Cables

It's only a line drawn on a green table by comittee consensus.

We all feel sounds below 20 hz so I guess you are oblivious to that. your statement that no perception of steady state tones is possible up to around 50 khz is WRONG.

This quote is from a friend of mine Tim de Paravicini :

''First of all, the frequency response should extend from 3 Hz to 50 kHz, because we experience those frequency limits. We are able to detect audio up to 50 kHz. We don't hear it, but we experience it in other ways. I can give you tinnitus very quickly if I run an ultrasonic cleaner at 45 kHz. You are aware that it's on, and your ears ring when it's shut off. On the low end, we detect mechanical vibrations down to 3 Hz. When a marching band walks past you, you feel the drums in your stomach and bones. And that's all part of the sound. ''

This is clear evidence that your statement was wrong. Any further argument will be futile so stop it.

Again you refer to ''no observeable '' differences when speaking of the inductance. How convenient indeed.

Yet you state elsewhere that what one observes does not necessarily correlate with what one hears, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

The b&w's do exhibit distortion. All speakers do.
They also do not measure ruler flat in frequency response.
But that doesn't stop all the worlds top studios from using it as part of their everyday work does it ?
(This is a rhetorical question ).


A curved shape or any other aspect of design is neither inherently better or worse. It's a question of compromise and you ought to know that.

I will leave you with this quote by tim :

'' The hi-fi fraternity is bizarre, full of dangerous amateurs. I try to steer clear and do genuinely innovative work - something that's worthwhile...''

 

It seems to me you are deliberatly talking at cross perposes...

for instance if you pick up a medical text on audiology the consensus is that the average hearing over the population is 20hz to 20khz.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml



You have misconstruded this and are talking about individual examples you can not compare the two directly.

You appear to know lots of eminent people and like to litter your posts with their names, I hope you have there permission! It might suprise you to know that other people know them as well. Now the question is, have you met these people once or are you associates or justs friends? In my experience people only name drop when they feel the need to impress other and strengthen a rather weak position.
Why are you talking about speakers in a cable thread ?
But to answer the off topic remark.....
Just because many studio use B&W speakers does not make them the best. I've heard most of there range and though good in some respects, I would not consider them to be great. There are many other factors involved in the manufacture of equipment that need to be taken into account besides good design. You can have the greatest design in the world, but if its built and for example the quality control is poor,defact you have a poor product .

By the way did Tim make that quote to you personally...you know the one about dangerous amateurs ? seems a little out of charactor to me as he is an inveterate tweaker himself.

what do you mean by "further argument will be futile so stop it "

Who do you think you are, to proclaim this like some facist dictator ?

Just because you don't like what your hearing or doesn't fall into your cosy misconceptions does, not make it untrue.

 

Johnny, interesting content in your recent posting, but what is even more interesting is your use of English - it is so much more coherent that earlier postings, so much so that its difficult to credit both to the same person.

I'm a self-confessed amateur when it comes to hifi and do not profess expertise in electronics. You have asked questions about the technical aspects of hifi, often in a provocative way that seemed not to be in the spirit of mutual learning.

I also have read some of what TdP has too say, most of it interesting and thought provoking but way beyond my knowledge base. If I knew him personally, I hope I would not use quotes by him as supposed qualification for my own opinions.

Its the generoristy of spirit here on ZG that keeps trying to give you a break, but do come clean, What background/knowledgebase do you have, What equipment do you use/prefer, What are you really about?

 

Much of this debate goes well above my head but I am firmly in the camp that recognises the difference in cables and the improvements in sound that can be obtained--however as the debate has shifted to frequency and hearing ranges I reckon that I fall into the camp that considers that although we might not hear sounds much above the quoted 20khz the audio range is certainly affected.

Another camp that I have joined is that of James Henriot of Whest, audio aside from using his phono stage I also use the Dap 10 in conjunction with my Meridian G08,which deals with the 'Non hearing range'.

I am ancient even elderly in years and I am not interested in every little whim or fashion that comes along. Hi-fi to me is strictly the tools to produce quality sound and MUSIC.

 

Hi,

Okay, let us untangle this web of deceit.

1) Steady state tones. Take a headphone system capable of reproduction with low distortion to frequencies well above 20KHzs. Play steady state tones and test where you and other human subjects fail to be able to say with any reliablity if a tone is present or not. You will find this to be the case with most people well below 20KHz (an aside, the Piolot tone for FM Multiplex stereo is at 19KHz, most people cannot hear that at all, regardless of age, I was able to hear it when young, these days no longer).

2) Ultra low frequencies are felt, HOWEVER, nothing related to muscial instruments lives there. The lowest "legit" musical note is at 16Hz asnd found in a very small number of pipe organs. Nothing else (including 6-String E-Bass) does anything that low or below.

Tim is an extraordinasry individual, but I'd take any of his quipes with a good pinch of salt and instead look at his products. They will tech you much better what he considers important than his soundbites.

No, it is clear evidence that TdP saiod something different. He is hardly an Authority on Audiology (Amplifier design - granted, music recording too).

So your quote is evidence that there are differing opinions and interpretatiuons.

BTW, if you (spectrum) analyse the Quoted marchings bands acoustic output you will find very little attributable to them below around 50-60 Hz, indeed, the feelable pressure sensation is produced by exactly those frequencies, so this rather falsifies your interpretations of TdP's quote.

Because under observation no appreciable alteration of the audio signal is observable using instrumentation.

What is heard when (for example) clipping a ferrite sleeve on a speaker cable, interconnect or mainscable is not related to added inductance in the audio range (even TdP's extended range of 3Hz-50KHz or the one I am fond of quoting in my own writings - 4Hz - 100KHz). We can postulate and evaluate what reasons there may be for the sonic differences, but we can exclude certain types of sources.

Yes, but the B&W Speakers exhibit in measured terms much higher levels of distortion. In June/July 2002 Sound on Sound run a feature comparing several HiFi & Studio Speakers in the so-called "Monitor" format. It included a B&W Speaker, which came worst for compression (nearly 5db for 50W Input) and Distortion (around 18% for nominal power and around 3% for 96db).

It also does not provide proof that these studio's use them despite of these features but rather because of them, feeling they more accuratly reflect the quality of the average car stereo? (rethorical question)

I waqs aware of that. You brought it as if it was the holy grail.

Well, better that than a B&W Speaker...

L8er T

 

it doesnt matter whether its a sine wave or an ultrasonic cleaner, running at 45 khz. He states that it will cause tinnitus so this is one of the ways in which one may experience such high frequency sounds.

The article by sos did not feature the b&w nautilus I have been referring to, so it has no relevance whatsoever. So no you may not use that to justify your claim about b&ws exhibiting higher levels of distortion. The dm 303s are not professional monitors whereas the nautilus are specifically designed for studio use.
I have reviewed the dm 303's and they are a fine pair of loudspeakers.
I have also heard the nautilus, and the sound does not in any way, shape or form resemble that of a typical car stereo. That is a foolish remark to make, which merely exemplifies your lack of knowledge about audio mastering.

 

"The article by sos did not feature the b&w nautilus I have been referring to, so it has no relevance whatsoever. So no you may not use that to justify your claim about b&ws exhibiting higher levels of distortion."

In your opinion, strangley others think differently

"nautilus are specifically designed for studio use"

I've just ploughed through the B&W web site and I can't find any mention that these speakers must only be used in studio's ?

Would you care to justify your statment with a link that we can follow.

"I have reviewed the dm 303's and they are a fine pair of loudspeakers."

Do you mean you have had a shop or home demo, or do you mean you have writen an article that has been published either on line or in a periodical ? If the latter would you provide a refference
so we can see where your coming from, please.
"lack of knowledge about audio mastering"

Explain your use of this phrase, for me it makes no sense. Mind you 95% of the stuff you have come out with appears to make no sense.

I also see you have not answered my previous question so to remind you here they are again.

Why are you talking about speakers in a cable thread ?

By the way did Tim make that quote to you personally...you know the one about dangerous amateurs ? seems a little out of charactor to me as he is an inveterate tweaker himself.

what do you mean by "further argument will be futile so stop it "

And some from further back.....

where are your ideas comming from ?

what equipment are you using?

what cables are you currently using?

why wont you answer even the simplest question ?

 

Hi,

This I will take into two seperate posts and my second post will likely be the last I make in response to you. First some facts

Well, as you hitched your Sled to TdP's claims it may be interresting to see what other views are:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/safety-code_24-securite/health-sante_e.html

Here we read (quoted under fair use):

"Acton and Carson (Ac 67), investigated effects of exposure to ultrasound on 18 young females working near a bank of "ultrasonic" cleaners. They were exposed to both ultrasound and audible acoustic energy and complained of fatigue, headache, nausea and tinnitus. The same symptoms were found in subsequent laboratory experiments in which human subjects were exposed to high-frequency acoustic radiation with audible components. When these same subjects were exposed to similar high-frequency energies, but without audible components, no complaints occurred, leading Acton and Carson to conclude that audible components had to be present for a subjective effect to be observed. They supported this finding by noting that women complained about these effects more than men. Since the exposed males were older and all had history of noise exposure as well as high frequency hearing losses, they assumed that the exposure radiations were largely inaudible to many of the men.

A detailed analysis of Acton and Carson's data indicated that subjective effects were not found if the 1/3-octave band SPLs were less than 75 dB for centre frequencies up to and including 16 kHz and less than 110 dB for centre frequencies greater than or equal to 20 kHz (Ac 68). Acton indicated that this criterion for the occurrence of subjective effects was also consistent with Skillern's data (Sk 65) and suggested it as an exposure criterion. Acton modified the criterion in 1975 (Ac 75). In the revised criterion, the 75 dB limit was extended to include the 1/3-octave band centred on 20 kHz. This was done when more reports of subjective effects were documented by Acton. He found that subjective effects could still occur below 110 dB in the 20 kHz, 1/3-octave band (Ac 75). This was interpreted as being because the nominal frequency limits of the 1/3-octave band centred on 20 kHz are 17.6 kHz and 22.5 kHz. The lower end of this frequency band was within the upper end of the audible frequency range of a significant proportion of the population and therefore subjective effects could occur at relatively low levels."

The upshot is that the Tinnitus is produced not by the inaudible ultrasonic component but but by audible byproducts (usually subharmonics).

So, yes, TdP is right in stating that an ultrasonic cleaner MAY give you tinnitus (he is not right in stating that it will do so reliably), however, this is NOT because of the actual ultrasonic frequency but other effects.


Moving on.

You did not refer to the B&W Nautilus (that would be that Amonite Shell thing), but you referred to B&W Speakers. The only time you identified the Nautilus itself was when you where commenting on Mr Dickie (who left B&W soon after designing the actual Nautilus and moved first to Turbosound and is now with Vivid in South Africa).

If you refer specifically to the Nautilus, I have no distortion data on that speaker, nor is it common at all - it is mainly a "concept" speaker. I have data for the N800 Series which matches that of the lesser B&W speakers to a large degree, unsurprisingly as the same laws of physics apply to both and principle features causing distortion and compression to above average are found in most of the drivers all across the B&W range.

It is interesting to know you reviewed the DM303, would you mind telling me for which publication and in what issue?

In no place did you state anything about the Nautilus, except when refering to it's designer. You where writing about B&W Speakers being used in studios in a most generic way. I answered in the same way.

L8er T

 

This will be my final note on the whole subject....

First, the a general note, the TdP Quotes Johnny used are from here:

http://www.ear-usa.com/timdeparavicini.htm

In general Johnny has continously avoided to answer any questions posed to him.

He has constantly changed the subject, has often given the appearance of being closely connected with industry figures yet quotes them from most generic and public sources.

I cannot reject the feeling that there is much deceit and deception and I will not dignify such approaches by discussing any further.

If and when Johnny has choosen to be reasonable open, to actually debate properly, that is to answer questions posed to him sensibly and with relevant information I will reconsider my choice, untill then there is the ignore button.

L8er T

 

Hmm.. I can't say I think much of Vivid stuff either

 

Yes I found those quote too.....thats why I asked johnny if they were made to him in person.

But as with other members he seem to ignore my posts altogether!

 

2) Ultra low frequencies are felt, HOWEVER, nothing related to muscial instruments lives there. The lowest "legit" musical note is at 16Hz asnd found in a very small number of pipe organs. Nothing else (including 6-String E-Bass) does anything that low or below.

THIS IS ANOTHER ERRONEOUS STATEMENT.
MICROPHONES HAVE FREQUENCY RESPONSES MUCH LOWER THAN THAT, AND IT IS POSSIBLE TO RECORD THE EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCIES OF A MARCHING BAND FOR EXAMPLE.

IN ANY CASE, YOU SEEM TO BE OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT NOT ALL OF US LISTEN TO REAL INSTRUMENTS. MANY OF US ACTUALLY LISTEN TO MUSIC RECORDED AND MADE IN A STUDIO WHERE ANY FREQUENCY AS LOW AS 1 HZ COULD BE RECORDED IN PRINCIPLE. PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THIS.

 

Don't shout its rude

 

Johnny, go away, theres a good chap.

 

I don't think the pills are working today

 

I LIKE SHOUTING ITS MY HOBBY!!

Okay well that was meant to b in caps but I can't actually make it all be in caps the forum keeps putting it back >.< There we go

 

At a risk of inflaming the tone of this thread even further: Can you advise me of the microphone model to which you are referring please ? 20 years of playing and recording electric basses has led me to believe that not much will reliably track much below 20 Hz (e.g. D112, SM98). I was under the impression that even the Beyer M380 (which I don't own, alas) doesn't go that much below 20). Getting a clear fundamental out of 6 string bass usually requires DI - also the brain fills in a lot of missing info too based on the harmonic series.

 

I was not referring to a specific microphone. however, as an example, Tims microphone has a wide frequency response :
www.ear-yoshino.com/productdetails.asp?page=1&id=26

 

Do you know Tim?

 

Only the mikes amplifier Johnny, the specs don't say anything about the pick up response.