what positive effects have cables had on your personal system..

Pretty much every decent studio install Andy.

Hell these differences must be life enhancing if you can only hear them on your system! Does that mean they only work on your system? When you know they are there?

Sounds like you've got laminate flooring? In the average living room like yours, the critical distance for a loudspeaker is about 34 inches! That means you listen to most music well into the reverberant field. How much do you think you are listening to the room, and how much to the recording? Do you really think the subtle imaging clues survive being buried under the weight of a multitude of late reflections? And you think cables are going to help here?

Which particular laws of physics are working here? I can do the same with EQ BTW - simply install a very gentle low pass filter - oldest trick in the book.

You keep saying you use your ears but I have to point out that you don't. Sorry to be pedantic but if you listen without knowledge of what you are listening to, then you get to rely on your ears. Get someone to help you here.

If you look at the posts of Merlin, you will see that I am not too proud to admit when I am wrong, and to publicly change my mind. There's very little chance I'd have to this time though - it would be a world first after all. The truth is of course he won't provide samples because the same thing will happen as did to Russ Andrews' sales manager. It is very difficult to comprehend just how powerful a force suggestion can be.

Hell no - I've got a shit system! Must be the cheap cables.

 

hey guys! read the initial title of this thread and see how far of the mark you are heading - yet again!!!! The purpose of this thread (if im completely brutally honest) was to drag as many persons as possible away from that stupid cable debate...its a real fucking shame that the same thing has happened here....bickering and the absolute desire to prove to the world that " I am right and he is wrong"...just look back, the thread started really well, but has degenerated into a pile of shite! If people have a personal gripe with eachother, why dont you do it through the pm system? Is there an ingredient that turns up in all these shitty threads...? If so, what is it? why do they ALL seem to be turning sour? any ideas?

 

I'm afraid cables are a contentious subject Banpe - especially when wild claims are made for them that do not stand up to scrutiny. I'm all for calling a test in the near future to help to clarify things, but I think it's a little unreasonable in the current climate to expect those who think cables are one big con trick to not question the veracity of other posts. You could always PM each other about cables and cones. That way no one argues and no newbies get led astray. It just seems as unreasonable to ask you to do that as it is for anyone to ask others not to question.

I personally think a big get together with blind testing would serve both the debate and the forum's sense of unity - something it had many moons ago when it was far busier and more varied.

 

How about a different twist? Which made a bigger difference when trying different cables the Speaker cable or IC?
For me the biggest and easiest to discern difference came from changing speaker cables. That said the most affective change for the good were Omega Mikro active speaker cables. Bought demos at at a reasonable price of $300 US. for 8Ft pair.



rollo

 

yes....

I might have.

 

What do you guys think about set up procedures such as that of AudioPhysic and Cardas?

I have had some success in problem rooms with this, though of course not measured, and without AudioPhysic speakers
IE with me at the rear wall, with speakers 3m away and 3m apart. Though this was before domestic bliss and floor space had to be considered, and did lead to funny looks from visitors.

To be pretty honest, in my previous listening rooms, which were all pretty large and well constructed, room reflections seemed to be pretty harmless with a pair of speakers well set up into the room.
I have always thought many of the systems one see's in these forums are quite poorly set up (not that the size and construction of a modern UK house helps), with speakers too close together, or located near reflective or resonant surfaces, in rooms too small for them, not to mention laminate floor and bare plasterboard walls with low ceilings.

I have read that it is the direct sound which is important, as the brain can dismiss the errors caused by reflections within the room? In the past I always tried to minimise room reflections with carefull speaker placement. And in some cases found overdamped to be a little undesirable.

In a perfect world without constraint, I would prefer to set up the system to minimise room reflection than to boost or decrease to overcome some undesirable affect. How would using such EQ affect near field or direct sound? Do you get resonant and reflective nodes outside the listening field which end up exhasperated?

I am sure one can achieve pretty decent results with a good room and ancillaries and carefull placement. Any sort of EQ or active crossover will still be hindered by poor room, poor ancillaries, and poor placement, and you will have more ancillaries in the chain. No active EQ adds or subtracts from the room? it adds or subtracts from the original signal to lessen the effects of those parts of the signal which are being amplified, sucked out? or reflected within the chosen room.

A simple system can be quite transparent. Adding more electronics will affect this resolution somewhat, speaker placement should be optimised within the chosen room before any sort of EQ or such is added. In a perfect world that room should have its decoration and furnishing done around the install so to speak.

Any opinion on cables and such should be attented to after a system is put together and one is happy with its outcome. (Though it is advisable to have some simple well made cables to start with)
I feel EQ is the same, and should be sought out after instalation when room problems are not ironed out with standard practise.

What do people here regard as better when there are room problems which are too invasive, analogue correction via active crossover, or digital solutions such as Tact?

 

I have to say, I would tend toward speaker cable, and think this is is not always consistent with different ancillaries.

On a side note, a friend of mine bought a simple system from me, and was unsure of what length of speaker cable he required.
(Dual 5150 CD player, Dual 5600 amp, MS MS20i pearl spkrs, sand filled Atacama SE-24 stands, and home made interconnects)

I had two options he could have for free, a 3m pair of Cable talk 3.1, and a 7m pair of Van Damme Studio grade 1.5mm.

He took both home, could not hear a difference between them, and chose the Van Damme.

 

I think the Cardas method actually works well, not least because it ensures the speakers are positioned differently with relation to the rear and side walls - always a good place to start. The Audio Physics method I'm less sure about.

Both of these methods are easily surpassed by a few hours mapping your living room in Cara. It's amazing when people spend thousands on new speakers, that they don't even consider dropping another fifty on some setup software.

Five years ago I moved into a place where the listening room really was appalling - where a previously excellent system was made to sound poor by any standards. This brought home the importance of the room and when faced with severe room issues, DRC can be the best solution. If you've got the time, it's an educational experience owning and mastering a correction system like the Tact. At today's used prices I'd say it's worthwhile if only for the knowledge you will gain.

But I'd agree with you. If you can passively treat the room to get where you want to be, that would be the first choice for me. Sadly I've never been in a living room that comes remotely close to being able to properly portray the recorded acoustic.