headphones

[RichD]

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

Seems pricey to me.
Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

--
Rich

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <e47891a0-ec77-41b9...@42g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,

Maybe. Depends on what you want headphones for. Getting good sound quality
together with good isolation is not a trivial task.

If you don't need isolation and you're listening for pleasure and not looking
for something very analytic, try the Grado SR-60s, for around $75. They are
very clean-sounding.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jrsnfld]

Doesn't seem that pricey to me. In other words, you can spend a lot
more than that if you want to and get something great. You can also
spend less and get something rather good.

--Jeff

[David Fox]

On Oct 19, 9:06 am, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Not at all. Try a pair of Grado SR60's. The sell for $79 at
Amazon. I haven't
tried out all of the headphones listed in the article, but the Grado's
have been
giant-killers for over 20 years. I still own my original set and
recently bought
its slightly more expensive cousin the SR80 ($99) for another
location. I'd be
hard pressed to tell the difference.

DF

[Alan Cooper]

jrsnfld <jrs...@aol.com> wrote in news:f385f589-28ca-44c0-9599-d793d26e450c@
27g2000prq.googlegroups.com:

Or... http://www.amazon.com/Ultrasone-EDITION-10-Headphones/dp/B004C3DUFS

AC

[wkasimer]

It depends upon how fussy you are, how you're planning to use them
(home stereo vs. portable), how much time you spend listening with
headphones, and how much disposable cash you have on hand.

Others have already mentioned the Grado SR60's, which are a terrific
bargain, but are not the most comfortable headphones on the market by
any means.

I don't think, BTW, that any of the phones in the WSJ article are
suited to use with portable devices, and most would probably require a
separate headphone amplifier to achieve sound worthy of the $$$ spent.

Bill

[jrsnfld]

On Oct 19, 9:27 am, Alan Cooper <amcoo...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in news:f385f589-28ca-44c0-9599-d793d26e450c@

LOL! Handmade in Bavaria with ruthenium coating, no less!

The Amazon reviews of that turkey (peacock?) are absolutely hilarious!
And so are Amazon's recommendations ("What do other customers buy
after viewing this item? The $34.95 Koss PortaPro!").

At that price range I might consider moving up the ranks of Stax
earspeakers and amps. But then you can't really use those with your
diamond-studded iPad special edition...

--Jeff

[Allen]

Ah! The headphones for the now-infamous 1 percent. I must have my broker
order 23 pairs (one for each pair in my modest dwelling, not counting
the 16 bathrooms) and have tutors sent over to instruct my staff of
valets on their proper use and installing on my head.
Allen

[Steve]

I second the comment on the SR-60s. They sound terrific and I find them
to be very comfortable. I did "upgrade" the stock ear pads to the silly
looking, yellow Sennheiser pads and I find those to be even more
comfortable.

[Steve]

I seem to remember someone on the internets claiming that the SR60s
sound better when driven straight from a source[cd player] and the SR80s
sound better when used with a dedicated headphone amp.
I don't know if that is true, just what I read when I was trying to
decide between the two models. I also don't know if plugging the SR80s
into a receiver that your CD player is hooked into could be considered a
dedicated headphone amp setup.

[Scott Dorsey]

wkasimer <wkas...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Others have already mentioned the Grado SR60's, which are a terrific
>bargain, but are not the most comfortable headphones on the market by
>any means.

They have improved a lot... three or four years ago they redesigned the
earpads and the new configuration is a LOT more comfortable than the
older designs. The old ones were like having your head in a vise.

[jrsnfld]

That's interesting. I carefully compared the 60s to the 80s once, and
I think it was direct from the source CD player, and decided the 80s
were slightly better--at least enough to justify the price
differential. Now I don't remember exactly what was better. Anyway, I
bought the 80s as a result.

A dedicated headphone amp (I used a relatively cheap Creek headphone
amp) worked wonders with the Grado SR80s. The improvement over using
the headphone jack in other components was larger than the difference
between the 60s and 80s in the other test.

--Jeff

[Bill Sloman]

Depends what you mean by good. I've got a pair of good quality
Sennheiser headphones which I've had for years, and another pair that
I gave to my father as a birthday present many years ago, and got back
when he died.

Both feature neodymium-iron magnets. The current eqivalent would be
the HD650 which costs about $420 from Amazon.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Rich Grise]

RichD wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones
>
> Seems pricey to me.

Me, too!

> Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?
>

Not if you're not an audiophool. I picked up a pair of headphones
recently for ten bucks, and they work fine for what I need. They're
not the earmuff type, just little transducers with foam pads, but
they get the job done.

I think I found them at the pharmacy or something.

Good Luck!
Rich

[wkasimer]

On Oct 19, 2:30 pm, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:

> A dedicated headphone amp (I used a relatively cheap Creek headphone
> amp) worked wonders with the Grado SR80s. The improvement over using
> the headphone jack in other components was larger than the difference
> between the 60s and 80s in the other test.

I have what I assume is the same Creek amp - the OBH-11. Actually I
have two of them, one for home, and one for the office. Works wonders
with any headphone, if the headphone jack on your amp doesn't have
sufficient power.

Bill

[wkasimer]

On Oct 19, 12:59 pm, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:

> The Amazon reviews of that turkey (peacock?) are absolutely hilarious!
> And so are Amazon's recommendations ("What do other customers buy
> after viewing this item? The $34.95 Koss PortaPro!").

The PortaPro headphones are supposed to be pretty good - does anyone
have any firsthand experience with them?

Bill

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Alan Cooper <amco...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> appears to have caused the
following letters to be typed in
news:Xns9F837EA51C1A4am...@209.197.15.254:

> Or...
> http://www.amazon.com/Ultrasone-EDITION-10-Headphones/dp/B004C3DUFS
>
> AC

"The ear capsule development is the shape of butterfly wings to reason."

That's the sort of thing you just can't put a price on.

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
"I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable
than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical
change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free
society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get
to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors." Former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on "Meet the Press" 15 May 2011
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.

[Arny Krueger]

"RichD" <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e47891a0-ec77-41b9...@42g2000prp.googlegroups.com...

> http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones

> Seems pricey to me.

Seems very boutique-y to me.

If you're talking $100-130 then yes, that is about the range where things
start getting interesting.

> Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

Depends on what you call good.

If you are talking about headphones that are commonly used by pros around
here for more critical applications, then consider that the MDR 7506 and HD
280s run $100-110, while the ATH-M50s are more like $150.

[M forever]

On Oct 19, 12:59 pm, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Oct 19, 9:27 am, Alan Cooper <amcoo...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in news:f385f589-28ca-44c0-9599-d793d26e450c@
> > 27g2000prq.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 9:06 am, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones
>
> > >> Seems pricey to me.
> > >> Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?
>
> > >> --
> > >> Rich
>
> > > Doesn't seem that pricey to me. In other words, you can spend a lot
> > > more than that if you want to and get something great. You can also
> > > spend less and get something rather good.
>
> > Or...http://www.amazon.com/Ultrasone-EDITION-10-Headphones/dp/B004C3DUFS
>
> > AC
>
> LOL! Handmade in Bavaria with ruthenium coating, no less!
>
> The Amazon reviews of that turkey (peacock?) are absolutely hilarious!

There is actually such a special diamond-encrusted iPad, but I guess
the reviewer just joking about having one

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/most-expensive-ipad/

I don't quite get why the reviewer is so sarcastic but still gives the
product 5 stars. Maybe that's part of the joke.

[jrsnfld]

On Oct 19, 1:04 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 12:59 pm, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 9:27 am, Alan Cooper <amcoo...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote in news:f385f589-28ca-44c0-9599-d793d26e450c@
> > > 27g2000prq.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > On Oct 19, 9:06 am, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones
>
> > > >> Seems pricey to me.
> > > >> Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?
>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Rich
>
> > > > Doesn't seem that pricey to me. In other words, you can spend a lot
> > > > more than that if you want to and get something great. You can also
> > > > spend less and get something rather good.
>
> > > Or...http://www.amazon.com/Ultrasone-EDITION-10-Headphones/dp/B004C3DUFS
>
> > > AC
>
> > LOL! Handmade in Bavaria with ruthenium coating, no less!
>
> > The Amazon reviews of that turkey (peacock?) are absolutely hilarious!
>
> There is actually such a special diamond-encrusted iPad, but I guess
> the reviewer just joking about having one
>

> http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/most...

>
> I don't quite get why the reviewer is so sarcastic but still gives the
> product 5 stars. Maybe that's part of the joke.

The same reviewer posted a "serious" review as well, saying what he
really thought. Not that the analysis was particularly useful.

--Jeff

[larry moe 'n curly]

The WSJ article has no credibility because it starts with, "Headphones
as fashion statement makes total sense." First, headphones always
look ugly. Second, fashion statements, by definition, never make any
sense.

The Nov., 2011 Consumer Reports said $35 Sony PIIQ Giiq MDR-PQ2
headphones sounded good. I can't find the original evaluation article
to tell how other models performed.

The hi-fi business pushes a lot of junk science and fashion over
substance, as a quick check of any high-end hi-fi magazine will
show.

[wkasimer]

On Oct 19, 4:20 pm, "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

> The Nov., 2011 Consumer Reports said $35 Sony PIIQ Giiq MDR-PQ2
> headphones sounded good.  I can't find the original evaluation article
> to tell how other models performed.

I've found Consumer reports to be extremely unreliable when it comes
to ratings of audio gear. I have no idea what their criteria are,
they are too concerned with non-sonic issues, and they concentrate on
mass market products, ignoring brands that potentially provide much
better value.

Bill

[ChrisCoaster]

_________________
Too bad. If UN were moderated I'd vote to merge this thread with mine
from a few days ago, where we were discussing freq response and
impedance and such.

But while I'm here, I'd wager a bet that most folks on this thread, as
well as the one I started http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/browse_thread/thread/6efc9619d4ad0640#
, probably already have "headphone amps" at home, either as part of
their rig or perhaps a spare one collecting dust in the attic.
They're called RECEIVERS.

Don't get me wrong. If you spend most of your headphone time in front
of the PC at home, or in a cubicle at work, then a headphone amp is
the way to go - it's compact and probably makes most headphones over
$50 really shine.

But I find my 80w/ch JVC receiver from the late '90s to be quite
revealing through the pairs I own.

;)

[mpm]

On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Everybody hears a little differently, so what sounds good to you is
the "right" set of headphones.
And at this level and these prices, you're only going to make that
decision once, so money (within reason) isn't really the issue.

I play piano, and my dachshund (at the time, may he R.I.P.) would just
howl whenever I sat down to play.
Now, my playing isn't "that" bad! He was probably just trying to
sing along.
But it was clear I could get no peace until I plugged in the
headphones.

So I got a a pair of the AKG K240's. Two pairs actually.
Really nice sound. A bit pricey.

And the new dachshund?
Well, no howling - but I'm pretty sure he'd much prefer to chew on the
cords! :)

-mpm

[operafan]

Yes. They were good 20 years ago, but they're bulky. The field has
gone on. They are good for $35, but there is a much wider range of
choices if you consider phones up to $100/pair.

[Adrian C]

On 19/10/2011 22:55, ChrisCoaster wrote:
>
> But I find my 80w/ch JVC receiver from the late '90s to be quite
> revealing through the pairs I own.
>

Umm, your own pair of ears? Headphones wired straight to the speaker
outlets, 80 watts per eardrum? Ouch....

--
Adrian C

[M forever]

Did he? I don't see that.

[ChrisCoaster]

________________
I seriously hope you're jokng Adrian. Ever heard of a headphone
jack??? Most A/V receivers still have them.

-ChrisCoaster

[a7yvm1...@netzero.com]

What drugs are you on? Bulky? Have you seen the portable air
compressors kids wear these days?

[gjsmo]

On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones
>
> Seems pricey to me.
> Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?
>
> --
> Rich

Not really. I just bought (just received them today, actually) a pair
of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much more balanced than any
headphones I've ever had before. I've had probably something from
every style under $100 MSRP (not counting ridiculous Amazon
discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on Amazon). I'm hearing stuff
I've never heard before, no exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they
are overall MUCH clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm
16), and still learning, but these are great. Still waiting for the
FiiO E6 to come in for portable hi-fi amplification.

BTW, any opinions on the SRH-840s?

[RichD]

On Oct 19, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones
>
> Seems pricey to me.
> Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

ok, thanks for some helpful replies.
Looks like recommended products for Wall Street
Journal uber-yuppies.

Next question:
Which type of music or instruments sound
best with headphones? Which type not?

My taste consists of orchestral, bluegrass,
jazz. Not much electric, though I do
occasionally listen to blues, with electric guitar.

--
Rich

[John Devereux]

"Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> writes:

> Alan Cooper <amco...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:Xns9F837EA51C1A4am...@209.197.15.254:
>
>> Or...
>> http://www.amazon.com/Ultrasone-EDITION-10-Headphones/dp/B004C3DUFS
>>
>> AC
>
> "The ear capsule development is the shape of butterfly wings to reason."
>
> That's the sort of thing you just can't put a price on.

Apparently they managed to - $2749.00! :)

--

John Devereux

[PStamler]

All of those styles can sound really good on decent headphones. Not,
in any sense, realistic (since I doubt that anyone really has a banjo
playing in the center of their skull), but enjoyable.

You were asking whether headphones needed to cost a lot, and the
answer (as always) is "It depends." Good transducers often cost more
to produce, and a good deal more to produce repeatably (so that the
left and right ones sound the same as one another, and so that the
pair of headphones you buy on Tuesday sounds like the one you bought
last March). The side-to-side match is important for everybody, and
the unit-to-unit match is important for professionals who need
predictability.

How well do the cans, if sealed, shut out the outside world, and how
well do they keep the music inside from leaking out audibly? That may
not matter to a home listener, but to a studio user it may be crucial.
(Think of a singer overdubbing a vocal to a recorded backing track;
you don't want the backing track leaking out of the cans, to be picked
up -- tinnily -- by the singer's microphone.)

How well do the headphones hold up to being dropped on the floor over
and over, to having their cords yanked at either end? Those things
aren't necessarily big issues for most home users, but they matter to
professional studio people, whose cans have to withstand all sorts of
abuse. Ruggedness costs money, and the studio owner would usually
prefer to pay twice as much for headphones that last ten times as
long.

Peace,
Paul

[Gerard]

gjsmo wrote:
> On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones
> >
> > Seems pricey to me.
> > Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?
> >
> > --
> > Rich
>
> Not really. I just bought (just received them today, actually) a pair
> of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much more balanced than any
> headphones I've ever had before. I've had probably something from
> every style under $100 MSRP (not counting ridiculous Amazon
> discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on Amazon). I'm hearing stuff
> I've never heard before, no exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they
> are overall MUCH clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm
> 16), and still learning,

But you already had dozens of headphones?

[John Williamson]

And a lot if them work by putting a relatively large resistor in series
with the headphones across the speaker output, so vastly increasing the
ouput impedance, and reducing the damping, which does horrible things to
the quality.

A proper, well designed, headphone amp is the best way to drive
headphones, as it will have a low output impedance, and the correct
output levels.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[gjsmo]

Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably used about 15,
maybe 20 different pairs.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ga524...@mid.individual.net...

All highly relevant points. Good post. Ditto.

[wkasimer]

On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?

FWIW, these were among Stereophile's top choices in their list of
recommended components for 2011:

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/headphones/567089b73c33056f/index.html

The other choices in their class were priced in the stratosphere.

Bill

[Gerard]

You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING, much more balanced than
any headphones I've ever had before.".
(Which is actually not saying much.)

[MiNe 109]

In article <c539a$4ea01def$53565469$84...@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,

gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to ignore
Gerard.

Stephen

[Gerard]

Obviously you have learned nothing.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:smcelroy2-8F935...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...

> In article <c539a$4ea01def$53565469$84...@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,
> "Gerard" <ghendri-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> gjsmo wrote:
>> > On Oct 20, 3:21 am, "Gerard" <ghendri-nospam_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > gjsmo wrote:
>> > > > On Oct 19, 12:06 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/wsj-headphones
>> > >
>> > > > > Seems pricey to me.
>> > > > > Is it necessary to spend this much, for good headphones?
>> > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Rich
>> > >
>> > > > Not really. I just bought (just received them today, actually) a
>> > > > pair of Shure SRH-840s. They sound AMAZING, much more balanced
>> > > > than any headphones I've ever had before. I've had probably
>> > > > something from every style under $100 MSRP (not counting
>> > > > ridiculous Amazon discounts), but these were $200 ($130 on
>> > > > Amazon). I'm hearing stuff I've never heard before, no
>> > > > exaggerated bass, mids OR highs, and they are overall MUCH
>> > > > clearer than other stuff. I'm a young audiophile (I'm 16), and
>> > > > still learning,

Audiophile 16 years old? Yup, you are still learning, big time!

>> > > But you already had dozens of headphones?
>> >
>> > Low build quality. I didn't say dozens... I'm probably used about 15,
>> > maybe 20 different pairs.
>>
>> You suggest *many* more by writing "They sound AMAZING, much more
>> balanced
>> than
>> any headphones I've ever had before.".
>> (Which is actually not saying much.)
>
> gjsmo is invited to join the multitudes who have learned to ignore
> Gerard.

Or not. He raises the usual valid questions about casual subjective
evaluations, particularly those done on equipment they just purchased.

[Arny Krueger]

"wkasimer" <wkas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bbc13f92-da6f-473c...@h5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

ATH-AD700...


I had a pair of ATH-AD700 open air 'phones, maybe they are still someplace
around the house. They turn out to be very fragile. Mine were glued together
in many places which also means that I liked them and wore them a lot.

About the same time I purchased a pair of Audio Technica ATH-A700 Headphones
that being closed, had better bass and were also far more durable. Above 1
KHz they weren't that much different.

[wkasimer]

On Oct 20, 10:05 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:

> About the same time I purchased a pair of Audio Technica ATH-A700 Headphones
> that being closed, had better bass and were also far more durable. Above 1
> KHz they weren't that much different.

How were they in terms of comfort? I've been looking for a decent
pair of closed headphones for a while.

Bill

[MiNe 109]

In article <04GdnbaD8PNdtD3T...@giganews.com>,

No, he's nit-picking pointlessly as is his usual history.

Headphones are complicated to evaluate due to individual heads and ears,
etc, necessitating a higher level of subjectivity. For instance, I enjoy
my Grado 80s for casual listening while you have expressed distaste for
that model.

rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote in message
news:4ea0492f$0$18814$ba4a...@reader.news.orange.fr...
> How important is a dedicated headphone amp? My current cans are
> Beyerdynamic DT 990, which are very nice, but I wonder how much better
> they'd sound with a headphone amp. (I use a Cambridge Audio Sonata
> receivere in my office, where I do most of my listening.)
>
> Any recommendations for an affordable headphone amp?


The major benefit of a dedicated headphone amp comes when you replace a high
source impedance with a low source impedance.

The source impedance of a headphone jack in a receiver can be either high or
low. If it is high then any reasonable headphone amp with a low source
impedance can provide a worthwhile improvement in sound quality. If it is
already low, then finding an improvement is far more difficult.

I use a FIIO E5 headphone amp in those situations where the source impedance
or maximum output level of the source of an existing headphone jack is not
suitable. About $20, but requires a USB power source which may be an
inexpensive USB wall wart and cable.

http://www.amazon.com/FiiO-E5-Headphone-Amplifier/dp/B001P9EQH8

http://www.amazon.com/RIM-ASY-24479-002-USB-Power-Plug/dp/B003XKJ47E

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message

news:smcelroy2-CD886...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...

That comment seems to confuse personal perceptions about someones past
posting history (IOW, personal prejudice) with the validity of a post that
seems to be very reasonable.

> Headphones are complicated to evaluate due to individual heads and ears,
> etc, necessitating a higher level of subjectivity.

Back in the real world, neither of us are 16 year olds or beginning
audiophiles. I hope that we both understand the effects of decades of
experience have on our renditions of our subjective impressions.

> For instance, I enjoy
> my Grado 80s for casual listening while you have expressed distaste for
> that model.

It would appear that history is on my side because the manufacturer of that
product has just lately vastly improved it, if the recent comments of Mr.
Dorsey (a generally reliable and highly experienced source) are to be taken
seriously.

The Grado site says the following:

"What does the i stand for in the new SR80i from Grado? Improved, that's
what! Built on the same features as theSR60i, but SR80i utilizes a 4
conductor connecting cable and the diaphragms are put through a special
'de-stressing' process in order to enhance inner detail, the result of which
gives a more open stage. The new SR80i has an upgraded driver design, and
they have enlarged and improved the mass distribution in the plastic
housing. The way the SR80i's new driver and plastic housing move air and
react to sound vibrations are now less affected by transient distortions.
The SR80 provides an improved bass resonance, which enhances the overall
detail. With the SR80i you will notice improved control of the upper and
lower range of the frequency spectrum with both better supporting Grado's
world renowned midrange. The SR80i will produce a sound that is pure Grado,
warm harmonic color, rich full bodied vocals, excellent dynamics and an
ultra smooth top end. Listen and Enjoy!"

Like Scott, Grado themselves seem to be supporting the idea that they have
felt the need to significantly upgrade the version of the SR 80s that I
auditioned maybe a decade ago.

> rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
> wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.

Right, but one needs to consider the source and the tone of the comments.

[Arny Krueger]

"wkasimer" <wkas...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:68d5d7ee-eae7-47cb...@m4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

I found the ATH-A700s to be very comfortable. Their earpads are not tight or
constricting and don't become clammy or press tightly on the side of the
head. Of course this tends to put their bass performance intermediate
between say HD 280s and ATH-AD700s. For about $100 they are worth a try.

[gjsmo]

And I can afford about three - I was basically picking between these,
ATH-M50s or HD-280s. I am, as oxymoronic as it may sound, a budget
audiophile. I like good sound, but I usually can't afford it.

MiNe, I've been looking at rec.audio.pro for quite a while now. Not
quite a year.

[Richard Webb]

On Thu 2011-Oct-20 12:15, Kirk McElhearn writes:
> How important is a dedicated headphone amp? My current cans are
> Beyerdynamic DT 990, which are very nice, but I wonder how much
> better they'd sound with a headphone amp. (I use a Cambridge Audio
> Sonata receivere in my office, where I do most of my listening.)

FOr your application a headphone amp isn't going to buy you
anything for the money you'd spend imho.

HEadphone amps are mainly useful when you're trying to
distribute signal to more than one pair of phones, as in
tracking sessions at a recording studio.

Regards,
Richard
... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Norman Schwartz]

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote >>> >> > > > > Seems pricey to me.

> Back in the real world, neither of us are 16 year olds or beginning
> audiophiles. I hope that we both understand the effects of decades of
> experience have on our renditions of our subjective impressions.

And along with that go the effects of decades of hearing loss.........

[Arny Krueger]

"Norman Schwartz" <nm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4ea07ef7$0$28364$607e...@cv.net...

In this day and age, seems like every 20 year old has them...

I've taken pretty good care of my ears and can hear far better than many
people who are decades my junior, particularly musicians.

[MiNe 109]

In article <aqidnTfrw64Fzj3T...@giganews.com>,

I prefer to call it experience. Calling it prejudice seems prejudicial.

Arguing whether "15, maybe 20" falls short of the number Gerard expects
is definitely nitpicking.

> > Headphones are complicated to evaluate due to individual heads and ears,
> > etc, necessitating a higher level of subjectivity.
>
> Back in the real world, neither of us are 16 year olds or beginning
> audiophiles. I hope that we both understand the effects of decades of
> experience have on our renditions of our subjective impressions.

Me, too.

> > For instance, I enjoy
> > my Grado 80s for casual listening while you have expressed distaste for
> > that model.
>
> It would appear that history is on my side because the manufacturer of that
> product has just lately vastly improved it, if the recent comments of Mr.
> Dorsey (a generally reliable and highly experienced source) are to be taken
> seriously.

Interesting, but does not show history is on your side. Many worthwhile
products are improved upon after introduction.

> The Grado site says the following:
>
> "What does the i stand for in the new SR80i from Grado? Improved, that's
> what! Built on the same features as theSR60i, but SR80i utilizes a 4
> conductor connecting cable and the diaphragms are put through a special
> 'de-stressing' process in order to enhance inner detail, the result of which
> gives a more open stage. The new SR80i has an upgraded driver design, and
> they have enlarged and improved the mass distribution in the plastic
> housing. The way the SR80i's new driver and plastic housing move air and
> react to sound vibrations are now less affected by transient distortions.
> The SR80 provides an improved bass resonance, which enhances the overall
> detail. With the SR80i you will notice improved control of the upper and
> lower range of the frequency spectrum with both better supporting Grado's
> world renowned midrange. The SR80i will produce a sound that is pure Grado,
> warm harmonic color, rich full bodied vocals, excellent dynamics and an
> ultra smooth top end. Listen and Enjoy!"
>
> Like Scott, Grado themselves seem to be supporting the idea that they have
> felt the need to significantly upgrade the version of the SR 80s that I
> auditioned maybe a decade ago.

I'm sure Grado stood behind both the old and new versions. For all I
know, the 80 is just a 60 with better test specs for, say, driver
matching and it was the 60 that needed improving. Or maybe the line is
built on common components that became unavailable necessitating a
redesign.

It's amusing to see you appear to endorse a mysterious cable
"'destressing' process" that enhances "inner detail!" Distinguishing
that kind of ad copy from the more credible claims is the kind of wisdom
our 16-year-old should hope to learn from observation.

OTOH, if de-stressing keeps the wires from twisting up, I'm for it.

> > rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
> > wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.
>
> Right, but one needs to consider the source and the tone of the comments.

Indeed.

Stephen

[Gerard]

Definitely not.
Last time I went to a store to buy headphones, they had a choice of much more
than 50 different types; I think it was close to 100.
And saying "much more balanced than any headphones I've ever had before" does
not give any information. It could have been 5, or 10, or 15, or whatever.
The nitpicking is definitely yours. Just for the case of nitpicking.

[gjsmo]

On Oct 20, 5:10 pm, "Gerard" <ghendrik-nospam_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> MiNe 109 wrote:

> > In article <aqidnTfrw64Fzj3TnZ2dnUVZ_hOdn...@giganews.com>,
> >  "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
>
> > > "MiNe 109" <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >news:smcelroy2-CD886...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> > > > In article <04GdnbaD8PNdtD3TnZ2dnUVZ_g2dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "MiNe 109" <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:smcelroy2-8F935...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <c539a$4ea01def$53565469$8...@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,

Well I didn't have that choice. I had 3 headphones in my price range
which fit my needs (around $100 to $200, studio/flattish over-the-ear,
closed-back/isolation cans), and I picked one. Before, I've always
wanted good sound quality (not over-bassy, not muddy), and good
isolation (either silicone earbuds or isolation phones). My budget was
also around $30-$50, and I kept breaking them, so I tried new ones
every 4 or 5 months. But there's still not any 50 or 100 phones in
that range.
And "much more balanced" DOES give quite a bit of information. That
is, they are far superior to any consumer-grade headphone I've had
before, particularly in frequency response.
I'm also not nitpicking. I made general statements, which you found
small flaws in. Riddle me this, Gerard: When did I question ANYONE
else's statements or judgements, and when did I nitpick?

[gjsmo]

On Oct 20, 4:54 pm, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <aqidnTfrw64Fzj3TnZ2dnUVZ_hOdn...@giganews.com>,
>  "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "MiNe 109" <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:smcelroy2-CD886...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> > > In article <04GdnbaD8PNdtD3TnZ2dnUVZ_g2dn...@giganews.com>,
> > > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> "MiNe 109" <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:smcelroy2-8F935...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> > >> > In article <c539a$4ea01def$53565469$8...@cache3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,

Oh, by the way - I don't believe ANYTHING about claims of better
cables improving sound. In my mind, the following holds true, just
like everywhere else, for audio:
1.) Copper is copper is copper, and it transmits whatever you send
down it. Impurities will present resistance, which (however
negligible), will reduce the conductivity, but not the sound.
2.) Twisted pairs, shielding etc. will improve quality by preventing
crosstalk and keeping out EMI, respectively.
3.) Balanced is better that unbalanced, since the return isn't used
for EMI shielding.

Thus, I don't even pay attention to claims about cables (anyone
remember the debate about "hi-fi" SATA cables with the guy with all
Naim stuff? Malcolm Steward?). However, good design (durable and well-
shielded/braided) will help.

I'm a skeptic. Don't worry about me. I'll figure out what can and
can't work - I DO have Google... and a brain...

[MiNe 109]

In article
<f2d7e1c0-b2a9-40c9...@c1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

gjsmo <gabj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm a skeptic. Don't worry about me. I'll figure out what can and
> can't work - I DO have Google... and a brain...

Good attitude!

Stephen

[Ralph Barone]

In article <smcelroy2-6AD78...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>,
MiNe 109 <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:

<snip>

Stephen, you misread. The diaphragms are put through a special
'de-stressing' process, not the cable. At first glance, that might
serve to improve the sound quality.

[Gerard]

gjsmo wrote:

> I'm also not nitpicking. I made general statements, which you found
> small flaws in. Riddle me this, Gerard: When did I question ANYONE
> else's statements or judgements, and when did I nitpick?

I did not write that /you/ are nitpicking.
I used that word in reply to Mine109.

[Rich Grise]

Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote:

> How important is a dedicated headphone amp? My current cans are
> Beyerdynamic DT 990, which are very nice, but I wonder how much better
> they'd sound with a headphone amp. (I use a Cambridge Audio Sonata
> receivere in my office, where I do most of my listening.)
>

> Any recommendations for an affordable headphone amp?

If you can hear the sound through your phones, then what makes you
think you need an amp?

Thanks,
Rich

[MiNe 109]

In article <invalid-ED8056.21160020102011@shawnews>,

Ralph Barone <invalid@not_real.ca> wrote:

> In article <smcelroy2-6AD78...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>,
> MiNe 109 <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>

> > > The Grado site says the following:
> > >

> > > "...SR80i utilizes a 4

> > > conductor connecting cable and the diaphragms are put through a special
> > > 'de-stressing' process in order to enhance inner detail, the result of

> > > which gives a more open stage...Listen and Enjoy!"

> > It's amusing to see you appear to endorse a mysterious cable
> > "'destressing' process" that enhances "inner detail!" Distinguishing
> > that kind of ad copy from the more credible claims is the kind of wisdom
> > our 16-year-old should hope to learn from observation.
> >
> > OTOH, if de-stressing keeps the wires from twisting up, I'm for it.
> >
> > > > rec.audio.pro (including Arny's contributions) is a good read if gjsmo
> > > > wants to learn how those who work with sound make purchasing decisions.
> > >
> > > Right, but one needs to consider the source and the tone of the comments.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Stephen, you misread. The diaphragms are put through a special
> 'de-stressing' process, not the cable. At first glance, that might
> serve to improve the sound quality.

You're right! I read "cable and diaphragms" etc.

'De-stressing' does sound like 'break-in,' but I have no opinion on that.

Stephen

[MickeyBoy]

On Oct 20, 11:15 am, Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote:
> How important is a dedicated headphone amp? My current cans are
> Beyerdynamic DT 990, which are very nice, but I wonder how much better
> they'd sound with a headphone amp. (I use a Cambridge Audio Sonata
> receivere in my office, where I do most of my listening.)
>
> Any recommendations for an affordable headphone amp?
>

> Kirk
>
> --
>
> Kirkville --http://www.mcelhearn.com
> Writings about more than just Macs
> Take Control of iTunes 10: The FAQ:http://www.mcelhearn.com/itunes

If you are handy with a solfering iron, take a look at the O2 design:

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/07/o2-headphone-amp.html

[Norman Schwartz]

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
news:u5KdneBrE8DdHj3T...@giganews.com...

Unfortunately one's hearing goes to pot just like your hair turns gray, goes
bald or lose your teeth and one needn't have heard a single note for any of
that to happen..


>

[Allen]

<snip>

>
> Oh, by the way - I don't believe ANYTHING about claims of better
> cables improving sound. In my mind, the following holds true, just
> like everywhere else, for audio:
> 1.) Copper is copper is copper, and it transmits whatever you send
> down it. Impurities will present resistance, which (however
> negligible), will reduce the conductivity, but not the sound.
> 2.) Twisted pairs, shielding etc. will improve quality by preventing
> crosstalk and keeping out EMI, respectively.
> 3.) Balanced is better that unbalanced, since the return isn't used
> for EMI shielding.
>
> Thus, I don't even pay attention to claims about cables (anyone
> remember the debate about "hi-fi" SATA cables with the guy with all
> Naim stuff? Malcolm Steward?). However, good design (durable and well-
> shielded/braided) will help.
>
> I'm a skeptic. Don't worry about me. I'll figure out what can and
> can't work - I DO have Google... and a brain...

Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
erase all traces of this post.
Allen

[wkasimer]

On Oct 20, 12:15 pm, Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote:

> How important is a dedicated headphone amp? My current cans are
> Beyerdynamic DT 990, which are very nice, but I wonder how much better
> they'd sound with a headphone amp. (I use a Cambridge Audio Sonata
> receivere in my office, where I do most of my listening.)
>
> Any recommendations for an affordable headphone amp?

I have a Creek OBH-11, purchased for about $110 a few years ago. I
also have one of these...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/616368-REG/Behringer_UFO202_UFO202_USB_1_1.html

...which I use with my laptop.

Bill

[Frank Stearns]

gjsmo <gabj...@gmail.com> writes:

snips

>Oh, by the way - I don't believe ANYTHING about claims of better
>cables improving sound. In my mind, the following holds true, just
>like everywhere else, for audio:
>1.) Copper is copper is copper, and it transmits whatever you send
>down it. Impurities will present resistance, which (however
>negligible), will reduce the conductivity, but not the sound.
>2.) Twisted pairs, shielding etc. will improve quality by preventing
>crosstalk and keeping out EMI, respectively.
>3.) Balanced is better that unbalanced, since the return isn't used
>for EMI shielding.

>Thus, I don't even pay attention to claims about cables (anyone
>remember the debate about "hi-fi" SATA cables with the guy with all
>Naim stuff? Malcolm Steward?). However, good design (durable and well-
>shielded/braided) will help.

>I'm a skeptic. Don't worry about me. I'll figure out what can and
>can't work - I DO have Google... and a brain...

Excellent places to start, gjsmo, and a good attitude, but a few things to keep in
mind:

- I assume you're talking DC resistance, but don't forget "frequency dependent"
resistance, also known as reactance (capacitive and inductive).

In the real world, *any* circuit element -- wire, resistor, capacitor, inductor, et
al -- will have components of inductance, capacitance, and resistance. And these can
interact in quirky ways.

Whether or not the unwanted parasitic factors and interactions are significant or
not depends on many considerations, including circuit Z, power and bandwidth to be
transferred, and of course the quality of the part (e.g., how much ESR or dielectric
absorption does your electrolytic cap from a Rat Shack grab bag cobbled from old
surplus have compared to a fresh, well-designed cap from a top-line manufacturer?
(Which, BTW, could be hard to get unless you purchase a 1000 pieces or spend a
fortune at an online boutique store.)

And, don't forget diode effects that can arise from corrosion or weird alloys -- or
even a bad connection. Many times I've watched audiophiles have an orgasm switching
a component (interconnect wire, let's say), and saying it was the best thing since
sliced crumpets. But then they put the old thing back in, and it too was suddenly
just as good.

What happened? They cleaned the contacts by making/breaking the connection a few
times!

This of course sets aside the psychological affects of the "ritual of change" or
more commonly, the "second play" effect, where upon the second time though (and
following the change to the New Thing) you've heard the obvious the first time and
are listening in more detail the second time, and perhaps erroneously attributing
that "new" detail to hardware, rather than your re-focused attention.

None of this is to say that different elements don't sound different (indeed some
do), but wild claims are likely just that.

You missed the early debacle of digital audio, wherein it spec'd perfectly (in the
analog domain using overly simplistic test methods) but sounded awful.

Pounded enough from the user side of the audio industry, the design/build side
finally did better quantifying of complaints and discovered the problems with bad
filters, jitter, and a few other things... But at the beginning, the complainers
were blown off as kooks.

Things can "look fine" in terms of a limited scientific view, but zoom out
with a little better science and you might have found something that initially
seemed improbable.


- google is fine, but separating info boon from info bogus can be tedious. Treat
google results with that same skepticism.


See if you can find a basic electricity class at your school or perhaps a junior
college -- one that takes you through the fundamental circuit components and how
they work in DC and AC circuits. It's simple, mostly stupid stuff, but it can serve
you well over time, and expand your horizons in this area.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Allen wrote:
>
> Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
> erase all traces of this post.

Why would ANYONE want to work for Best Buy? Or did they turn down
your application?

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[Allen]

On 10/21/2011 1:16 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> Allen wrote:
>>
>> Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
>> erase all traces of this post.
>
>
> Why would ANYONE want to work for Best Buy? Or did they turn down
> your application?
>

You might want to study your sig block.
Allen

[gjsmo]

On Oct 21, 2:15 pm, Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier....@pacifier.net>
wrote:

I know about the various other effects (though not their exact
meanings), but it seems like those would be negligible, ESPECIALLY on
wires like speaker interconnects - big, thick wires carrying a good
amount of current. I know plenty of electricity fundamentals, but AC
in general seems to baffle me. That being said, I know how impedance
is basically AC resistance (right), which changes with frequency.
Extra capacitance rolls of higher frequencies, extra inductance rolls
off lower frequencies, and extra resistance lowers volume, right? The
inductance of a pair of wires side by side is meaningless, and the
capacitance probably is too, unless you have ridiculously long cables.

I'm still not buying any cable that costs much more than the copper
and rubber that's in it.

Didn't the bad digital have to do with aliasing effects and a general
lack of knowledge of how to use it?

As a skeptic, I don't trust everything I see on Google either.

[O]

In article <lNCdnb4wRLt5KzzT...@earthlink.com>, Michael A.

Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Allen wrote:
> >
> > Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
> > erase all traces of this post.
>
>
> Why would ANYONE want to work for Best Buy? Or did they turn down
> your application?

I applied for a job sweeping up the digital bits that will leak out the
cheap cables for customers who don't buy $250 monster cables (and use
them to hook up composite video). It didn't pay much, but you could
keep all the bits, and at two bits to a quarter it turned into a nifty
sum.

-Owen, Shave and a Haircut,...

[Les Cargill]

That's what Bernie Ebbers thought.

--
Les Cargill

[PStamler]

On Oct 21, 7:33 pm, gjsmo <gabjs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That being said, I know how impedance
> is basically AC resistance (right), which changes with frequency.
> Extra capacitance rolls of higher frequencies, extra inductance rolls
> off lower frequencies, and extra resistance lowers volume, right?

Not necessarily. It depends, in all three cases, on whether the extra
capacitance appears in a series or shunt element of the circuit.

The
> inductance  of a pair of wires side by side is meaningless, and the
> capacitance probably is too, unless you have ridiculously long cables.

Depends on what kind of signal you're sending down them. If it's a S/
PDIF or AES digital signal the inductance and capacitance will
definitely matter.

> I'm still not buying any cable that costs much more than the copper
> and rubber that's in it.

Don't forget to buy one with high-quality XLR connectors; ya gotta pay
for them too. And, if you're not making it yourself, it's worth paying
somebody like Markertek to do a good job on the soldering if you want
the cable to last and be reliable.

> Didn't the bad digital have to do with aliasing effects and a general
> lack of knowledge of how to use it?

Mostly not. It had a lot to do with bad anti-aliasing filters, A/D
converters and D/A converters with extremely poor low-level linearity
(leading to something that behaved a little like crossover distortion)
and jitter in the clocks. Plus editors which defaulted to 14 bits when
the level control was set to anything but full up, and truncated
instead of dithering.

Peace,
Paul

[M forever]

On Oct 21, 11:33 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article <lNCdnb4wRLt5KzzTnZ2dnUVZ_sCdn...@earthlink.com>, Michael A.

>
> Terrell <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Allen wrote:
>
> > > Don't even think about applying for a job at Best Buy unless you can
> > > erase all traces of this post.
>
> >    Why would ANYONE want to work for Best Buy?  Or did they turn down
> > your application?
>
> I applied for a job sweeping up the digital bits that will leak out the
> cheap cables for customers who don't buy $250 monster cables (and use
> them to hook up composite video).

Composite video is analog, not digital.

[Allen]

LOL!
Allen

[Arny Krueger]

"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:YvOdnZPm9f0lKzzT...@posted.palinacquisition...

> Whether or not the unwanted parasitic factors and interactions are
> significant or
> not depends on many considerations, including circuit Z, power and
> bandwidth to be

> transferred, and of course the quality of the part.

Agreed.

> (e.g., how much ESR or dielectric
> absorption does your electrolytic cap from a Rat Shack grab bag cobbled
> from old
> surplus have compared to a fresh, well-designed cap from a top-line
> manufacturer?

Often exactly the same, because they are the same other than age, and the
age isn't enough to make a difference.

> (Which, BTW, could be hard to get unless you purchase a 1000 pieces or
> spend a
> fortune at an online boutique store.)

Boutique parts are a rip off with very few exceptions,

> And, don't forget diode effects that can arise from corrosion or weird
> alloys -- or
> even a bad connection. Many times I've watched audiophiles have an orgasm
> switching
> a component (interconnect wire, let's say), and saying it was the best
> thing since
> sliced crumpets. But then they put the old thing back in, and it too was
> suddenly
> just as good.

Especially true if you do it in a proper level-matched, time-synched, bias
controlled listening test.

> What happened? They cleaned the contacts by making/breaking the connection
> a few
> times!

Of course the basic problem with the connection is still there. Wait a
while, and the problem will be back.

> This of course sets aside the psychological affects of the "ritual of
> change" or
> more commonly, the "second play" effect, where upon the second time though
> (and
> following the change to the New Thing) you've heard the obvious the first
> time and
> are listening in more detail the second time, and perhaps erroneously
> attributing
> that "new" detail to hardware, rather than your re-focused attention.

Totally agreed.

> None of this is to say that different elements don't sound different
> (indeed some
> do), but wild claims are likely just that.

Yes, indeed.

> You missed the early debacle of digital audio, wherein it spec'd perfectly
> (in the
> analog domain using overly simplistic test methods) but sounded awful.

That's something that probably happened, but not nearly as much as old-time
gossip suggests. Ever listen to a CDP-101 in as-new condition? In the day
many people couldn't statnd them, but set them up in a proper llistening
test, and all of a sudden everybody is guessing randomly. The worst thing
about much of the early digital stuff was that it lacked audible distortion,
particularly the euphonic distortions whose management many had built their
careers on.

> Pounded enough from the user side of the audio industry, the design/build
> side
> finally did better quantifying of complaints and discovered the problems
> with bad
> filters, jitter, and a few other things... But at the beginning, the
> complainers
> were blown off as kooks.

Jiitter is mostly hype. If was such a problem, why did everybody turn a
blind eye to it when huge amounts of it was and still are part and parcel of
the analog world? Don't tell me its the difference in spectal contents,
because many times they are the same.
The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that it lacked
audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions whose management
many had built their careers on.

> Things can "look fine" in terms of a limited scientific view, but zoom out
> with a little better science and you might have found something that
> initially
> seemed improbable.

The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that it lacked
audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions whose management
many had built their careers on.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message

news:rtudnWlS1esGaz7T...@giganews.com...

> The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that
> it lacked audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions
> whose management many had built their careers on.

Some months back I pulled out a pile of audiophile direct-disk LPs and
decided that, though most were at least euphonic, in terms of accuracy (to
my perception of what comprises "live" sound) they simply weren't as good as
the best digital recordings -- especially SACDs.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j80tf5$jpc$1...@dont-email.me...

At the risk of being predictable, I'm going to reference my usual
reservations about audiophile perceptions of live sound, and also suggest
that since the SACD format has no known audible benefits all by itself, it
was the nth remastering or merely your prejudices that made the differences
you perceived.

I've always believed that the LP format had enough audible flaws that it was
a major detriment to the enjoyment of recorded music, and nothing that has
come out of the scientific research of the past 30 years has changed that
one iota. The real marvel about it was that we were able to enjoy it as much
as we did, all things considered. The enjoyment was mostly due to the lack
of a superior alternative, which we have now had for about 30 years.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message

news:hMCdnX6sifQzZj7T...@giganews.com...

>
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:j80tf5$jpc$1...@dont-email.me...
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
> > news:rtudnWlS1esGaz7T...@giganews.com...

>>> The worst thing about much of the early digital stuff was that
>>> it lacked audible distortion, particularly the euphonic distortions
>>> whose management many had built their careers on.

>> Some months back I pulled out a pile of audiophile direct-disk LPs and
>> decided that, though most were at least euphonic, in terms of accuracy
(to
>> my perception of what comprises "live" sound) they simply weren't as good
>> as the best digital recordings -- especially SACDs.

> At the risk of being predictable, I'm going to reference my usual
> reservations about audiophile perceptions of live sound, and also suggest
> that since the SACD format has no known audible benefits all by itself, it
> was the nth remastering or merely your prejudices that made the
differences
> you perceived.

All too predictable, Arny. You really enjoy attacking someone who agrees
with you, don't you?

What do you mean by "reservations about audiophile perceptions of live
sound"? If anything, audiophiles should have a more-perceptive appreciation
of the superiority of live sound to recorded.

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is debatable. *
But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have significantly better --
more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is another matter.

Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality. It
isn't just the loss of hall sound -- the front channels sound less natural.
(This effect also occurs when using a hall synthesizer with stereo
recordings.)

Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels removes
the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording that "sounds good" by
itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

* One could set up a bypass test with live mic feeds. But as they don't
permit an exactly repeatable stimulus, it would be difficult to get
meaningful results. Along the same lines... remember when Julian Hirsch
visited Shure, and duly reported that the output of a V15 III pickup playing
an LP was indistinguishable from the master tape that produced the LP?

> I've always believed that the LP format had enough audible flaws that it
was
> a major detriment to the enjoyment of recorded music, and nothing that has
> come out of the scientific research of the past 30 years has changed that
> one iota. The real marvel about it was that we were able to enjoy it as
much
> as we did, all things considered. The enjoyment was mostly due to the lack
> of a superior alternative, which we have now had for about 30 years.

You'll note that I referred to audiophile recordings, which weren't anywhere
nearly as bad as most commercial recordings. I don't know why you seem to be
so upset about my describing them as "euphonic" -- because they are.

Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue" of
being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is that a good
chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any type are due to the
choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and the amount of electronic
equipment between the mics and the recorder. Make bad choices, and they'll
wipe out the superiority of digital recording.

[geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> All too predictable, Arny. You really enjoy attacking someone who
> agrees with you, don't you?

Occasionallly he can be 'on the spopt' and rational, as here.

>
> What do you mean by "reservations about audiophile perceptions of live
> sound"? If anything, audiophiles should have a more-perceptive
> appreciation of the superiority of live sound to recorded.
>
> Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
> debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
> significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
> another matter.

Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason) which
causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?

>
> Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
> Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality.

No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

> It isn't just the loss of hall sound -- the front channels sound less
> natural. (This effect also occurs when using a hall synthesizer with
> stereo recordings.)
>
> Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
> removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording that
> "sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM....

.
>
> Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
> of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
> that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
> type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
> the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the recorder.
> Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of digital
> recording.

Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in aural and
mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical factors by far.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:BpCdnXAKCJ24NjnT...@giganews.com...

> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
>> debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
>> significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
>> another matter.

> Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason) which
> causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?

Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a good
system? No?

> > Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
> > Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality.

> No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

Wrong again. See preceding response.

>> Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
>> removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording
>> that "sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)

> Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM...

No. But that wasn't the point. Regardless, audio-only Blu-ray disks with
multi-ch LPCM show a similar improvement in quality.

>> Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
>> of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
>> that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
>> type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
>> the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the recorder.
>> Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of digital
>> recording.

> Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in aural
and
> mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical factors by far.

All supposition. I've been listening to stereo and surround sound for 45
years. And I've made stereo and surround live recordings. Do you comparable
or better experience?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real name,
and we know who he is.

[hank alrich]

Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long time,
and often contributes very helpful information.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message

>

> Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a
> good system? No?

No, but I've heard multi-channel LPCM. And I've heardn 2 channel SACD v.
2-channel LPCM

>>> Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience
>>> channels. Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in
>>> sound quality.
>
>> No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".
>
> Wrong again. See preceding response.

I sauggest the degradation may be entirely subjective, and is to do with the
overall experience rather than fidelity.

>
>>> Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
>>> removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording
>>> that "sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)
>
>> Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM...
>
> No. But that wasn't the point. Regardless, audio-only Blu-ray disks
> with multi-ch LPCM show a similar improvement in quality.

No, a similar change in excperience.

>>> Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
>>> of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
>>> that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
>>> type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
>>> the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the
>>> recorder. Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of
>>> digital recording.
>
>> Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in
>> aural and mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical
>> factors by far.
>
> All supposition. I've been listening to stereo and surround sound for
> 45 years. And I've made stereo and surround live recordings. Do you
> comparable or better experience?
>
> You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Your 45 beats my 30. Presumably your ears have not degraded in those 45
years as much as mine have in 30.

> I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real
> name, and we know who he is.

Hit a raw nerve somewhere have I ?

frank. Ooops, geoff.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1k9lx36.12s6ipw1j51y58N%walk...@nv.net...

> Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long time,
> and often contributes very helpful information.

What is his last name? Where does he live? What does he do for a living?

Right now, he's just arguing about things he has little experience with.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message

news:ns6dnc5k4vbNtDjT...@giganews.com...

> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message

> >>> Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience
> >>> channels. Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in
> >>> sound quality.

> >> No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".

> > Wrong again. See preceding response.

> I sauggest the degradation may be entirely subjective, and is to do with
the
> overall experience rather than fidelity.

Subjectivity is reality in this context -- qv, psychoacoustics.

Regardless, "something else" is going on here. One's perception of
instrumental timbre varies with the presence or absence of ambience, whether
it's real or synthesized.

> Your 45 beats my 30. Presumably your ears have not degraded in those 45
> years as much as mine have in 30.

Depend on our ages. My ears still get to about 12kHz.

>> I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real
>> name, and we know who he is.

> Hit a raw nerve somewhere have I ?

Oh, yes. I have little respect for people who won't reveal who they are.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:j811ah$ag3$1...@dont-email.me...

No, I'm wary of people who reach the right conclusions for false reasons.

> What do you mean by "reservations about audiophile perceptions of live
> sound"?

I mean that few if any audiophiles have a lot of relevant experience with
live musical sound. Many times one sees people pontificating volumnously,
hot and cold, based on a concert they listened to weeks, months and
sometimes even years ago.

> If anything, audiophiles should have a more-perceptive appreciation
> of the superiority of live sound to recorded.

Depends whether they spend more time listening to live music or recorded
music, among other things.

> Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is debatable.
> *

Only among the poorly-informed. If you know the relevant facts, and
particularly if you have experienced them, then the debate is mercifully
short.

> But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have significantly better --
> more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is another matter.

I'll attack that claim at the source. Practially speaking almost no
audiophiles extant have ever heard the very live performance that is
packaged up on the media that they listen to. The only people who routinely
hear the live performances that are recorded on media that they have before
them are recordists. Often, there are still strong asymmetries between what
is on that media and what even recordists have ever heard.

The proper way to judge a media format as being degrading is to make
before-and-after comparisons under the most ideal circumstances possible.
For those who have actually done so, (again a tiny almost vanishing minority
of individuals) virtually every mainstream digital format since the red book
CD is more than good enough for practical purposes, both production and
delivery.

> Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience channels.
> Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in sound quality. It
> isn't just the loss of hall sound -- the front channels sound less
> natural.
> (This effect also occurs when using a hall synthesizer with stereo
> recordings.)

Now you are talking way past your experience as you have recounted it.

> * One could set up a bypass test with live mic feeds. But as they don't
> permit an exactly repeatable stimulus, it would be difficult to get
> meaningful results. Along the same lines... remember when Julian Hirsch
> visited Shure, and duly reported that the output of a V15 III pickup
> playing
> an LP was indistinguishable from the master tape that produced the LP?

Julian Hirsch's involvement would be required to defend Julian Hirsch's
words. I understan that this is impossible. Next!

>> I've ays believed that the LP format had enough audible flaws that it was

>> a major detriment to the enjoyment of recorded music, and nothing that
>> has
>> come out of the scientific research of the past 30 years has changed that
>> one iota.

>> The real marvel about it was that we were able to enjoy it as much
>> as we did, all things considered. The enjoyment was mostly due to the
>> lack
>> of a superior alternative, which we have now had for about 30 years.

> You'll note that I referred to audiophile recordings, which weren't
> anywhere
> nearly as bad as most commercial recordings. I don't know why you seem to
> be
> so upset about my describing them as "euphonic" -- because they are.
>
> Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue" of
> being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is that a good
> chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any type are due to
> the
> choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and the amount of electronic
> equipment between the mics and the recorder. Make bad choices, and they'll
> wipe out the superiority of digital recording.

Of course. There is no limit to the human ability to screw up.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:j82e94$gah$1...@dont-email.me...

> "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:BpCdnXAKCJ24NjnT...@giganews.com...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
>>> debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
>>> significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
>>> another matter.
>
>> Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason)
>> which
>> causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?
>
> Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a good
> system? No?

This sort of talk just degenerates into name-dropping contests.

[hank alrich]

I've been following his posts for years. He is well informed about
plenty of tech stuff having to do with audio gear and practices. he
lives in Australia. What difference does it make?

That he disagrees with you does not automatically make him ill-informed.
He sometimes disagrees with me, too. Hell, anybody worth their salt
would sometimes disagree with me.

[Frank Stearns]

gjsmo <gabj...@gmail.com> writes:

(snips)

>>I know about the various other effects (though not their exact
>>meanings), but it seems like those would be negligible, ESPECIALLY on
>>wires like speaker interconnects - big, thick wires carrying a good

You're going in the right general direction. My suggestion is to be
alert to oversimplification.

In audio, not only are the subtle aspects prone to complexity (devil
in the details, as it were), the perceptive aspects are complex with
humans, and with any one of us in our particular listening
environments.

There are all sorts of wild and wonderful perceptive issues that make
humans exquisitely sensitive in some regards, but near stone deaf in
others. The nature of music itself can mask or expose different
problems in uneven ways.

So, are the effects of tiny parasitics audible or not?

Depends on what they are and what they affect. But I want mine way
down, at least 90 dB down, preferably 100+ down, at or below the
noise floor.

If you're talking volts into a reasonably efficient speaker, 100 dB
down will put you in the microvolt range and *hopefully* be
inaudible. Hopefully.

But if the problem is merely 50-60 dB down, we're talking millivolts
against volts and that's likely audible.

Just because from a *linear* frame of reference we'd be inclined to
say that a 1/2 millivolt signal should be lost against the swamping
tide of a 10 volt signal, that's not necessarily true.

There are perceptive tests you can cobble together for your own
edification, and as a challenge to the "common sense" notion of huge
signals swamping little ones.

Here's something fun to try:

I assume your DAW has an oscillator plugin and it can generate
various waveforms, and hopefully even white noise.

Take a white noise source. Hi and low pass it with steep cut-offs to
give you a band of noise from 100 Hz to 500 Hz. Take a sine
oscillator set to 2Khz, with the output 50 dB lower than your white
noise. Mix them together. While moderately faint, you should hear
that 2K signal, no problem.

Crank down that little signal still more: -60, -70. I bet you can
still hear it.

This is something of a rigged test, in that the ear is most sensitive
in the 2k region. And, with the band pass on the noise signal, we've
left things wide open for that tiny signal.

This is still a useful test because circuit aberrations in that
frequency range with real music might be that much more evident,
along with how real music itself does not occupy all frequencies at
any given instant. Something small that doesn't belong *can* be exposed.
This is especially true with acoustic music.

The theme of this test is that you can hear the small among the large.

==

I would never spend kilobucks for speaker wire, but I am going to be
careful about what I use and how it's maintained.

Part of the issue in my room is that the monitor chain and room
itself is good enough so that many things ambiguously perceived on a
typical system are not fleeting on this system. If there's something
there, you will hear it.

Likewise, if something is NOT there (yet you thought otherwise due to
suggestion or self-deception inspired by non-linearities in a lesser
system/room) you'll be disappointed -- because you won't hear it.

And along those same lines, you won't hear a faux brightness due to
distortion, or a fake creaminess due to slight dips in HF response,
etc.

Sigh. There's so much more to all this, but this post would get way
too long.

The general point is that if an improbable observation comes your
way, eliminate what you can as the cause. If it persists, you might
indeed have found something that initially seemed unlikely.

AC circuits can be odd at first glance, but it sounds like you
understand the broad fundamentals, and that's a good portion of what
you need unless you plan on designing gear from scratch.


But back (finally!) to your statement:

>> I'm still not buying any cable that costs much more than the
>> copper and rubber that's in it.

Theoretically, yes, absolutely. I'm right there with you.

But in the real world, things might not be quite so simple. We need
to specify:

- how much impurity we'll allow in the copper, and the affiliated
parasitic dioding, if a particular impurity leads to that (mere
resistance or reactance we can likely tolerate -- up to a point). Our
answer depends on the application. And it's more granular than
"audio". A tracking studio might tolerate "little" failings in their
monitoring more than a mastering studio.

- what price for the chosen level of purity?

- what level of diminishing returns for that price?

- what return on investment?

(There's yet another discussion about the geometry of the wire,
starting with solid or stranded, and branching out from there. Again,
not as simple as we might like.)


Anyway, way more than $0.02 worth; sorry for the length. Hope it helps.

[geoff]

hank alrich wrote:
> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
>> news:1k9lx36.12s6ipw1j51y58N%walk...@nv.net...
>>
>>> Geoff isn't a real name? He's been participating here for a long
>>> time, and often contributes very helpful information.
>>
>> What is his last name? Where does he live? What does he do for a
>> living?
>>
>> Right now, he's just arguing about things he has little experience
>> with.
>
> I've been following his posts for years. He is well informed about
> plenty of tech stuff having to do with audio gear and practices. he
> lives in Australia. What difference does it make?
>
> That he disagrees with you does not automatically make him
> ill-informed. He sometimes disagrees with me, too. Hell, anybody
> worth their salt would sometimes disagree with me.

New Zealand actually, and Wood.

Willy seems so irrationally outraged that it appears that he seems confused
in that what I actually suggested was his claim that DSD inherently gives a
better real-world fideltity than SACD or LPCM, and that adding ambiance
channels (now apparently even if synthesised !) somehow increases fidelity.
All in an environment with so many variables (incldung the variable
physiological effects of the listener merely breathing or moving) that by
far outway any type of distortions from those media.

I guess that almost validates those cheesy 'hi-fi' amps of the 80s(?) with
'Reverb' ;-) (that is known as a smiley - some of us can still smile you
know .... )

I say the *format*, not the encoding technology, may give a subjectively
more satisfying experience to him, and maybe others, but that is not
fidelity.

geoff (as always)

[gjsmo]

On Oct 24, 1:56 pm, Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier....@pacifier.net>
wrote:

But wouldn't all of this be influenced FAR more by the amp, monitors,
ambient noise and room than by the actual WIRES? If you're that
concerned about a millivolt or two of interference or crosstalk,
double-shield the send and return separately, and then triple shield
the whole thing, then connect them all to a 10 foot copper pipe in the
ground (on one side only, of course - no ground loops here), using
solder with silver in it (mine has 2% silver). Still isn't going to
get you anywhere near the price of the ridiculously expensive stuff
sold to blind believers. And I would sooner spend money on a multi-
thousand dollar amp with unmeasurable THD than those wires.

Maybe you're not implying what I'm challenging, in which case I never
said the above.

> There are perceptive tests you can cobble together for your own
> edification, and as a challenge to the "common sense" notion of huge
> signals swamping little ones.
>
> Here's something fun to try:
>
> I assume your DAW has an oscillator plugin and it can generate
> various waveforms, and hopefully even white noise.
>
> Take a white noise source. Hi and low pass it with steep cut-offs to
> give you a band of noise from 100 Hz to 500 Hz. Take a sine
> oscillator set to 2Khz, with the output 50 dB lower than your white
> noise. Mix them together. While moderately faint, you should hear
> that 2K signal, no problem.
>
> Crank down that little signal still more: -60, -70. I bet you can
> still hear it.
>
> This is something of a rigged test, in that the ear is most sensitive
> in the 2k region. And, with the band pass on the noise signal, we've
> left things wide open for that tiny signal.
>
> This is still a useful test because circuit aberrations in that
> frequency range with real music might be that much more evident,
> along with how real music itself does not occupy all frequencies at
> any given instant. Something small that doesn't belong *can* be exposed.
> This is especially true with acoustic music.
>
> The theme of this test is that you can hear the small among the large.

You point out how a 2kHz signal is very easy to hear, especially above
white noise not in that region. A more likely scenario with "bad"
wiring would be full spectrum white noise, no?

> ==
>
> I would never spend kilobucks for speaker wire, but I am going to be
> careful about what I use and how it's maintained.
>
> Part of the issue in my room is that the monitor chain and room
> itself is good enough so that many things ambiguously perceived on a
> typical system are not fleeting on this system. If there's something
> there, you will hear it.
>
> Likewise, if something is NOT there (yet you thought otherwise due to
> suggestion or self-deception inspired by non-linearities in a lesser
> system/room) you'll be disappointed -- because you won't hear it.
>
> And along those same lines, you won't hear a faux brightness due to
> distortion, or a fake creaminess due to slight dips in HF response,
> etc.
>
> Sigh. There's so much more to all this, but this post would get way
> too long.
>
> The general point is that if an improbable observation comes your
> way, eliminate what you can as the cause. If it persists, you might
> indeed have found something that initially seemed unlikely.
>
> AC circuits can be odd at first glance, but it sounds like you
> understand the broad fundamentals, and that's a good portion of what
> you need unless you plan on designing gear from scratch.

Well, I want to make my own guitar amp, and then a hifi - or maybe the
other way around. I'm probably not going to, though.

> But back (finally!) to your statement:
>
> >> I'm still not buying any cable that costs much more than the
> >> copper and rubber that's in it.
>
> Theoretically, yes, absolutely. I'm right there with you.
>
> But in the real world, things might not be quite so simple. We need
> to specify:
>
> - how much impurity we'll allow in the copper, and the affiliated
> parasitic dioding, if a particular impurity leads to that (mere
> resistance or reactance we can likely tolerate -- up to a point). Our
> answer depends on the application. And it's more granular than
> "audio". A tracking studio might tolerate "little" failings in their
> monitoring more than a mastering studio.

I've never even seen purity marked on a roll of copper wire. Silver
maybe, but then you're crazy.

> - what price for the chosen level of purity?
>
> - what level of diminishing returns for that price?
>
> - what return on investment?
>
> (There's yet another discussion about the geometry of the wire,
> starting with solid or stranded, and branching out from there. Again,
> not as simple as we might like.)

Well, theoretically stranded should carry more current due to
increased surface area. Except that's irrelevant except possibly in
truly ENORMOUS speaker setups - that is, concerts. No studio or home
sound system would require any more current than can be carried over
average 14-2 house wiring, which will take a full 15 amps (and more -
it's underspec'ed, like many things) before doing anything weird, like
melting. And that's solid-core.

Incidentally, if you want an instance of a wire which COULDN'T handle
the current... I once shorted a lawnmower battery with some 20 gauge
wire. Or at least I thought I did - there wasn't anything left after
the current vaporized the copper and insulation. The wrench I
subsequently dropped across the terminals, however, was welded to the
soft lead terminals - note to self, cover terminals or be more careful
next time. That took a hammer to remove.

[Frank Stearns]

gjsmo <gabj...@gmail.com> writes:

snips

>> But if the problem is merely 50-60 dB down, we're talking millivolts
>> against volts and that's likely audible.
>>
>> Just because from a *linear* frame of reference we'd be inclined to
>> say that a 1/2 millivolt signal should be lost against the swamping
>> tide of a 10 volt signal, that's not necessarily true.

>But wouldn't all of this be influenced FAR more by the amp, monitors,
>ambient noise and room than by the actual WIRES? If you're that

Yes, all those items play a role; some larger than others. The original point
was that some small effects (some, but not all) can be heard alongside much louder
components, particularly in the ever-changing tapestry of a music signal.

>concerned about a millivolt or two of interference or crosstalk,

No, not crosstalk. Dioding and LCR affects within the wire that alter the way the
*entire* circuit performs, not just the wire as an isolated thing on a test bench.

>double-shield the send and return separately, and then triple shield
>the whole thing, then connect them all to a 10 foot copper pipe in the
>ground (on one side only, of course - no ground loops here), using
>solder with silver in it (mine has 2% silver). Still isn't going to
>get you anywhere near the price of the ridiculously expensive stuff
>sold to blind believers. And I would sooner spend money on a multi-
>thousand dollar amp with unmeasurable THD than those wires.

I'm one water mile away from a 50KW AM radio station; I know all about dealing with
RF. Clean wiring practices from the get-go will preclude most problems. Special
shielding was not required.

>Maybe you're not implying what I'm challenging, in which case I never
>said the above.

Not sure what you're challenging; it's possible you're looking past the abstract
point I've tried to make.

Right, but music isn't white noise. (Well, there might be some exceptions,
particularly if mishandled by a mastering engineer who wants to "make it reallly
loud," but I don't want to start a personal-taste-in-music holy war. <g>)

The concept of the test was to have two things of vastly different "sizes", and
show how the tiny one was still readily perceptable, even at a 1000x, 2000x or more
times smaller than the big one.

Now, if you have diode effects taking place, smears or overshoots from unwanted RCL
circuits that can form within the wire -- again, small in magnitude but damaging to
the small components we routinely hear (such as harmonics) -- you have potential
issues to address.


snips

>> The general point is that if an improbable observation comes your
>> way, eliminate what you can as the cause. If it persists, you might
>> indeed have found something that initially seemed unlikely.

snips

>> But back (finally!) to your statement:
>>
>> >> I'm still not buying any cable that costs much more than the
>> >> copper and rubber that's in it.
>>
>> Theoretically, yes, absolutely. I'm right there with you.
>>
>> But in the real world, things might not be quite so simple. We need
>> to specify:
>>
>> - how much impurity we'll allow in the copper, and the affiliated
>> parasitic dioding, if a particular impurity leads to that (mere
>> resistance or reactance we can likely tolerate -- up to a point). Our
>> answer depends on the application. And it's more granular than
>> "audio". A tracking studio might tolerate "little" failings in their
>> monitoring more than a mastering studio.

>I've never even seen purity marked on a roll of copper wire. Silver
>maybe, but then you're crazy.

Generally, you won't, but certain applications require a specified purity. A
reputable manufacturer can provide such information or guarantee a certain wire to
be made a certain way.

Poorly made copper wire might be called "copper" but have excessive iron or carbon
(or other elements) in its structure, which could be acceptable for many
applications, but might be iffy for audio. (I've seen what happens to high-iron
content copper wire after it's been out in the world for a number of years. It can
corrode, and then you have the potential for diode problems. It might power your
light bulb just fine, but play havoc with audio.)

>> - what price for the chosen level of purity?
>>
>> - what level of diminishing returns for that price?
>>
>> - what return on investment?
>>
>> (There's yet another discussion about the geometry of the wire,
>> starting with solid or stranded, and branching out from there. Again,
>> not as simple as we might like.)

>Well, theoretically stranded should carry more current due to
>increased surface area. Except that's irrelevant except possibly in

Again, depends on how the stranding is done and the purity level.

Doug Sax of the Mastering Lab, the crew at A&M Mastering, Bob Katz, et al, are all
rather picky about EVERY component in their mastering facility, wiring included.

As just one example, A&M rewired with solid core wire throughout their multi-room
plant. Line level was done with a solid core 22 gauge Alpha wire product; speakers
were done with a 12-2 solid-conductor twisted pair product from Belden. Their
contention was that over time and with any impurities or corrosion, RCL networks
would form throughout the stranding. So, preclude the problem out of the gate by
using solid core. (There were other advantages as well that slip my mind at the
moment. But, solid core makes a lousy stage mic cable! No such thing as a free
lunch.)

The Belden 12-2 is an interesting product: it's essentially house wiring (solid
copper), but in a twisted pair format with special insulation -- not for audio, but
to meet fire alarm system specs in extreme environmental conditions.

Turns out to be a coup for audio. The copper is high-purity for low corrosion issues
over a long number of years. The twisting helps here in preventing RF getting back
into the system at the amp output (yes, RF can do this). The insulation dialectic
is quite good and very stable.

>truly ENORMOUS speaker setups - that is, concerts. No studio or home
>sound system would require any more current than can be carried over
>average 14-2 house wiring, which will take a full 15 amps (and more -
>it's underspec'ed, like many things) before doing anything weird, like
>melting. And that's solid-core.

We're not talking running 15A into the speakers; the objective is to push any small
parasitics (some of which might be dynamic in nature) so far down that they're never
an issue. Oversized wire capacity is one way to help in this -- but again, rational
price/performance comes into play.

With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gauge wire would
be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But there would be
other potential problems, particularly with R. 4-0 wire (1/2" thick feeder cable)
would be ridiculous overkill, as would pure silver, though it might be a nice choice
if the price were similar to copper.

Instead, the idea with the Belden product (and the thinking of the A&M folks) was to
get an copper product optimized for one situation, one where life and property --
and lawsuits -- were at stake. But this meant that production runs meeting specs
were assured; and, that same product just happened to be ideal for another
application, in this case audio. (And believe me, the A&M folks did a lot of trials
on a lot of wire before settling on this one. And, when you're a six room facility
with top-flight engineers getting top money for their service, facility improve
prices were no object. They could have spent huge bucks for interconnects, but
didn't do so.)

>Incidentally, if you want an instance of a wire which COULDN'T handle
>the current... I once shorted a lawnmower battery with some 20 gauge
>wire. Or at least I thought I did - there wasn't anything left after
>the current vaporized the copper and insulation. The wrench I
>subsequently dropped across the terminals, however, was welded to the
>soft lead terminals - note to self, cover terminals or be more careful
>next time. That took a hammer to remove.

Yep. You've got the perfect welding configuration: high current, low voltage.

[PStamler]

On Oct 25, 2:40 am, Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier....@pacifier.net>
wrote:

> With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gauge wire would
> be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But there would be
> other potential problems, particularly with R.

No kidding there would, if the 22ga wire was longer than a foot or so.
Its comparatively high resistance forms a voltage divider with the
speaker's load impedance. Since the latter is usually far from flat,
you get a built-in EQ curve following the shape of the speaker's
impedance. Not desirable.

Peace,
Paul

[Frank Stearns]

PStamler <psta...@pobox.com> writes:

>On Oct 25, 2:40=A0am, Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier....@pacifier.net>
>wrote:
>> With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gauge w=
>ire would
>> be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But ther=

>e would be
>> other potential problems, particularly with R.

>No kidding there would, if the 22ga wire was longer than a foot or so.
>Its comparatively high resistance forms a voltage divider with the
>speaker's load impedance. Since the latter is usually far from flat,
>you get a built-in EQ curve following the shape of the speaker's
>impedance. Not desirable.

Thanks, Paul!

This makes a great point about oversimplification of these circuits, and only
looking at essentially one factor (current capacity).

Fine for powering tiny hobby motors and small light bulbs (assuming their draw was
low enough for that slim wire to handle), but with audio the overall effects of wire
as a circuit element cannot be ignored.

[Arny Krueger]

"PStamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:0e7d7142-65b5-4736...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

22 gauge wire has a resistance of 16 ohms per thousand feet or 0.016 ohms
per foot. Rule of thumb is that a 1:50 voltage divider can be counted on to
produce no audible attenuation. If the speaker involved has reasonable
worst case impedance curve variations and a rated impedance (i.e.,
approximate minimum impedance at any normal audio frequency) of 4 ohms, the
wire could be about 5 feet long with no audible effects. Or, if you will a
30 inch speaker cable.

[PStamler]

On Oct 26, 8:24 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
> "PStamler" <pstam...@pobox.com> wrote in message

Not too far off from my guesstimate of a foot. In any case, running 10
feet of 22ga speaker cable, or 20 feet, is definitely not recommended,
which was the point I was making.

Peace,
Paul

[gjsmo]

Honestly... does "speaker wire" come in 22ga? or even 20ga?
Usually it's at least 16ga, often 14ga or 12ga.

[Frank Stearns]

gjsmo <gabj...@gmail.com> writes:

>On Oct 26, 3:58=A0pm, PStamler <pstam...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> On Oct 26, 8:24=A0am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "PStamler" <pstam...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>

>> >news:0e7d7142-65b5-4736...@h30g2000pro.googlegroups.com..=

>.
>> > On Oct 25, 2:40 am, Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier....@pacifier.net>
>> > wrote:
>>

>> > > With speaker efficiency here at the listening levels employed, 22 gau=
>ge
>> > > wire would
>> > > be fine for the speakers purely from a load capacity standpoint. But =

>there
>> > > would be
>> > > other potential problems, particularly with R.
>> > >No kidding there would, if the 22ga wire was longer than a foot or so.
>> > >Its comparatively high resistance forms a voltage divider with the
>> > >speaker's load impedance. Since the latter is usually far from flat,
>> > >you get a built-in EQ curve following the shape of the speaker's
>> > > impedance. Not desirable.
>>

>> > 22 gauge wire has a resistance of =A016 ohms per thousand feet or 0.016=
> ohms
>> > per foot. Rule of thumb is that a 1:50 voltage divider can be counted o=
>n to
>> > produce no audible attenuation. =A0If the speaker involved has reasonab=

>le
>> > worst case impedance curve variations and a rated impedance (i.e.,

>> > approximate minimum impedance at any normal audio frequency) of 4 ohms,=
> the
>> > wire could be about 5 feet long with no audible effects. Or, if you wil=

>l a
>> > 30 inch speaker cable.
>>
>> Not too far off from my guesstimate of a foot. In any case, running 10
>> feet of 22ga speaker cable, or 20 feet, is definitely not recommended,
>> which was the point I was making.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Paul

>Honestly... does "speaker wire" come in 22ga? or even 20ga?
>Usually it's at least 16ga, often 14ga or 12ga.

Yes, it does, unfortunatly. Look at the crap provided with many drugstore-variety
component "audio" systems. The "good" ones give you 18, but some are 20 and
even smaller. But hey, it's stranded, so it can "handle" the 3-5 watt peak load,
right?

The mains in my system (Tannoy SGM10Bs/Mastering Lab crossovers), given their
efficiency, soffit mounting, smaller room, and rational listening level, typically
draw much less than a watt each. (From 60 Hz on down LF is sent off via electronic
crossover to the sub amp. The mains power demand is indeed quite small. That's
why they're easily powered by a modest 30 watt/channel Pass Labs amp. The subs are
on a 160 watt/channel Bryston. If one is so foolishly inclined, the system will
play rather loud)

But to underscore the original point: from a simplistic numerical point of view, a
light gauge could easily handle that amount of mains power (<1 watt). But as Paul
pointed out, in this application R comes back to bite you. That's why I'm using
well-made 12 gauge copper, but at a rational price of around 40 cents a foot, if
memory serves. (Spendy for house wire, but a steal for audio.)

The electronic crossover has several modifications, but that's another story.

14 or even 16 would probably work for the mains, but this particular wire
configuration was only available in 12. All factors considered it was a bargain,
with the added benefit of pushing R well into the fractional ohm range.

[Arny Krueger]

"gjsmo" <gabj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63aa065e-5ba2-4e08...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> Honestly... does "speaker wire" come in 22ga? or even 20ga?
> Usually it's at least 16ga, often 14ga or 12ga.

24 gauge "speaker wire" has been routinely sold by retailers for many years.