acoustic zen or chord indigo?

If you are referring to the point about your alps pot letting through more musical information than the TVC, although the latter 'sounded' more transparant, then yes I'd be interested in it being backed up by measurable scientific data. Yes, please proceed.

 

Indeed PM's remain private. Also no-one will have posts deleted or face sanctions whilst they remain inside the AUP. I drew a line in the sand on Friday. I am not considering what happened prior to that. It was impossible to decide who was the instigator. So rather than ban all protaganists, they all received warnings. One member chose to ignore these warnings. They were banned.

Members who ignore the AUP will have to face the consequences of it.

 

Baudrillard ... thankyou


phil

 

Ken was selling signed photo's at the audio jumble.

 

I'm sorry to say I don't have the products here for testing anymore so can't oblige. I beleive Murray did show some measurements indicating ringing which would not be present in the Alps pot, so subjective differences could be anticipated I would imagine.

But I was of course referring to these spanky looking cables

 

Lordsummit,
OK
Frank

 

But you also use your alps pot in preference to a stepped attenuator in the ZH, do you not? I assume because it also lets through 'more musical information' even though the latter sounds more transparent. Can you back up the reason for the alps sounding better with measurements?

 

I might be able to help there David.

Transformers introduce measurable distortions into the signal path, both phase distortion, THD and as Mike says they can ring as was shown by Murray.
So far as I am aware, the presence of a pot with clean tracks or (better IMO) a stepped attenuator introduces no measurable distortion into the signal path. Certainly experiments carried out by Doug Self (Self on Audio) could produce no such distortion.

So which is best?
Well that depends on the application as with so many things in audio. With a low source impedance capable of good drive and a high load impedance a passive pot can easily be the best solution. If buffering is required, perhaps because the pre amp has high output impedance or you are driving a tough load, then active is often the way to go.
I've heard TVCs quite a few times and always enjoyed them but I cant help feeling they are a rather expensive and complex solution to a problem that can readily be addressed by one of the other options.

 

No. Can't tell any difference between them sorry. I use an active preamp now anyway.

Products can subjectively sound transparent to many people (myself included) the word transparent is often thought to mean clean sounding. Would you agree?

Thanks for the above explanation Rob

 

Rob, thanks for the explanation.

Actually, I was referring to the stepped attenuator thats used as an upgrade in the Berning ZH270 and comparing that to the alps pot also used (in my last post, at least)

 

Are you sure about that Effem?

What if we drastically change the resistance of the cable - for example by making it out of a piece of string instead of copper? - missing out a zobel network or other filtering as described. Could that difference be heard at human audible frequencies?

I made it quite clear I was speaking as a layman, so am always happy to be corrected by someone with greater understanding of a topic. I was merely trying to put a single one-hit opposition post to the cables will do this or that, but it looks like a can infested worms has opened unfortunately

Bauridard (sorry for spelling
* don't forget moderators have views on the hobby, and use the forum for discussion just like anyone.. always feel free to argue hifi points with any of us and disagree as strongly as you like. In hifi discussion we are individual voices in the crowd like anyone else.

 

Cooky, I want to assure you that there is no favouritism of anyone by moderators.

For example with the case of Stereo Mic (whom I know well) I completely withdraw from all moderation decisions to do with Stereo Mic, to continue moderator impartiality. Other moderators moderate SM, and he gets no special treatment.

 

Does that Doug Self book (or somewhere else) have some measurements of the THD introduced?

 

Altering the resistance alone of a cable's basic parameters produces a slight drop on volume evenly across the frequency spectrum, nothing more. The drop in volume is minute unless it's a badly built cable with poor terminations or poor metallurgy in which case it will be clearly audible.

Varying the capacitance of a cable within it's own geometry parameters does little more than introduce a slight attenuation or boost at the extreme treble end of the audible frequency. Of course inductance is inversely proportional to capacitance but again it is barely audible unless you encounter high levels of inductance - very hard to achieve with a cable's build parameters and notably can upset some sensitive amplifiers.

I have some supporting evidence tucked away somewhere in the archives but I'm going to be very busy for the next few days so don't expect an immediate answer form me on this

 

I think the best way to stop these pointless flare ups in idealogy battles is to introduce one simple rule, namely when the thread begins as this one does "Is cable A better than cable B" then that's how it should continue until it's conclusion without the interference of the naysayers UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO DO SO.

If the question is "Do cables make a difference?" then we should ALL be restricted to one post each. If you cannot make your succinct point in one posting then what can you possibly add to that which is relevant apart from pure bickering just for the sake of it?

 

Yes, for loudspeaker cable the loop resistance can translate into audible difference. But this is done by making the cable not fit for purpose e.g. unnecessary power losses caused by inadequate cross section. Some cable shiesters exploit this by selling cable that isn't fit for purpose but will sound different.

Altering the resistance of loudspeaker cable will cause power loss proportional to the impedance curve of the loudspeaker. That is, one that is uneven across the frequency spectrum.

Nonsense. At best opinion, certainly far from fact.


The OP: Go for the zen. ..begins with zee

 

I think doing something along these lines might be worth a try. Good idea.

 

Sorry but why should I be prevented from advising the poster not to waste his money? In my humble opinion and that of a good number of other Zerogainers, that would be the only way of giving the original poster some valid and genuinely helpful advice.

 

No, Self only comments on switch contacts and potentiometers in the signal path - and the lack of any measurable distortion.

Take a look at the Sowter site to see that transformers do introduce distortion as they give specs for some of their models.
For example, some of the MC cartridge transformers on their pages spec at 0.05% THD while other are 0.5% - quite a difference. Then you have frequency response errors (at the extremes admittedly).

Is any of this audible?
I don't know in all honesty

From Stevens & Billington - quoted just to show that transformer distortion exists, albeit usually at quite low levels:

 

I'm not a French theorist/philosopher, nor am I (to the best of my knowledge) dead :rds2:

That's true, point taken.

It seems to ignite like no other subject, doesn't it?

I still think ZG coming out in favour of one side of the cable argument would be a positive development- through a sticky, perhaps.

Either that or move in the other direction and try and enforce greater democracy through a re-think of how things work, such as doing stuff like this: