zerogain name change -hi fi rage

In extreme cases the cable might subtely affect the sound. If you get a radio shack meter and take some measurements from warble tones or sine waves, any variations around or above 5db in the bottom 4 octaves will be the room and nothing what so ever to do with the cable. With active EQ (although I don't generally recommend it if it can be avoided based on current technology), you can experiment and have access to every single "cable sound" on the planet.

 

Mike I agree, I can't provide you with any proof, silver is nothing more than an excuse to charge obscenely high prices for the otherwise most ordinary of products.

 

I did it by ear, the Chord Anthem to my ears produced the bass frequencies better than the Ecosse Baton, so it seemed to solve that particular problem in that particular system? Funny enough though, some time after using Baton and changing to Anthem, I came across a What HiFi review claiming the Baton was a little soft?

 

Keith, I would only say that if someone could build an electrically identical product using copper and make it sound the same. I suspect they could. But no one has yet.

I personally think products should be judged on how they sound believe it or not. It's just that people seem to think that means how they sound and how they look/review.

The first time I heard an M77 I had absolutely no idea it was in circuit - or indeed what it was or how much it cost. As close to blind as I could get really. It remains a sonic reference and impressed the hell out of me without me even knowing it was there. So I am happy to pay for that sonic performance regardless of the technology or materials used.

 

How many types of cables havve you tried?

 

Nothing to disagree with there. I often find myself having a preference for a particular FR and so use a target curve designer to tweak the final listening experience. This is the personal preference part but I'll build the crossover almost exclusively using measurements and based on established theory for what is correct.

I completely agree. I've never heard differences between cables and therefore default to the cheap but usable types. The ratio of performance increase to investment price of cables is rather exorbitant. The gains from other tweaking areas such as room treatments, placement etc. offer magnitudes of increased performance both measurable and audible.

 

Quite a few, including making my own. I have around three or four systems usually (six at the moment, supposed to be only two), so end up with a lot of stuff comming and going, plenty of stuff has just stayed in the downgrade cuboard over the years. Some of which can be seen on The-Crooked-Path forum. I honestly end up with most of it due to requiring a certain cable and something cropping up second hand or needing to be made.

To be honest though, I usually do not get that fussed, I now try what I have in storage or whatever with whatever set up I am playing with, and sometimes swap stuff around.

I have been playing with CV PA speakers at the moment, these have moved from the room with the Technics kit (SU-MA10 with a Pioneer 737 DVD at the moment, with basic cable such as Chord Pro Digital and Naim Nac), to the room with the Dual kit.
The interconnect at the moment is Precious Metals copper tech Alpha. The Dual system (CD player and amp) was using Atlas Hyper 2.0 speaker cable into MS20i, but this had fixed plugs so not suitable for PA use.
I wasn't too sure of the long lengths of 1.5mm Van Damme, so changed this to Cable Talk 3.1 with Neutriks and bananas.

Other systems have fixed looms, Anthem for one, Chorus for another, Chameleon Silver + on another. These Chord Looms usualy have Signature, Odyssey and Rumour Spkr cable.
But I also play around with other various types of cable from Atlas, Precious Metals, DNM, Ixos, Van Den Hul, JVC, Van Damme, Klotz, Home made Maplins stuff, Naim, Ecosse, XLO, Transparent, QED, Cambridge Audio, Cable Talk, Russ Andrews, Black Rhodium/Sonic Link? Chord and maybe one or two others? And of course have demo'd stuff out of boredome which has been enthusiasticalydociously recommended by people.

My main system uses the Chord Anthem XLR stuff, with Chord Chorus for the RCA basics, an XLO reference tonearm cable, and Signature spkr cable with RA mains blocks and cables. All on Mana supports. All other equipment in the other systems use simple Target, Sound Org and Apollo racks for tidy storage.

With regards to the Ecosse Baton, I compaired this with Chord Anthem, Van Damme, and Chord Chameleon Silver +, all well used. Between a Krell pre and power amp driving Kef R-107. I preferred the sound of the Anthem, thinking it was more coherent top to bottom. I will not comment on wether these cables are worth the outlay, but I think Chord cables are pretty usable.

I also have a few reels of Cat5 to play with, and require something which can be used in a room with four speakers, capable of being used in a run of around 100ft, any recomendations?

 

Any chance of closing this thread? deja-vu doesn't even come close.
I thought last nights anouncement meant something.
Last night as requested , I went back over 'my' posts and edited or deleted anything that could give offense. it seems the arrogance of some protagonists has prevented them from doing same. So what's the point?

 

It did, and any objectionable posts made since it have been removed. TBH I got too much of a life to go through this thread and remove all the other stuff.
If you feel posts are objectionable, report it. Someone will review it then.

 

In my opinion closing threads is what leads to forum bullying, people say what they want with no recourse and threads are closed giving the antagonist the last say.

I say do not close the thread, if there is a problem then that problem is with the users of the forum and not the thread itself. Closing this thread is less logical than either banning the problem or dropping the forum.

In my opinion first and foremost we all enjoy music, as a side line I myself like others here like the equipment.
It ain't no mysterious dellusion that certain equipment is better than others, and no doubt many will believe that some equipment will show ancillaries and cables have different strengths.

I myself fail to understand the agression and poor taste shown in here, and to be honest I believe there is more rubbish and hype posted in forums and internet chat rooms than all the magazines put together.

For me there are not two sides of the fence, maybe those who believe there are sides are dillusional?

 

Hey mate, I wasn't reacting to anything you said, just that after 18 pages all I'm getting is heat not light on the subject and the temperature is starting to rise again.
To the mods; I thought
"Members are asked to review their 'own' recent posts, and ensure that there is nothing contained within them that could cause offence to another party." was a call to calm down, remember we're all entitled to our views and lets purge the thread of past unpleasantness.
"I've got a life"-Seems some mods are a bit short tempered too.

 

Late last night you removed an offensive post that you wrote after the new guidelines and I reported. You don't seem to have modified anything prior to that - nor would I expect you to.

But we are actually having a civil discussion here now that the personal insults have stopped so you could always decide just not to read it. Just a thought.

 

No, just that I'd rather not spend my weekend reading everything on here to make sure that no-ones breaking the rules. I think going back through everyones posts is a waste of time. As I said I've got a life beyond these forums.

 

Sorry I didn't mean to imply to anyone in particular here. Just a general assumption.

These sort of debates can be a little more enlightening, but I feel there has been a trend in recent years of people who have something to say about cables keeping their mouth shut, no doubt due to the attitude some engineer types have thrust at them.

I have to say, I think that if cables dielectrics LCR impedance etc etc made no difference there would be a lot less snake oil charmers making cheap cables with fancy prices and extortionate prices, and if people were not so interested in keeping up with the latest and best at no cost, the cables which are decent would probably get an easier time as the prices would drop.

Sadly though, for a lot of people in the forums it's all about latest upgrade and look at what mine is worth. I still think a lot of stuff out there is rubbish, and I have no doubt pro audio is the same.

Then you also have the pro audio is better than domestic audio side of things etc etc.

I am pretty sure my second system in my old room was, in some ways, as good as my main system in its new room.
Adding EQ may cure this but it also may bring its own problems with resolution and such? And the underlying problem, of the room being poor will still be there. To be honest the room to me is the most important ancillary, but one a lot of us have no choice over. But if you cannot get a half decent sound with standard equipment, and have to resort to cables or EQ then the second most important ancillary becomes a band aid.

Cables, EQ and supports should be the fun tuning of a capable system, and all viewed equaly, people will no doubt find preference with one or the other depending on that persons background listening style, heaing acuity, system resolution and living enviroment. This does not mean one is better or correct.

Its about enjoyment and happy listening, if you listen to more music its correct, if you play with kit to get the last bit of everything you may have lost the point? As long as the rent is paid and kids fed, should we argue? Or just share experience and tell what kit we use and what worked in our systems?

 

Couldn't agree more ,very well put.
Frank

 

I know our views on EQ, correction or whatever else its referred to, diverge but its undeniably powerful. I'd like to show you and others what can be done with the current state of the art. Since I know you feel most of these methods always have shortcomings, sometimes large shortcomings, I'll skirt around the issue of what sounds better and leave that up to individual interpretation and preference. What I'm really showing is what can be done to further accuracy and the ideal of an accurate speaker. Although again I'd rather avoid whether that's better per-se.

For my current loudspeaker design I use a 3.5way configuration with WMTMW and pans out as follows:

W = 8" (30hz - 200hz)
M = 5" (200hz - 800hz)
T = Ribbon (2.5Khz - 20Khz+)
M = 5" (200hz - 2.5Khz)
W = 8" (30hz - 200hz)

The filter transfer functions are as follows and these, when summed together, create a flat response(the black line). The filters themselves are linear phase Linkwitz Riley 4th order:



This next one is showing time domain behaviour of the above. You can clearly see the individual filters are ringing, which is typical of any crossover and increasingly severe with steeper filtering, but when summed together the pulse response in black can be seen to show perfect behaviour due to the invidividual filters ringing cancelling each other out when summed as one.



Note: These are not driver responses but the visualisations of the mathematical filters and anything can be made to look perfect with maths! So don't pay much heed here. Just know that if the drivers were perfect then so would the speaker. The good news is we know the crossovers themselves are perfect in the time and amplitude domain, at least until a driver is stuck on the end of them and everything is ruined

So what happens when you put your driver in?

Well take a look at this horrible mess showing a typical midrange and its intended passband:



There's three elements here:

Red is the filter tranfer function like the ones we demonstrated above, the ideal and what were aiming for in order for the crossover to work accurately and as close to correct as possible.

Brown is the actual driver response with the filter in place and is gain shifted for a better view and not to clash with other the other elements in the graph. Ideally this should perfectly follow the red line but the truth is it couldn't be further from it!

Black(bold) is the minimum phase correction filter needed to bring the brown(driver response) in line with the red(filter transfer function)

Why the need to correct?

Well if you saw that the crossover filters alone are perfect so we must try to make the drivers follow suit and match them to the filter. Its a balancing act here because over-correction ie. correcting every single defect however small or large will lead to a very strange sound that really only works in one very very small sweetspot. An excellent solution is to smooth the correction filter so as to provide a gentler effect that works on the more severe errors but largely ignores the smaller ones that if corrected wholesale could do more harm than good.

Below is a comparison of without correction in green and with correction in blue. Note that the measurements are unsmoothed so what you see is the unblemished truth at the measurement position. You can clearly see the big improvement in overall shape and you can also see that excess correction hasn't taken place because we aren't seeing over correction of the response which brings its own problems. In the end what we have is a driver response that closely follows the filter and should you apply 1/3 octave smoothing to remove the aliasing present in the measurement you'd see that it almost perfectly follows the filter. Do this for every driver, combine the responses and it brings us one step closer to accurate.



Further affirmation in the form of a before(red) and after(blue) step response confirming driver time correction was very effective:

 

Impressive looking software.

You are right on that - I still use the old fashioned methods and the DEQX was soon replaced by a Pass Labs XVR-1 in my setup. I think the issue I have at the moment is that the designers work from the premise that DSP can be the universal panacea that cures all system ills, whereas IME, the less it can be used the better, or the less amount of data is being created and thrown away. What really got my goat was not being able to program in assymetrical filters - the assumption being that I would want to use DSP to correct for driver response linearity.

But hey, the above just shows how powerful the technology is already and just why measurements play an important part in both qualifying our progress and attaining our goals. The potential to faithfully reproduce the recording in a small room enviroment with a phase perfect full range response is a major step forward in high fidelity and the reproduction of the recorded arts - all made possible through a combination of measurements and using one's ears for subjective calibration. For me, I think I will wait for some 128bit 768khz processing and try again then.

What is your target response for the new speaker and how did you arrive at that?

 

This place is far more interesting because of mike ,not always comfortable but definitely interesting.

 

Antonio, it would be far less lively without him!

 

Yes the DEQX is a quite stunted compared to what is available now but that's not to say that even the best digital methods, such as the one above, aren't without significant problems but thankfully these can largely be worked around or at least you learn to live with them and when it comes down to it the same is true of any and all crossover technologies. Nothing is without flaws so we have to assess just what we want to achieve, figure in our own personal preference and then make our figurative beds and lay in them.

I find I prefer a lift in the lows that very very gently slopes off with increasing frequency. Its quite forgiving on higher frequencies with poor quality tracks and the subtle bass increase over a flat response adds to the sense of scale and suits the electronic music I predominately listen to.

For kicks I created a target similar in profile to the Robinson/dadson equal loudness curve. Hmm didn't sound too hot, all bass and treble with very recessed mids. I understand that its really more suited to headphones rather than loudspeakers.