Favourate tweeks of all time.

Alright, SM lets go .........

....sounded a bit like it to me at the time.....I'm very pleasantly releived to find it is not the case

agreed (thankyou)

(why...?)

first i've heared about MEASUREMENTS but ok...thats what you meant by verification?

measurements......

hmmm.

what measurements were you hoping for?

Unfortunalety I do not have hte funds for expensive acoustic testing equipment ( I wish...it would be fascinating).

All I have are ......my ears!

AS I say, I don't dispute that A/B tesing would be better.....but then nothing would get done.

Arshole......a very long way from it......your clearly extremely knowledgable.........+(i would think) not a little bright.

Arrogent?

.............possibly.....

The Temotations are most certainly not my cup of tea......

possibly, go on.....

OK, so thats the bottom line.

You are right!

I did statistics (in agricultural botany) breifly so i hear what your saying. YOu want me to have repeatable (replicable) results with a series of systems in order to gain replicable results (like you say), as in any scientific experiment.

Unfortunately I don't have access to such equipment. So Im kinda stuck on that one.

I know a 30 page thesis would be all the more convincing (and as I say fascinating to put toghther...)...but my fascilities are limited.

Its a BIT more than hearing a wack wacka line BTW. Though its clear its going to be hard to convince yourself of that!

(I use not just one cd but many......after a while I come back to one I ahven't played for a bit to see where I've got to in terms of (perseived) acoustic gains over a period of time)



"should I be hearing that so clearly in the mix?"

...going back to this point....

an interetsing one; you feel I maybe enphasising certain frequencies and loosing others? All I can say (in the absence of mesurements) is that I don't feel that I am.....there seems to be a braod spectrum of frequencies produced...

...It is a thought though and one shall look for in the days to come!

 

David why argue with this bombastic person thing, afterall someone who calls another a twat in my view is mentally unsuitable to have a intelligent conversation with. I doubt he would say that to our faces . Jim.

 

I guess because at the end of the day he has half a point.....

Ideally I WOULD have scientific poof to back up my enthusiam; hes not wrong.

It is perhpts an irony that the lack of funds on my part was what (partly ) got me inot tweaking but i certainly can't afford expensive acoustic testing equipment. (nor replicate stands, nor replicate audio systems)

Also, I am just moving sonic frequencies around? I don't beleive so.......but MC has perhpts raised an interestng point that its a possibilty (in some cases).

 

You'd be surprised at how affordable PC-based measurement equipment is. The mic is a bit tricky - since you really want something individually calibrated - but overall measurement has never been easier or cheaper than it is now on Mac or PC!

 

Try me.....

 

Ah Jim,

The first thing that sprung to mind was " when have I called this guy a prat". Then I read some of your posts and realised you were a disciple of Zanash and post such gems as "Silver makes better cables because it is a better conductor". I understand your attitude now.

But why the personal insults instead of trying to justify your posts? Once again you just prove my point.

David, I'm delighted to hear that you will consider things - it's a question I have to ask myself on a regular basis when making so called improvements. When dealing with resonances, it's usually the case that I shift the resonance rather than eradicate it - an example of that being switching from three feet to four or vice versa.

Some might argue that the Mana effect was simply a sympathetic resonance, which caused midrange frequencies to be thrust forward giving the impression of increased detail and tighter bass.

As a matter of interest, what would you say was the origin of the energy that you are looking to damp?

 

Stereo Mic is a beacon of rational sanity who balances some of the befuddled nonsense you get on this forum.

 

Behringer ECM-8000 mic (OK, it's uncalibrated but we want to do this on the cheap!) + Micropower 400 phantom power supply @ less than >70 quid
Purebits Lite PC software @ 49 euros http://www.purebits.com/order.html
or FuzzMeasure for Mac @ $125
There are also some free apps for windows / Linux etc out there.
You'll need some mic cable and a mic stand, too. Ebay is a good place for sh bits like this.

 

Mic, you really are completely obtuse aren't you, do you just come here looking for it, because you seem to add very little.

whats wrong with saying "silver makes better cables because it's a better conductor" i can think of no more plausable suggestionn as to why it should.

the cable makers art comes in to it of course, but all other physical things in the design being equal i'd take the more conductive raw cable material.

if you'd like to try and explain scientifically why a less conductive material should be superior then i'm sure everyone on this site would be all ears. after all isn't the point of good interconnect to transmit the signal with as little intervention upon that signal as possible.

 

Out of interest, what software and hardware options are there to buy, to use the PC to measure frequency responce at the listening seat?

And by using something like an active crossover, or a 32 band EQ, or something like Behringers DEQ2496, is high quality possible with such programs?

 

I got the following threat from a moderator, so I will abstain from commenting this perfect example of what I am beeing accused of, bringing continual acrimony to the forum... :yikes:

 

However you wrap it the comment is a very rude and I would say unacceptable behavoir. You clearly havent learnt to fit your muzzle properly.

appalled by this thread
Andy

 

Silver is the best conductor of electricity, I agree. Look at the following list of metals' bulk resistance measured in micro-ohms/centimeter:

Silver 1.59 Best
Copper 1.72
Gold 2.44
Aluminum 2.84
Zinc 5.8
Platinum 10.0
Steel 10.4
Tin 11.5 Worst


Can I draw your attention to the extremely slim difference between silver and copper. Silver is only a scant 8% more conductive in bulk terms than copper! In terms of differences in signal loss, then, this renders silver's conductivity superiority almost irrelevant, especially when considering the way silver is actually used by the scamsters behind some popular cables.

Now, given the tone of your question, would you like to explain to me just why Silver speaker cables or interconnects should make jaw dropping improvements to your hifi system? The onus is not on me to disprove bunkem theories that ignorants post on internet forae.

 

Pot calling kettle black?

 

But you didn't did you

There is a very large difference between explaining why people shouldn't have free reign to post rubbish and calling esteemed audio writers "uneducated brats". I would hope that most forumites are able to differentiate between the two.

 

From reading the latest posts, I am sure they do...

 

Mike, Just so its clear please reitterate your view on cables- Are you all saying that all interconnects sound pretty much the same in normal siuations.(similar to your thinking on equipment stands) or are you saying something else?

There used to be official IQ's for many of the names used on this forum.

0-25 Idiot
26-50 Imbecile
51-70 Moron

Andy

 

Andy,

No. My position has never been that they all sound the same - nor has that been the case with supports. With cables, the differences we hear are IMHO down to variences in the cables LCR characteristics and quite probably it's interaction with the varying impedences of the electronics. There is no magic. No voodoo. And what works with one set of electronics will quite possibly not work with another. It's also my assertion that any differences are hyped up to ridculous levels either by the snake oil salesmen themselves, or by idiots who redefine the word gullible yet refuse to test their convictions under unbiased conditions.


With supports as I have said, my experience is similar, although some electronics are impervious to what they sit on. All surfaces have an acoustic thumbprint - a colouration if you like. How that colouration interacts with your electronics and system is entirely unpredictable again.

Real concerns regarding vibration lie elsewhere IME, and the subjective and objective improvements made by addressing real core audio issues are of an order of magnitude greater and far more predicable.

It's kind of like walking into the Ralf Lauren factory outlet at Bicester and seeing polo shirts in a multitude of colours. Pick one that suits you. They are all different. But none are "better" than the others - it's just that some will feel blue suits them better than pink.

 

This thread, along with many others dotted around on internet sites at the moment contains comments and statements about hi-fi from clueless individuals who ought to try researching some facts before posting, or in many cases reading some texts on basic electronics and science of the type taught at GCSE.

People making such pronouncements should be challenged to avoid misinformation being passed on to others and in more extreme cases damaging the reputations of manufacturers or those in the industry. In this, I suspect SM and I are in complete agreement. Where I suspect we differ is on he detail of delivery but that discussion has been had.

Arguments shouldn't descend into slanging matches and personal insults but if you believe that someone is talking from their arse there is nothing wrong with a forthright and strong challenge. That can sometimes appear curt or rude when we are communicating via a keyboard - so what?
Take it on the chin and move on.

 

I'm trying to make sense of this.. are you saying that an opinion on cables is directly related to IQ?

hope not, that sounds potty..