren't connected to speakers,
would they? :-) Seriously, I agree with you !
> Even musicians that I know can tell the differences, and they are the most
> difficult to convince; it seems that musicians have the uncanny ability to
> listen to the worst possible reproducing system and not fault it...they
> seem to fill in the missing stuff with their minds in some manner. But
> even the 'worst' of these types >do< hear the differences with higher
> quality reproducing systems.
Aah, that's my problem - I play a number of instruments, and I think that
there's never been a hifi system built that even comes close to live music.
( no grin here at all !)
> Very sincerely, thanks for listening. It's controversy that makes things
> move.
Yeah- go for it!
Darryl
Loren A. Evey
Who was it that said r.a.h-e readers have no sense of humor?
jwd ]
In article <3kcmoi$1...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, <dar...@ozemail.com.au>
writes:
> > Another point: amplifiers can test almost identically with regard to
> > frequency response, transient response, IM/Harmonic/phase distortion, yet
> > sound quite different playing thru speakers. If there are any engineering
> > doubters out there, I'd like some comments about this.
>
> Well they wouldn't sound at all if they weren't connected to speakers,
> would they? :-) Seriously, I agree with you !
That's not always the case. Some tube amplifiers can produce audible music
without being connected to speakers. These amplifiers save the expense and
the polemics that often accompany the purchasing of speaker cables. The
dynamic range is a bit compressed and the imaging is a little blurry. But
not having to mess with cables make "tube speakers" a viable alternative
to a more traditional speaker.
hen...@bnr.ca
: That's not always the case. Some tube amplifiers can produce audible
: music without being connected to speakers.
Some solid-state amps sing along with the music, too. You can hear
them shrieking when you drive them with test signals. But you don't
really need the amplifier at all because if you listen very, very
closely, you can hear the needle tracing the groove on vinyl disks.
I hear that Bob Harley and Harry Pearson can actually hear music
by pressing CD's and LP's, respectively, to their foreheads.
-Henry
--
Henry A. Pasternack h...@bnr.ca
Member Scientific Staff (514) 761-8734 (phone)
Bell Northern Research, Montreal (514) 761-8509 (fax)
Torch
This is predominantly due to the fact that the population in general
gets thier acoustical training from salsmen and thier experience
from sitting at home listening to CD'S on thier overpriced stereos.
And everyone likes to believe that they have just bought the best
stereo that money can buy.
Every product on the market sounds different. Better or worse
is subjective, but a *nominal* increase in performance detectable
by the best trained ear will cost you a great deal of money.
Rest assured this has nothing to with low oxyegen copper alloy
speaker connects, ultra high power amps that respond to everything
from dc to blue light, or even CD's stamped from gold foil encased in
ultraclear virgin acrylic.
In general far too many people spend thier time justifying the quality
of thier sound system with thier sales recipts and brochures. Rather than
actually going out an *Listening* to real music and making an evaluation
based on thier experience, it seems much easier to spend buttloads of
money on some mumbojumbo high tech bullshit than to make a well informed
educated decision.
I recommend the following:
1). If you are going to spend $3500 on a stereo, don't.
2). Hang out at your local symphony orchestra rehersals
on wednesdays. (Free day).
3). Check out a few jazz bars around town. *Note, if you
can find only one, go there and ask a 'regular' for
a list of other 'cool' spots. He/She should be only
too happy to recomend a bunch. Or ask a Musician.
Don't worry about cover charges, they are peanuts
compared with how much you are ging to save.
4). Do this twice a week for three months.
5). Go to a number of local audio vendors and sample thier
wares. Be sure to sample a number of models with *widely*
different prices side by side.(ignore prices and sales pitch).
I also recomend using records or tape over CD for source
material in comparing, and bring your own.
Notice how different each of these system sound?
Notice how they *all* are missing something as compared to
live music? (Go Figure).
Then pick the one that you think sounds the best. If you have followed
along to this point, you should know, you are an expert, and you
can probably afford it. Send me the money you have saved. Tanx.
to...@mcs.com
Gordon V. Lewis
[quoted text deleted by RD]
Ken,
Oh my God, you actually make sense! I pity you though, for you are sure
to be flamed for your heresy. Prepare to have someone strongly impy that
their beloved audio equipment actually sounds *better* than live music and
defy you to prove otherwise. And you know what? You probably *won't* be
able to prove otherwise. As you said yourself, there's a lot of mysticism
and it's hard to keep arguments on a logical, rational basis.
Personally, when I want to hear great live music I pick up my Martin
000-18 guitar. No electricity, no semiconductors, no speakers, but man
does it sound good. It sounds even better when it's in the hands of my
guitar teacher. It could be because he's a much better player than me,
but it's just a wild theory -- probably nothing to it.
[Moderator's comment: does it have at least audiophile strings? RD]
Out of curiosity, what equipment do you own? I will understand if you'd
rather not say. It leaves one vulnerable to attack from either direction;
i.e., those with less expensive systems and those who paid a lot more.
Best regards,
Gordon Lewis
Mike Ford
[quoted text deleted by dsb]
>In general far too many people spend thier time justifying the quality
>of thier sound system with thier sales recipts and brochures. Rather than
>actually going out an *Listening* to real music and making an evaluation
>based on thier experience, it seems much easier to spend buttloads of
>money on some mumbojumbo high tech bullshit than to make a well informed
>educated decision.
>>I recommend the following:
> 1). If you are going to spend $3500 on a stereo, don't.
> 2). Hang out at your local symphony orchestra rehersals
> on wednesdays. (Free day).
While I respect your idea of listening to live music, I reject it as a
primary criteria for selection of a home listening system. Live music
presents a sensory smorgasbord where we selectively tune in to the
elements that best fit our pleasure for the moment. Recorded material
captures only a tiny portion of the sensory spectrum, and were it limited
to typical fare of local venues it would be pretty disappointing. Instead
we have a trade off of the magic of a live performance, with a slightly
hazy picture of a great performance.
Chasing the elusive goal of recreating a live performance, isn't the same
thing as creating a satisfying home music system. It is like buying a
camera based on how closely the smell of the pictures resemble the
original rose.
I suggest that for most people who don't do a lot of live listening,
recreating the live sound isn't much of a factor. I personally don't have
any kind of mental clash between a home system and a live experience
regardless of how different the experiences are.
My advice to new people in audio is to take it slow, and build a nice
system a step at a time based on their own tastes as they evolve from
exposure to various good systems. Short of really massive amounts of
money there are few systems that would please just about all people for a
long time. There really isn't a "right" way for a system to sound, other
than what you personally like.
Steven Abrams
> Personally, when I want to hear great live music I pick up my Martin
> 000-18 guitar. No electricity, no semiconductors, no speakers, but man
> does it sound good. It sounds even better when it's in the hands of my
> guitar teacher. It could be because he's a much better player than me,
> but it's just a wild theory -- probably nothing to it.
Of course that has nothing to do with it.
Look at your guitar teacher's feet next time you see him. I'm sure
you'll probably see rubber-soled shoes. These shoes help decouple his
knee (on which the guitar no doubt sits) from the standing wave
vibrations in the floor, which have a clear effect on the sound. Can
you imaging the guitar body moving around like that? It is the
transducer in your acoustic system, and must be isolated for maximal
effect.
Ask your teacher.
*Steven Abrams abr...@cs.columbia.edu
Justin W. Havemann
>In article <3kusqe$k...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>, Torch <to...@mcs.com> wrote:
>[quoted text deleted by dsb]
>>In general far too many people spend thier time justifying the quality
>>of thier sound system with thier sales recipts and brochures. Rather than
>>actually going out an *Listening* to real music and making an evaluation
>>based on thier experience, it seems much easier to spend buttloads of
>>money on some mumbojumbo high tech bullshit than to make a well informed
>>educated decision.
>>>I recommend the following:
>> 1). If you are going to spend $3500 on a stereo, don't.
>> 2). Hang out at your local symphony orchestra rehersals
>> on wednesdays. (Free day).
Though I also agree with Mike, I just want to make a few points. (not that
I know anything.) I do not see why chasing after the elusive live
performance on the home system is the goal of home reproduction. that is,
why must the home system be judged primarily on how close it comes to live
performance. Many people, I think, ignore a very important aspect to
musical enjoyment. They ignore the primal aesthetic value of music heard
in its own right. My music tastes mostly include newer rock and roll;
college stuff and the like. (not grunge or anything. None of it is
hard.)And, i have been to many concerts, many concerts. The point is this:
most of the shows i go to, the base is too boomy and the trebble hurts my
ears after a while. This is not to say that I dislike the live concert.
On the contrary, i love it. i would not want it to be any other way, but
i can not imagine my system at home sounding like that. If it did, i would
have to throw it out the window. the same goes for many other types of
music too. At the concert hall, i enjoy what it is in terms of what I am
there
for, while at home, i listen to my system in terms of what it is there for.
And I may be weird, bu my goal is not for my system to sound exactly like
the concert hall. ( i could not imagine listening to a concert equiliant
every time I wanted to hear music.)
In addition, what Mike said is very important. You can not expect
to judge a camerra on wether or not you can smell the rose through its
picture. We can take art as an example. I may be visually stunned by a
vase full of flowers sitting on a table, but my enjoyment of a oil on
canvas painting of them does not dimminish because the painting does
not resemble the actuall vase. Instead, I may actually like the paintin as
it is. I may like the fact that it is in Black and white, or the fact that
it was done with only straight lines. the point is, my enjoyment of the
paintin is a primordial one, a purely aesthetic primal enjoyment that has
nothing to do with any relation I can draw between the painting and the
actually vase. This means, of course, that differant people will have
differant opinions on what they like and what they don't like. Where as I
really find enjoyment in the black and white painting, a friend of mine
finds that when the whole painting is done in shades of magenta, he is
absolutely moved.
Why must enjoyment of music be differant from the enjoyment of
a painting? I can undertsand how proximity to the actual live music can
be an objective criterion for system judgement, but it can not be the only
one. Michelangelo's david might look just like the genuine article, but
that does not make Picaso any less of a painter.
So then what determines a bad system from a good one? it is
difficult to say. No one will deny that 10,000 bucks worth of levinson
sounds better than 200 bucks worth of sony, but on the same note, I would
be just as hard pressed to find people who consider my two year old sister
a better painter than Jasper Johns.
So forget what it should sound like and just listen to the music.
If it sounds good to you- that is, if it evokes purely aesthetic and primal
enjoyment, then forget what it should sound like and be happy for what it
is. What individual people find aesthetically pleasing is what they should
buy regardless of whether it meets some objective criterion.
judd
Soren Ragsdale
: Though I also agree with Mike, I just want to make a few points. (not that
: I know anything.) I do not see why chasing after the elusive live
: performance on the home system is the goal of home reproduction. that is,
: why must the home system be judged primarily on how close it comes to live
: performance.
I'd agree. I recently attended a Sarah McLachlan concert, and the sound
there was HORRIBLE. The bass was rolled off and weak, the highs were
shrill and irritating, and I had to do a considerable amount of moving
around in the crowd to find the approximately 2" swath down the center
where the sound was balanced. Don't get me wrong - the show was
terriffic, and there's always alot more to any *good* concert than just
the music. But if my system sounded like that, I'd be pushing it out my
second floor window in a minute.
I much prefer the illusion of her playing a private performance in my
room. Regrettably, I will most likely never be able to test my illusion
against the real thing. :)
--
These opinions are not my employers'. Or the Univeristy's. Or mine.
They are, in fact, beamed directly into my computer by nefarious and
subversive forces, so I cannot take any responsibility for this content.
S0REN RAGSDALE | so...@cs.arizona.edu | Prime Minister of France
<URL:http://blackice.yuma.arizona.edu/soren/home.html>
david (d.s.y.) wong
|> There is prevailing in the audio business a certian "Mysticysm".
|>
|> This is predominantly due to the fact that the population in general
|> gets thier acoustical training from salsmen and thier experience
|> from sitting at home listening to CD'S on thier overpriced stereos.
|> And everyone likes to believe that they have just bought the best
|> stereo that money can buy.
For me, I do attend classical performances when in-season and
when my time allows. I do listen to salespersons. I do read mags
and news groups on others opinions and experiences. And I do sit
home listening to my CDs on my audio system.
The combination of many factors made my decision to purchase a
"decent" audio system. And I am in the "improvement" mode. I
wouldn't agree that the predominance of people just listen to
salespeople and self-indulge on the owned overpriced equipment.
Is my audio system the best that money can buy? No. But at some
given trade-off point, it's the best system that MY money can
and wants to buy at this time.
And so what if someone who can afford it wants to spend their
money on overpriced systems. $ power to them! People with money
will choose to spend it however they like - cars, boats, audio
systems ...
|> Every product on the market sounds different. Better or worse
|> is subjective, but a *nominal* increase in performance detectable
|> by the best trained ear will cost you a great deal of money.
Total agreement. Absolute subjectivism. Law of diminishing return
plays loudly.
|> Rest assured this has nothing to with low oxyegen copper alloy
|> speaker connects, ultra high power amps that respond to everything
|> from dc to blue light, or even CD's stamped from gold foil encased in
|> ultraclear virgin acrylic.
Yes, probably overkill or overhyped in many cases, and controversial
as to the reasons behind the performance differences that may be more
significant to some than others. But still worth the pursuit for me.
|> In general far too many people spend thier time justifying the quality
|> of thier sound system with thier sales recipts and brochures. Rather than
|> actually going out an *Listening* to real music and making an evaluation
|> based on thier experience, it seems much easier to spend buttloads of
|> money on some mumbojumbo high tech bullshit than to make a well informed
|> educated decision.
As I stated above, $ power to those who can and want to indulge money
for their satisfication. Even though people do spend varying amounts
of money (depending on the ability to pay), it does not mean that they
don't also listen to live music. I limit how much money I spend but I
have spent some money and I do listen to live performances of acoustical
instruments which is impossible to replicate through electronics and
speakers. Big deal. I know this but still choose to have my audio system
because it allows me to control what I want to listen to, and when, in
the comfort of my own home. And I can have the repetitions which the
human psychology seems to want. Live performances very seldomly offer
repeated performances over the course of say a year such that my
appetite for repeated listenings can be satisfied.
What I'm really getting at is that the live performance is one
experience (sights, going out, etc.) while the home audio system
is quite a different animal. I enjoy both. I have tried to let
the live performance sound lead me to the proper equipment
acquisition. But the two don't necessarily compare. To me,
they are two different events, each with its own merits.
|> I recommend the following:
|> 1). If you are going to spend $3500 on a stereo, don't.
|> 2). Hang out at your local symphony orchestra rehersals
|> on wednesdays. (Free day).
[quoted text cut by rgd]
I won't argue with your recommendations above but I don't agree with
the generalizations. Some may follow your recommendations so let's
leave it at that. For others, the logistics of your recommendations
may not apply, so let them not follow your recommendations.
One final point that I would like to extend. What sounds the best
is one aspect. What sounds the best with the underlying objective
to come as close as possible to the live performance is another
aspect. Sometimes the two may not coincide in which case the
choice will be made on different grounds.
Richard D Pierce
Justin W. Havemann <jw...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>Though I also agree with Mike, I just want to make a few points. (not that
>I know anything.) I do not see why chasing after the elusive live
>performance on the home system is the goal of home reproduction. that is,
>why must the home system be judged primarily on how close it comes to live
>performance.
But then uses what I think has become the classic bad analogy to support
the point:
> In addition, what Mike said is very important. You can not expect
>to judge a camerra on wether or not you can smell the rose through its
>picture. We can take art as an example. I may be visually stunned by a
>vase full of flowers sitting on a table, but my enjoyment of a oil on
>canvas painting of them does not dimminish because the painting does
>not resemble the actuall vase. Instead, I may actually like the paintin as
>it is.
Fine, no one is denying you the right to prefer a Van Gogh painting of
flowers over flowers, or Ansel Adams photographs of Yosemite Valley. Your
anaolgy falls aprt because you are equating looking at a Van Gogh
painting of flowers as equivalent to listening to a recording of a
concert. The two examples I bring out are an artists interpretation of
physical reality.
Now, I cannot afford a genuine Van Gogh, I can barely afford some Adams
prints. So, I am reduced, like many of use, to buying these things called
REPRODUCTIONS.
Are you then allowing the person who is making the reproduction of the
Van Gogh or the Adams to have THEIR hands at FURTHER interpretation, or
would you prefer as exact a reproduction as possible.
>I may like the fact that it is in Black and white, or the fact that
>it was done with only straight lines. the point is, my enjoyment of the
>paintin is a primordial one, a purely aesthetic primal enjoyment that has
>nothing to do with any relation I can draw between the painting and the
>actually vase.
But what if you like the painting, should not the copy of the painting be
the same?
> Why must enjoyment of music be differant from the enjoyment of
>a painting? I can undertsand how proximity to the actual live music can
>be an objective criterion for system judgement, but it can not be the only
>one. Michelangelo's david might look just like the genuine article, but
>that does not make Picaso any less of a painter.
But you are suggesting that the REPRODUCTION of a musical event is
something that IS further interpretable? In the same way that it's
possible to make a copy of a Piccasso or a Michelangelo BETTER than the
original?
What if your "interpretive" system makes an interpretive change on one
kind of music/painting, whatever? It will make that same editorializing
change on ALL other examples played through it.
> So forget what it should sound like and just listen to the music.
>If it sounds good to you- that is, if it evokes purely aesthetic and primal
>enjoyment, then forget what it should sound like and be happy for what it
>is. What individual people find aesthetically pleasing is what they should
>buy regardless of whether it meets some objective criterion.
That may be completely true, but for the wrong reason. If a conductor is
INTERPRETING the work of a composer, and looks for a particular balance
in the sound coming from his orchestra, and I listen to a system that
alters the balance, which is correct? Does the person who designed the
speaker know more about the interpretation of music than the conductor,
or is it that person's job to convey the interpretive quality of the
music with the least perturbation possible?
Possibly rhetorical questions, all, but I believe they point to a serious
flaw in your logic: basically, the interpretation is done at the time of
the performance, be it aural or visual. Van Gogh, Piccasso, Michelangelo,
Adams had their say in visualizing the final product and creating it.
Now, I want a copy: do we hand the rights of further interpretation over
to the printer?
Bernstein, Boulez, Toscannini, Mazur had their say in realizing the final
product and creating it. Now, I want a copy: do we hand over rights of
further interpretation to Sony, Phillips, DGG, then over to Levinson and
Thiele, or Kenwood and B*se?
Antonio S. Esporma
that of any home stereo system, I also postulate that it is the hope of most
music loving audiophiles to attemtp to recreate that sound in our home systems.
Futhermore, I believe that most of us (if not all including TAS' reference
systems) fail to do so.
So what is one to do: Give up? spend more money? The former is tempting, but
try to listen to an orchestral work in your boxers, in the morning while you're
drinking your coffee. I guess if you were the King of Prussia, you might have
the resources, most of us don't. Spend more money and upgrade the stuff in
search of an unattainable Holy Grail? Well, for those of us with kids,
significant others and a real life, there is a limit to how much money and
time we can spend.
So, during my sybaritic research into solving this enormously relevant problem
I have come to an astounding conclusion that most audiophiles can relate to:
ONE DRINK IS WORTH $5000 OF AUDIO EQUIPMENT.
Yes, I found this out because my wife and I tend to have a glass of sparkling
wine before the first act and during the intermission of most performances,
then when I listen at home at nights, I also dring wine or the like.
Now if you follow this train of thought, you'll realize that the absolute
sound can thus be achieved at a moderate cost, since the AS has been acquired
under a similarly handicapped, but enjoyable, observational mood.
Lately, my research has proven that Port goes best with Russian Romantics,
(must be the ruby glow), while good scotch makes good friends with Austro-
German works, champagne with anything Italian and Spanish. I still have not
yet figured out Ravel and modern Russian stuff (post '30s), may be Bas
Armagac (sp?) and Cheap vodka respectively?
As in anything, of course, there is a limit, after three drinks I usually
turn off the Linn and head for the CD collection, seems that at that point I'm
sober enough to realize that the stylus is in serious risk of damage and my
ears don't seem to hear much over that ringing coming up from behind.
Any thoughts?
Justin W. Havemann
>Fine, no one is denying you the right to prefer a Van Gogh painting of
>flowers over flowers, or Ansel Adams photographs of Yosemite Valley. Your
>anaolgy falls aprt because you are equating looking at a Van Gogh
>painting of flowers as equivalent to listening to a recording of a
>concert. The two examples I bring out are an artists interpretation of
>physical reality.
>Now, I cannot afford a genuine Van Gogh, I can barely afford some Adams
>prints. So, I am reduced, like many of use, to buying these things called
>REPRODUCTIONS.
This is all true, but let us take it one step farther. Instead of
wanting the Van Gogh, let us say that you wanted a vase of flowers, but you
can nbot afford them. In that case, you are forced to get a REPRODUCTION.
And, ths works great for somebody who wants a vase of flowers, but let us
farther imagine the notion that instead of wanting a vase of flowers, you
wanted an array of light pastels. In this case, you could have gotten the
Van Gogh, which would be really close to the Vase, but instead you opt for
a thrid grade painting of daisies. You may ask why anybody would do this,
but it does not as ridiculous as it may first appear. the point is that
there is no reason why what is real (live shows or a vase of flowers) has
to be more desired than what is reproduced. I will be the first to admit
that when given the opportunity, i will go see a show, but that show may
not offer me what i consider most aesthetically pleasing. Often times, (at
shows i am likely to go to) the treble is harsh and the base is way out of
line- that is, too much of it. The fact remains that what is offered at
the show is actuall reality, but what my system at home offers is more
aesthetically pleasing.
This is just an extention of the argument i am trying to make. For
individual people, certain things are going to be differant. For me, I
like a warm sweat base and a very low key (that is, layed back) treble.
But this is not what might be offered at a show. If i wanted my system to
sound exactly like the concert, i would buy Klipsh and Adcom. But as it
is, my system is more aesthetically pleasing to me even though it may not
be the mirror of concert.
My point is that this can be true for everybody. regardless of
what is actually real, it is still possible, and even likely that people
will find reproduction, that is not strictly like the original, equally
satisfying or more satisfying than the original. In the same way, it is
not obsurd to think that one may prefer to have a picture of a vase in
pastels hanging in their entryway than an actual vase of flowers. It is
all primordial aesthetics.
>Are you then allowing the person who is making the reproduction of the
>Van Gogh or the Adams to have THEIR hands at FURTHER interpretation, or
>would you prefer as exact a reproduction as possible.
The original post was not about interpretation. But, i see it as
no special problem. If your major concern is to preserve the integrity of
the original peice, then by all means the system which reproduces it
closest should be the system of choice, but I do not see how additional
interpretation, beyond that consideration, should be avoided. To use your
analogy, it may be true that you do not want Sony and RCA to re-interpret
original works, but I would venture to say that nobody would consider the
inherant value of a particular interpretation of Copland's Ap. Spring to be
lower than the performance that Aaron himself would have envisioned. (or
does invision) For the individual listener, it would be perfectly
acceptable to enjoy The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra's rendition of Rodeo
more than London Symphony Orchestra's rendition conducted by Aaron Copland
himself. Now, it may be true that the London Orchestra may play it closer
to the way that it was intended, and it may further be that the London
version has more musical merit (whatever that is) but nobody can deny my
greater enjoyment of the Atlanta version. I may enjoy it more because it
is faster. I may enjoy it more because it is a shorter peice. There may
be a number of reasons why i find it more aesthetically pleasing. But the
fact remains, i can enjoy it more even though it does not meet up with some
objective standard. The same goes for reproductive systems (the electircal
kinds, the biological ones) It is all right to like soft base and mushy
trebble, if that's what you like.
>But you are suggesting that the REPRODUCTION of a musical event is
>something that IS further interpretable? In the same way that it's
>possible to make a copy of a Piccasso or a Michelangelo BETTER than the
>original?
It does not matter how many interpretations a reproduced event may
go through. As long as the end result is pleasing to the person listening
to it, then that is all that counts for that person. It is easy to see how
this might not sound right, but that is because you are still clinging to
the notion that we should judge a reproduction on its distance from the
original thing. That is a poor way to judge reproductions. Every
reproduction has an added aesthetic value that is manifested in itself
through itself. As said before, Michelangelo's David may not be like the
actual david, but we regard it because we know that it has added value
beyond objective considerations. In the same way, Piccaso, painting Mich's
David, might still be considered a great painting. it migt be considered
great not because it is close to the original (either David or Mich's
David) but because it offers added aesthetic pleasure.
>That may be completely true, but for the wrong reason. If a conductor is
>INTERPRETING the work of a composer, and looks for a particular balance
>in the sound coming from his orchestra, and I listen to a system that
>alters the balance, which is correct? Does the person who designed the
>speaker know more about the interpretation of music than the conductor,
>or is it that person's job to convey the interpretive quality of the
>music with the least perturbation possible?
We are not talking about correct, we are talking about what is
pleasurable. if correct is defined by how close it is to the original or
how close it is to what is intended, than yes, the original is correct.
But, that does not invalidate somebody finding the reproduction more
aesthetically pleasing.
judd
Tony Farinella
night. I get much better resolution, dynamics; I'm telling you the music
is a lot more involving. Songs which merely tug at my heart without this
tweak suddenly cause me to break out in tears. I urge everyone to try
it, it may even save you money instead of costing a bundle.
After the system gets good and warm, I turn out the lights.
Tony
JOHN BARR (HSLC)
>I agree that the sound of a live philarmonic orchestra is far better than
>that of any home stereo system, I also postulate that it is the hope of most
>music loving audiophiles to attemtp to recreate that sound in our home systems.
>Futhermore, I believe that most of us (if not all including TAS' reference
>systems) fail to do so.
stuff deleted (no offence)
>Any thoughts?
Great post! Thanks for summing up well what most of us are about.
I have conducted similar research and arrived at similar conclusions
with regard to wine but not so regarding audio.
At some point it seemed rediculous the try to pretend that an entire
orchestra was in my living room, or that the wall somehow opened up
on symphony hall. I could only imagine a group of 50 munchkins with
tiny instruments there. So I moved to jazz. Three or 5 guys could easily
set up and play there in front of the fireplace. I don't have
to suspend my disbelief at all.
Bibo ergo sum,
John Barr
Eric Laas
I couldn't agree more, Tony. I repeatedly find myself gaining a certain
eupohoria in the dark that was previously unattainable with the same music
and equiptment in the light.
Eric Laas
stde...@shsu.edu