zerogain name change -hi fi rage

It is used as a metal treatment in the racing automotive industry and is also used to relieve stresses in welds-what that has to do with audio....
is ...
....an...
interestingly....
............contentious.....
....................subject....
Door clicks shut.
Phone rings...

new thread anyone?

 

Actually Paul it does if the amp and speaker are also matched - but I take your point and generally agree with it. The fitting of Zoebels is haphazard at best given the lack of standardisation of impedences in domestic audio, but it can't do any harm. The real reason for the RC networks on Townsend IIRC was to prevent the high capacitance/low inductance sending older Naim amps into thermal heart attacks.

 

I have something called a life zanash. It tends to get in the way some days, one day you might have a life too, that is if you can stop playing with your magic rods for long enough. Go on, tell us the one about B&Q again. Please, it was fuckin' hilarious! Really it was.

Anyway, I have answered your question before, I use Klotz black unbalanced for interconnects, same as I use for my guitar leads. Sounds the same as freebies and the boutique cables I've tried.

 

Hi mosfet......what a coincidence.

I use Klotz guitar cable for my home made interconnects. Simple but well made rugged coax designed for pro use. £1.50pm.
Plugs are Neutrik Profi RCAs - chosen again because they are rugged and the sprung ground prevents noisy accidents....

I hope it's ok to post the link here...... but if you can solder, want some rugged cables and aren't sucked in by all this cable bullshit, have at look at the link I posted on PFM. These are identical in every way to Rega inerconnects:

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31509

Speaker cable is some flat stuff made by Merlin ( ) that I picked up cheap on ebay - £20 for a big reel. Chosen 'cos its flatter than a credit card and therefore goes under the carpet and the bits that show are a nice rosy pink colour

 

I guess Chord Signature is rubbish then?

 

No, just not worth the money.

 

I swapped some kit I wasn't using, a CD player, and a Pre and a power amp, for my 4.5m pair of Signature.

I did pay full RRP for my Van Den Hul D-352 though.........

 

? I have the speakers and TV on the right hand side of the longest wall with the equipment sitting over on the left of the speakers in the small part of the L shape.
This seems to work better than having them firing down the long length, but with some excess bass in the left corner next to the sofa on the opposite wall, there are a few dips and peaks but nothing excessive, and I manage to get reasonable bass extension, but have to tweak the Q a little.
Though some settings and positioning depends on amplifier choice

 

If you can draw it that might help.

 

Zoebel?

 

I remember the bad old days of the seventies when a hi-fi review consisted of sticking a microphone one metre on axis with the tweeter and the resultant wiggly line on a B&K spectrum analyser and a series of meaningless numbers determined whether a hi-fi component was worth buying or not. The prettier the wiggly graph was, the more desirable the component was. The fact that it sounded pants was neither here nor there as long as that wiggly graph made the reviewer happy. The average punter though felt like opening a vein by the time they had scanned down all these meaningless numbers and provided the component hit the annual top of the pops charts then it probably was a safe bet. Pioneer PL12D anyone?

Then it was determined at long last that the man in the street actually couldn't give a tuppenny toss about wiggly graphs and sets of numbers so it was promulgated that components should be rated accordingly by blind listening panels ranking each component against it's peers. Take the time to read some of this old tosh in the HFC archives and note just how many inconsistencies were to be found in there. Their comments varied massively, were entirely subjective and quite frankly still didn't communicate to the buying public what each component actually SOUNDS like, which after all is what we buy the damn things for surely?

Then we went to reviewers opting for sighted listening tests either in a group format with similarly priced components for the infamous shootout, or being bolted into the reviewer's resident reference system. At least now we were starting to get some meaningful subjective assessments that the man in the street CAN identify with in language he understands. Not a perfect system by any means but it's the best stab we have yet at getting there.

In the last 5 years or so we have had this insiduous influx of dimwits who have appointed themselves as the guardians of all things hi-fi "protecting the naive innocents" who don't even exist. We are perfectly capable of analysing the worth of bits of wood, jars of pebbles, cables, CD treatments and distance telephone healing, so why you all feel the NEED to get up on your soapbox to squawk about it simply baffles me when I can happily ignore all of that without any assistance. It's as if that's the only sphere of your entire knowledge actually revolves around - debunking the obvious.

What on earth do you think is the purpose of dragging us back into the 70's and beyond with wiggly graphs and meaningless numbers AGAIN to a discredited method of hi-fi assessment that nobody understands, nobody welcomes, nobody needs and nobody wants? Are you THAT insecure that you need to test and accredit even an RCA plug before you use it and are you THAT stupid to believe thats what the rest of us want? You do as you see fit for yourselves chaps, but have at least the intelligence to work out that others might not want your brand of idealogy and fundamentalism forced upon them as they can think and decide for themselves.

 

This is wrong. There is plenty of evidence from Floyd Toole and others that showed that under controlled conditions, the man in the street actuallt could give a tuppenny toss about wiggly graphs and sets of numbers - indeed there was a direct correlation between them and people's preferred sound sources.

And surprise surprise, under these conditions, raved about audiophile products with eccentric measurements came very low down and were easily bettered by products sensibly engineered way below their price point.

So I don't seek to force my ideology on anyone - merely to educate as to what the true facts are and what is myth and marketing.

I have reported your post to the moderators as I am fed up of personal attacks when all I am doing is giving you a science lesson.

 

My post wasn't directed at you at all, I did not quote you anywhere, were you mentioned by name?

If you claim to be intelligent, then kindly act accordingly and digest the evidence correctly.

Report THAT to the moderators.

I used to believe that forums were nice friendly places where you could meet like-minded folks interested in the same hobby we participate in on a daily basis and have a good yarn and maybe some interchanges of ideas and experiences, not a playground for the few argumentatives that dominate the proceedings constantly.

 

Of course not. Who were you insulting if I might ask? Any idea why you used the word "you" ? In response to who else on this thread?

 

VanDamme quad is even better

 

Why?

 

If the word "you" has jangled your paranoia then that's nothing to do with me.

Listen, all this thread is doing is displaying ample evidence that this forum and many other forums just like it are being dominated by endless petty squabbles that go nowhere and achieve nothing, apart from nursing bruised egos.

I personally have no issues at all with your style of evaluating the components that you purchase with your own money, for your own consumption, but just remember that insisting I do the same because it is "correct" is invading my right to purchase what I want, with my own money, for my own consumption, in the manner I see fit to evaluate.

Now if that simple concept is too difficult to accept then you shouldn't be participating on a forum because other people's opinions are not being respected

 

mic

no one likes a show off.

 

ROTFL

Iain

 

Effem. I really am trying hard to get this across. I am talking about what are regarded as scientific facts. That has nothing to do with opinion. If you can point out where I have dictated how you choose your hifi please do so. I haven't. I have made the point that if you ill advisedly claim that you heard differences between two electrical similar cables then science tells us that this is imaginary and until anyone can prove otherwise that will be a fact. Not an opinion. If you say " I like Chord Cobra" I say fine great marvellous. If you say " Chord Cobra is better because it sounds smoother and more refined" I will ask "compared to what" and ask you to qualify your statement as it only applies to your exisitng system. Why is that so difficult to digest without so many of you hurling personal insults in my direction?

John, good to see you over here again but could you clarify. In what way do you think I am showing off? In sharing my knowledge and experience? Or in some other way? People moan that I belittle others. My answer continues to be that if people seek to post/publish/discuss whatever seemingly authoritively from a position of ignorance, then showing that to be the case will belittle them. Ask questions. Gain understanding. Don't try to look big. I am curious as to how you think I (I assume) am showing off here?