Does high quality digital cables matter?

DarqueKnight

ZLTFUL wrote: »

So things like RTA plots and Oscilloscope plots that show definitive changes when the same passage of music is played via the same gear with only the cables changing are the equivalent of dowsing rods?

Yeah. Every thing outside of some fundamentalist extremist believers religion is voodoo.

ZLTFUL wrote: »

(Reference any one of DK's plethora of cable threads along with any Stereophile article showing actual testing of cable comparisons to see why you are unequivocally wrong.)

Sorry. Stereophile doesn't count. They accept audio equipment company ads, so their test reports are "suspect".

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Funny that there are countless simple noise floor comparisons between cables out there that show a noise floor difference in real, actual and measurable levels and yet you hold on to the belief. Sad really.

But it wasn't tested and blessed by a blind testing high priest.:sad:

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Since the graphic didn't display:

It's showing up now. Maybe the host site went down for a while.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Also why spend that kind of $$ on cables when you could get a fully balanced power supply +60/0/-60?

1. Because I can.
2. Because of the sadistic trill I get knowing other people are loosing sleep over how much I spent on cables.

To seriously answer your question, cables are another component in the signal transport chain. It has been well established by my reports on this forum, and in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, that signal integrity is audibly affected by the noise characteristics of cables. Telecommunications companies would not and would not have spent billions of dollars on cable and connector research if wire quality didn't matter a lot.

It does not make sense to spend the money on low noise power supplies, low noise electronics, and then connect everything together with cables that do not match the noise performance of the connected components.

BlueFox wrote: »

I think a major reason why some people are reluctant to admit that power cables, interconnects, speaker cables, vibration isolation devices, and other audio related items actually work is because then they will have to admit they are wrong. While we all want to be right, for some people it is an obsession. They will go to the grave trying to justify and rationalize their stubbornness.

They are no different from any other religious fanatic.

BlueFox wrote: »

Since the hard-core close minded individuals will never change, and cling to their belief until they die, it is a waste of time trying to engage in a rationale discussion with them.

You are not entertained by people worrying about how you spend your discretionary income?

BlueFox wrote: »

The benefit of threads along this line is that the lurkers who are reading this might start thinking, and then try something for themselves.

Agreed.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I already participated in blind testing, many years ago. Your a little late.

I recall you mentioning this, but I don't recall seeing a detailed report of the event. What cables (and/or electronics) were tested, what stereo system equipment was used, what musical selections were used and what was the format and methodology of the test?

pitdogg2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Because of the sadistic trill I get knowing other people are loosing sleep over how much I spent on cables.

Signature material right there!

Can I borrow that:biggrin:

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

For this test to be valid it has to be performed with ZLTFUL's old and new cables. Adding unknown cables into the mix can result in different results. First do the test with his old cables and establish a baseline, then try new cables and note the deviation.

Any cable he brings has to be certified. I understand your point.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

To seriously answer your question, cables are another component in the signal transport chain. It has been well established by my reports on this forum, and in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, that signal integrity is audibly affected by the noise characteristics of cables. Telecommunications companies would not and would not have spent billions of dollars on cable and connector research if wire quality didn't matter a lot.

It does not make sense to spend the money on low noise power supplies, low noise electronics, and then connect everything together with cables that do not match the noise performance of the connected components.

Do you have any cable that shows a -3dBu drop in the signal. Balanced power certainly meets that criteria. I would encourage money spend on that prior to re-cabling.

Because it doesn't matter what you spent on cables you are running them on a bit of a lower tide so to speak. It's on my list of eventual equipment purchases.

DarqueKnight

ZLTFUL wrote: »

DK will still stand by blinds being overly complicated and not at all conducive with objective auditory evaluation.

I want to clarify that I have no problem with blind tests for certain kinds of audio, such as simple narrow bandwidth monophonic signals. As I stated in my A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing thread, blind tests were routinely used by Bell Labs researchers for telephone line and equipment tests. It must be noted that the end users for such equipment were untrained listeners (the general public).

When Bell Labs began developing home stereo systems, the consumer segment was sophisticated trained listeners who were (or who would become) proficient at sound localization and characterization of complex, multi-dimensional sound fields. Simple discrimination tests are not adequate or appropriate for evaluating multi-dimensional stimuli. There are too many distractive elements in a stereo sound field. If a listener, whether trained or not, is asked to simply tell if there is a difference, it is very likely that a distractive element noticed in one trial, but not noticed in a subsequent trial, might be erroneously labeled as a "difference". That is why it is important to learn to catalog, categorize, and quantify all the sonic elements in sound stage. I often do not become aware of differences until I compare notes and sound stage maps among listening trials. I don't listen for differences. I listen to hear and document everything in the sound stage.

I have nothing against blind tests when they are appropriately used. My position, which is based on standard principles of sensory science and Bell Labs technical specifications for stereo, is that blind tests are unnecessary and inappropriate for the kinds of stimuli generated by stereophonic sound fields and they are unnecessary and inappropriate for the trained and experienced listeners required to evaluate stereophonic system and equipment performance.

Regards,

Darque "Certified Golden Ears" Knight

ZLTFUL

My bad. I humbly beg your forgiveness. :twisted:

On a side note, I sensed a modicum of sarcasm in your previous post... :redface:

DarqueKnight

pitdogg2 wrote: »

Signature material right there!

Can I borrow that:biggrin:

I'll lease it to you. Paypal me some $$$$:razz:

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Do you have any cable that shows a -3dBu drop in the signal. Balanced power certainly meets that criteria.

I don't know. I've never tested for such. Please relate your question above to one or more stereophonic performance parameters.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I would encourage money spend on that prior to re-cabling.

Explain which aspects of stereophonic performance will be improved by following your advice.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Because it doesn't matter what you spent on cables you are running them on a bit of a lower tide so to speak.

I need you to be more specific. Something along the lines of "the cost of cables is irrelevant because it has been scientifically demonstrated that cable changes do not affect any aspects of stereophonic performance". With this clarification in mind, can you be specific?

teekay0007

pitdogg2 wrote: »

Signature material right there!

Can I borrow that:biggrin:

Unlikely, even if it was actually written by him. I don't remember a time I've ever seen two typos in one DK sentence before. ;-)

DarqueKnight

ZLTFUL wrote: »

On a side note, I sensed a modicum of sarcasm in your previous post... :redface:

I will neither confirm nor deny any intended sarcasm in post #351. I will leave that to personal interpretation.:biggrin:

I will say that I was dead serious about wanting to know the details of WilliamM2's blind test.

teekay0007 wrote: »

Unlikely, even if it was actually written by him. I don't remember a time I've ever seen two typos in one DK sentence before. ;-)

Well, maybe not in any of my serious posts/threads. I sometimes get careless in cable "debate" threads because they aren't meant to be taken seriously.:twisted:

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I need you to be more specific. Something along the lines of "the cost of cables is irrelevant because it has been scientifically demonstrated that cable changes do not affect any aspects of stereophonic performance". With this clarification in mind, can you be specific?

You did a test of power cables and you measured noise correct?

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

You did a test of power cables and you measured noise correct?

I sure did. I also explained the relationship between noise characteristics and stereophonic performance.

Back to the questions I asked, you made some equipment recommendations and comments and I asked you to justify their relevance to stereophonic performance improvement. Can you do that?

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I sure did. I also explained the relationship between noise characteristics and stereophonic performance.

Back to the questions I asked, you made some equipment recommendations and comments and I asked you to justify their relevance to stereophonic performance improvement. Can you do that?

Ok. I have heard the noise floor of a system drop with a balanced power supply. Yes I could tell blind and easily. The stereo field opened up in my perception of the change.

It was a really nice Furman ~$2500.

Did you do any measurements of the transfer function? Can you explain the difference of dBv vs dBu and how dBv constitutes unwanted noise if it shows in the transfer function?

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Ok. I have heard the noise floor of a system drop with a balanced power supply. Yes I could tell blind and easily. The stereo field opened up in my perception of the change.

The stereo field "opened up"? What does that mean? Was it "closed" before?

If you are going to discuss changes in spatial properties, I would expect something quantitative along the lines of "sound images at the left and right moved further out about 1 foot".

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Did you do any measurements of the transfer function?

No. My testing methodology and results are documented in my power cable analysis threads. A really smart person should be able to calculate transfer functions from my Fast Fourier Transform data.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Can you explain the difference of dBv vs dBu and how dBv constitutes unwanted noise if it shows in the transfer function?

Difference? dBv and dBu mean the same thing: decibels referenced to a voltage less than one volt. I don't recall the exact value for the reference voltage. They started using dBu so that dBv (small v) would not get confused with dBV (capital V).

dBV (capital V) is decibels referenced to 1 volt. dBV is the measurement I used in my power cable analysis studies.

You may want to rephrase your question since you had some confusion about dBv and dBu. I want to be sure that I answer what you intended to ask.

Your term "unwanted noise" does not make sense to me. Within the context of home audio electronics, any and all noise is "unwanted". With respect to the 60 Hz power signal, any other signal accompanying it are "noise" and are therefore "unwanted". That is why we use things like power filters and conditioners, isolation transformers, filtering power cords and AC regenerators to remove line noise.

With regard to things like transfer functions, I will caution you that gross measurements like transfer functions (and Ohms Law) do not fully characterize all the performance aspects of an electronic/electrical component. I will refer you to Bob Carver's amplifier transfer function exercises where he duplicated the transfer functions of expensive amplifiers, but his cheaper amps didn't in any way sound like the more expensive amps he copied. He was able to copy the sound of a more expensive amp using a zillion additional parts, but that configuration could not be economically reproduced in mass.

ZLTFUL

I've got a new name for this thread...

"An electrical engineer, a pharmacologist and a network engineer walk into a bar..."

DarqueKnight

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I've got a new name for this thread...

"An electrical engineer, a pharmacologist and a network engineer walk into a bar..."

But the engineer is the only one with Phillips Certified "Golden Ears". :razz:

BlueFox

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I've got a new name for this thread...

"An electrical engineer, a pharmacologist and a network engineer walk into a bar..."

Don't forget the technician with the network certification.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The stereo field "opened up"? What does that mean? Was it "closed" before?

If you are going to discuss changes in spatial properties, I would expect something quantitative along the lines of "sound images at the left and right moved further out about 1 foot".

As I recall it was a Symphony of Mahlers' that I was listening to and it brought the piano forward.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Difference? dBv and dBu mean the same thing: decibels referenced to a voltage less than one volt. I don't recall the exact value for the reference voltage. They started using dBu so that dBv (small v) would not get confused with dBV (capital V).

dBV (capital V) is decibels referenced to 1 volt. dBV is the measurement I used in my power cable analysis studies.

Just asking. Thanks for the answer.

Habanero Monk

So what can I expect as far as physical layout when I come?

BlueFox

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You are not entertained by people worrying about how you spend your discretionary income?

Slightly, but I am more entertained when deniers spout nonsense without understanding what they are talking about. However, I do get slightly irritated when they imply I am psychotic because I am able to hear a difference when I upgrade a cable. So far I have not had the experience of things getting worse after an upgrade. Of course, I do my research, even if it is only Google searches, to get an idea of what others experience with the same gear.

If instead of implying I, and others, are crazy they said something along the line of "While the cable does make a difference you are crazy to spend that much money for that level of improvement" then I can respect that, since I have spent a ton of money now on power conditioners and the various cable types. I might not agree with it, since, for me, I enjoy the result, but I can respect that position.

In so far as being psychotic, I don't think so, since most of my stereo has been bought with bonuses and stock options given to me for doing a good job. My current bonus paid for my Magico S5s, which is nice since they cost more than I paid for my new car (Mazda 3S) in 2005.

F1nut

I will refer you to Bob Carver's amplifier transfer function exercises where he duplicated the transfer functions of expensive amplifiers, but his cheaper amps didn't in any way sound like the more expensive amps he copied. He was able to copy the sound of a more expensive amp using a zillion additional parts, but that configuration could not be economically reproduced in mass.

More on that subject. The Carver amp in question was so unstable it had to be constantly tweaked while in use. Bob Carver later admitted it would have been impossible to make a production version.

While it was conceded that he was successful in copying the sound of the CJ tube amp, the facts above say to me that it was an epic fail.

As noted, the TFM production amps sound nothing like a tube amp, not even close.

headrott

teekay0007 wrote: »

Yes, headrott, please tell me about your training. You're the same one that not too long ago said he was afraid to try blinded studies with their equipment because they probably couldn't tell the difference between it and much cheaper gear. Yes, I'm paraphrasing, but the point is the same. And no, I can't find the post or I would certainly link it.

You cannot find and link the post where I said that I was afraid of trying blind studies because people probably couldn't tell the differences between it and cheap gear, because I never said anything like that, in any fashion. Paraphrased or not; what you are stating was never said, nor implied. What you posted is from your imagination. Or, you completely misinterpreted what I actually said.

teekay0007 wrote: »

I would actually gain much more experience and considerably more valid experience from not knowing which cables were connected in the scenario I laid out above. If I were told, "OK, now we're putting in the MIT (Shunyata, etc.) cables, let us know what you think", oh, I'd be hearing subtleties the BJCs could never dream of producing. It's human nature to do this. So, yes again, I trust my ears, but not yet my brain when it throws its two cents (consciously and subconsciously) into the mix.

Right, if you noticed that I defined "ears" in my previous post as:

headrott wrote: »

IF you trust your "ears" ("ears"; including your brain and consciousness), one would not need to blinded to what equipment is being used.

So again, you don't trust your "ears".

teekay0007 wrote: »

So, from all of this discussion, I've learned that we cannot make valid evaluations of gear or cables unless we are trained how to properly do so. This training is largely self-administered - meaning what we think is right and best is just that since we have nothing else to compare our concept of "right" with. Then, once we deem ourselves "trained" we can evaluate one pair of cables against another, but only if we know which ones are connected when we're evaluating. To not know which cables were being used would make our observations non-valid. Any biases that can be eliminated by not even letting them enter the equation should not be of concern to us since we were (self-) trained to not let any bias enter into our evaluation process. Got it!.

Yes, you are correct that training and experience in listening to stereophonic audio is self taught. A person can learn the different aspects of stereophonic audio by learning about the concepts of soundstage height, width, and depth, imaging, detail, transparency, tone(s), image weight, etc. etc. etc. by reading about them, but actual training and experience by DOING are what is necessary. Why do so many on this forum ask "what cables have you tried?" Because that shows what level of experience you have. It however does not show what amount of training you have. Both are necessary to properly hear the differences between pieces of gear. If one already doesn't believe that there are differences between cables, etc., then I can see why one would feel that one is biased and cannot trust one's "ears"; this is because this person is biased. Got it?

teekay0007 wrote: »

Again, headrott, your "training" in this area consists of what? And parroting DK doesn't count.

Ok, you asked for it, so here it goes (I will go through both my experience AND training as both can be and are acquired at the same time):

I started listening to stereophonic audio when I was about 7. My dad would put on reel-to-reel tapes and records of Led Zeppelin, Paul McCartney, The Beatles, etc. (most of the music I listen to today) and my older brother and I would listen for hours at times. My dad was into hi-fidelity music even before I was born. He would set his system up and listen quite regularly. He passed this love of music and love of stereophonic audio on to my brother and I (and the rest of my siblings).

At about the age of 14, I purchased my own stereophonic audio system. It consisted of a Sansui receiver, Denon tape deck, and Pioneer speakers. Compared to what I own now, this stuff was vey low fidelity, and low resolution. I enjoyed that for a number of years (as I didn't know there was anything better out there). It was also in grade school where I learned how to play the trumpet and by high school I had learned how to play the trumpet very competently taking part in honor band and touring the US in our band. Through this experience, I was able to pick up on tones and pitches where I was able to learn and identify different keys and modes which would later allow me to listen to music in a very analytical manner. I could (of course) also listen to music in a less, or non-analytical fashion, but that has little to do with what this reply is about.

At the age of 17, I purchased my first set of Polk speakers (Monitor 10A's with the peerless tweeters) as well as upgraded my Sansui receiver to a newer (what I thought was much better) Denon receiver (which I also used for A/V) a newer Denon tape deck, and a new at the time Denon CD player. I heard an immediate improvement in the audio produced by this system (from a tonal, detail, and clarity perspective). I still had absolutely no clue about how to properly set up the Monitor 10A's to have them image correctly or produce a soundstage properly, however. In fact, I had no idea what those terms even meant.

At age 20, I heard my brothers Harmon Kardon linear tracking turn table, hooked up to his Mcintosh solid state amplifier and using my Monitor 10A's as speakers. My brother was the one who showed me how to correctly angle the Monitor 10A's to get the correct timing and imaging with them. This was my first lesson in what a difference in HOW the gear was set up made. I also leaned that having a powerful, well designed amplifier can drastically increase the clarity and detail of the audio from your speakers. I had also began experimenting with some Radio-Shack speaker cables (where previously I had been using some inexpensive (hardware store) copper cables) as well as upgraded, Monster cable interconnects (previously I had used the IC cables that came with components). I noticed a definite difference when used with the rest of the equipment. The music was more refined, with greater detail, and sounded "more pleasing". At this time, I didn't know anything about taking notes to distinguish differences in pieces of audio gear so it was all done in my head. I can still remember what that system sounded like, vaguely however.

headrott

Around age 25, at the time my brother was attending The Conservatory of Recording Arts & Sciences in Tempe, Arizona. We had discussions about what he was learning with regard to audio recording techniques: Microphone placement and type, room treatments, type of tape deck used, type of mixing board used, mixing of albums, etc. This greatly increased my knowledge in the subject and made me more curious about what to listen for and how to listen to it. My brother and I still have very long (hours) discussions about audio when we are on the phone. My brother is definitely more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. Much of what I learned about audio I leaned from him.

At age 27, I purchased my own amplifier. It was made by AMC and was a hybrid tube amplifier. I used my Denon receiver (which had once again been upgraded) as a pre-amp, along with a newer 20 bit quad DAC tube CD player made by AMC and still used the Monitor 10A's as speakers. I had also upgraded my interconnect cables to a new company I had heard of named "Aural Thrills". I purchased a set of their Air RCA in both silver and copper. I compared both of them in my system, to each other and to the Monster cable IC's that were in my system. I listened to the differences each of them brought. I noticed the copper cables had more bass, slightly less detail, and were slightly less transparent than the silver Air RCA IC's. I began taking notes about the differences I heard between them. I also bought a pair of the Aural Thrills speaker cables and replaced the Radio Shack cables in my system. I also compared them by taking notes of the differences I heard between them. I found I much preferred the copper Air RCA IC's and the Aural thrills speaker wires over the Monster Cable IC's and the Radio Shack speaker cables. I liked the tonality, detail, clarity, imaging, and soundstage they brought.

Later that year, I purchased my first pair of SDA's from someone in the Bay Area. They were a pair of 2B's. i had read much about the 2B's, but had never actually heard a pair of any SDA's, and this would be my first opportunity. I did some searching on the internet about how to properly set them up. Thankfully, the IC cable was included in the purchase. I hooked the up to my system and wow was I impressed with the soundstage of these speakers! I was not impressed with the high end, however. The treble hurt my ears. Thankfully, a number of years later Polk would produce the RD0-194/198 tweeters to replace the SL-2000/SL-3000 tweeters. The differences in soundstage width depth and height were huge compared to the Monitor 10A's! This was my first real experiences in how big of a difference there can be in soundstage and spatial localization.

I then turned to switching out tubes in my CD player pre-amp, and amplifier while noting differences in tonal qualities, detail, imaging, soundstage, and clarity. I tried different tubes such as RCA clear tops, Mullard long plate 12AU7's, Amperex long and short plate 12AX7's and RCA 6550's in the CD player, pre-amp and amp.

At age 35 I purchased a set of Polk SDA SRS 3.1TL's to upgrade my 2B's. I found greater soundstage height width, and depth and imaging was better when switching to these speakers. I also found the bass to be slightly deeper and image weight was slightly better. I started searching online to find what these terms meant as I had heard them talked about, but had little clue what the meanings were. I came across the Polk Audio forum and became a member (in 2008). I then began modifying my 2B's into 2BTL's and switched out the SL-2000's to RD0-198's, I did the same for my 3.1TL's and modified their crossovers with upgraded capacitors. I did listening tests comparing one modified speaker to another unmodified speaker to listen for differences between them. The upgraded capacitors improved ALL aspects of the stereophonic audio produced. There was no downside to replacing the stock capacitors and resistors to Sonicap/Mills. A couple years after modifying the SDA crossovers, I was fortunate enough to have been able to purchase some of Larry’s coupling rings and install them into my 2BTL’s and 3.1TL’s. The clarity, detail, and bass response improved dramatically in both sets of speakers.

I really made a point of setting up my 3.1TL’s in the prime location in the listening room so that they were perfectly level to the floor. They were as far from the side walls as possible and still about 6 feet apart and about 8 inches from the back wall. This improved the imaging, bass response, and soundstage immensely. I had also began to use isolation devices under my equipment (the first isolation devices I purchased were vibrapods and cones). This increased clarity, detail and imaging further when used under all the equipment (placed under wooden boards). I especially noticed large increases when used under the source equipment (Denon DCD-3000), tube pre-amp (AMC CVT-1030) and Tube amp (AMC CVT-2100as). This was before I had tried tube dampeners. I took notes during listening sessions to hear the differences in the clarity, detail, and imaging before and after adding the vibrapods and cones.

I was ready then to upgrade my pre-amp and amp. I wanted a solid state amp and a tube pre-amp. I purchased a Luxman amplifier to go with my AMC CVT-1030 pre-amp. When I hooked up the Luxman, I was not really satisfied with the sound I got. It was a powerful amp, but the soundstage, detail, and clarity, were all decreased compared to my tube amp. I decided to try something else. I decided on an Aragon 8008bb as I was wanting to get into a balanced system to decrease the noise floor. I purchased the Aragon, along with some different XLR cables made from a gold alloy. They are made by Aural Harmony and brought warmth to my system that was not there before. The bass was solid (like the copper cables) but the tone was warm and smooth. The Aragon 8008bb was the most powerful amp I have owned. It made driving my 3.1TL’s seem “easy”. The tone of the amp (IMO) was very bright and “forward” sounding, however. The soundstage was very wide and somewhat deep, but I didn’t like the high end from the amp.

I decided to give some MIT Shotgun S3 XLR cables and speaker cables a try in my system. I received them and installed them. I listened while taking notes on the differences in the audio signal. The soundstage was wider and deeper, details increased, the imaging was better. The MIT’s were keepers. I still haven’t replaced them.

I also purchased a BAT VK-3i pre-amplifier and installed some Amperex 7308 tubes into it along with the Bendix 5992 tubes. This brought a big positive change to my system. The clarity, detail, soundstage, imaging, transparency, etc. all significantly increased compared to my AMC CVT-1030 pre-amp. I again took notes in comparing the two pre-amps in the system.

With the never ending pursuit of SDA “perfection”, I purchased a set 2.3TL’s from another forum member. They had Sonicap/Mills modded crossovers in them. I compared the 2.3TL’s with Sonicap/Mills boards to the 3.1TL’s with Sonicap/Mills boards. The comparison is found here: http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?120466-My-impressions-of-SDA-SRS-2.3TL-s-Vs.-3.1TL-s I purchased some Clarity Cap ESA’s from another forum member along with some Duelund Cast resistors and some of Gimpod’s replacement boards. I replaced the Sonicap/Mills boards with the ESA/Duelund boards. I again did comparisons between the Sonicap/Mills boards to the Clarity Cap ESA/Duelund boards in the 2.3TL’s. The ESA/Duelund boards brought greater detail, clarity, and transparency. The imaging was better, the soundstage increased by about 2 feet in width and 1 foot in depth. The ESA/Duelund boards were keepers!

I needed a new amp though. I decided to give the Pass Labs Aleph 30. It was low power, but pure class A. I replaced the binding posts in it and dynamatted it to reduce “ringing”. I took notes while I listened to the Aleph 30 compared to the Aragon. The Aleph 30 definitely had better tone than the Aragon. The bass from the Aragon was better however. Also, the Aleph 30 had a tendency of running out of “oomph” when pushed too hard. I needed the tone of the Aleph 30 and the power of the Aragon.

When I noticed a BAT VK-200 come up on the forum, I purchased the amp from zingo. I received it, and dynamatted it, replaced the IEC inlet (Oyide), XLR jacks (with Furutech) and installed it. This is what I was looking for! The BAT had the tone of the Aleph 30, but the power, detail, soundstage, and imaging of the Aragon 8008bb. I took notes while listening again to distinguish the differences.

The latest piece of equipment I have replaced is the VK-3i with a BAT VK-31. This further increased the detail and transparency from my system.

I have also replaced power cords, digital cables, and isolation devices in my system. This post is getting WAY too long so I will not go into the listening sessions I did to compare the differences in them.

Finally, I hope this satisfies what you were looking for. With regards to “parroting” DK, unless he had the same upbringing as I did, I seriously doubt he would say the same thing as I. I’ll leave that up to you, however.

F1nut

Being the man of few words that I am, damn Greg. :cool:

How did you remember all that!?!

headrott

Definately, blind tests helped me remember all of that Jesse. :razz:

Reading it back, I did notice there is actually a lot left out. There were many more pieces of equipment, cables, etc. added to my system and evaluations of them. Hopefully, it wil be enough to satisfy teekay though.

Habanero Monk

Have BJC cabling ordered. Should have the computer assembled ~Tuesday/Wednesday. Test out and let it run for a few days to make sure equipment isn't going to fail.

So that would put me at a weekend in June in Des Moine.

ZLTFUL

First second and third weekends of June are out as I have obligations those weekends. The fourth weekend, I have an awards dinner on Saturday evening but the rest of the weekend is open.

DarqueKnight

headrott wrote: »

Finally, I hope this satisfies what you were looking for. With regards to “parroting” DK, unless he had the same upbringing as I did, I seriously doubt he would say the same thing as I. I’ll leave that up to you, however.

My path to audiophilia was quite different, and my story provides some insight into why I have an atypical interest in the more technical aspects of audio.

We always had music in the home while I was growing up and I had a small all-in-one stereo system in my room as a teenager. However, I never gave any thought to the quality of audio equipment. As long as it played loud and clear and had good bass, I was happy. I was totally focused on the music.

My interest in quality audio gear was piqued by one of my electrical engineering professors who used audio examples to illustrate some of his lecture points. One of his frequent remarks was "...and that's why good hifi systems cost a lot of money". After hearing that for the 10,001th time, I decided to go to some audio stores on weekends and see what he was talking about. At this time my stereo system consisted of a cassette player boombox, which I was perfectly happy with. Mind you, this was during the mid 1980s when audio stores were still in existence in abundance, and when sales people would take the time to properly demonstrate gear and educate consumers on the differences in sound quality among different levels of gear. It was during these visits to audio stores that I learned about stereo imaging, clarity, detail, bass quality, etc., and the different levels of realism that different levels of gear would provide. Although I was a college student and didn't have a lot of money to spend, salesmen were always courteous and patient. Perhaps they thought I would remember them once I graduated and had more money to spend.

After about a month of browsing audio stores, even some in neighboring cities, the boombox wasn't cutting it anymore and I bought a nice all Kenwood system consisting of a receiver, cassette player, and speakers. I also started reading Stereo Review and High Fidelity audio magazines. Even after the Kenwood purchase, I continued auditioning audio gear for the remainder of my college years. The original Kenwood speakers were replaced with Cerwin Vega, then Bose, then Advent. I also added a Sony linear tracking turntable and started collecting records.

Soon after getting settled in my first job after graduation, I began shopping for a new and better stereo system. Some of the electrical engineers at work had formed a high end audio club and they would post notices about their meetings on the bulletin boards at work. I introduced myself to some of them and asked for upgrade recommendations. They were all very helpful and they all invited me to their homes to listen to their systems. Although these guys had some high dollar systems, they were good about recommending good quality, but affordable options. I was looking to upgrade without spending a small fortune. One brand that kept coming up was Polk. It was during this time that I was introduced to Polk speakers and SDAs. I loved the sound of the SRSs, but didn't have the space for them and I wasn't looking to spend that kind of money. The SDA 1s or SDA 2s were also too big and expensive. The CRSs were the "right size", but again, I wasn't looking to spend over a grand for speakers. I settled on the Monitor 10s. I also bought a Nikko receiver, Sony CD player, Yamaha turntable, and Monster Cable speaker wire and interconnects. A year later I purchased a pair of SDA 1Bs, an Adcom GFA-555 power amp and an Adcom GFP-555 preamp.

I started reading Stereophile and The Absolute Sound upon recommendation from the audio club members at work. I never did join the audio club, although I was welcome, but I definitely learned a lot from them. Stereophile sparked my interest in modifying audio gear to improve performance. My first equipment modification was on my Sony CD player. I replaced the output op amps and coupling capacitors. My first speaker mod, done in 1990, was upgrading the crossover components in my SDA 1Bs. The Absolute Sound helped me further refine my system setup and tweaking skills and it also sparked my interest in critical listening and critical performance evaluation of audio gear.

I have always had an intellectual interest in high end audio, but never took the plunge until fairly recently (around 2006). At the beginning of my audio journey, I never aspired to have a high end system similar to the ones I heard at the audio club member's homes or in audio stores. The stereo system I have now and the level of activity I have now is the result of gradual learning, practice, and development over close to three decades in this hobby. As I was "growing up" in audio, I had resources that are difficult to come by these days: knowledgeable and patient teachers, abundant places to audition high quality audio gear, and several high quality audio publications that had a strong tutorial component. Audio publications are still around, but the tutorial component of today's audio magazines is close to nonexistent. The Internet has been both a blessing and a curse because, while much credible information is readily available, much credible misinformation and disinformation is redily available.

teekay0007

headrott wrote: »

You cannot find and link the post where I said that I was afraid of trying blind studies because people probably couldn't tell the differences between it and cheap gear, because I never said anything like that, in any fashion. Paraphrased or not; what you are stating was never said, nor implied. What you posted is from your imagination. Or, you completely misinterpreted what I actually said.



Right, if you noticed that I defined "ears" in my previous post as:



So again, you don't trust your "ears".



Yes, you are correct that training and experience in listening to stereophonic audio is self taught. A person can learn the different aspects of stereophonic audio by learning about the concepts of soundstage height, width, and depth, imaging, detail, transparency, tone(s), image weight, etc. etc. etc. by reading about them, but actual training and experience by DOING are what is necessary. Why do so many on this forum ask "what cables have you tried?" Because that shows what level of experience you have. It however does not show what amount of training you have. Both are necessary to properly hear the differences between pieces of gear. If one already doesn't believe that there are differences between cables, etc., then I can see why one would feel that one is biased and cannot trust one's "ears"; this is because this person is biased. Got it?



Ok, you asked for it, so here it goes (I will go through both my experience AND training as both can be and are acquired at the same time):

I started listening to stereophonic audio when I was about 7. My dad would put on reel-to-reel tapes and records of Led Zeppelin, Paul McCartney, The Beatles, etc. (most of the music I listen to today) and my older brother and I would listen for hours at times. My dad was into hi-fidelity music even before I was born. He would set his system up and listen quite regularly. He passed this love of music and love of stereophonic audio on to my brother and I (and the rest of my siblings).

At about the age of 14, I purchased my own stereophonic audio system. It consisted of a Sansui receiver, Denon tape deck, and Pioneer speakers. Compared to what I own now, this stuff was vey low fidelity, and low resolution. I enjoyed that for a number of years (as I didn't know there was anything better out there). It was also in grade school where I learned how to play the trumpet and by high school I had learned how to play the trumpet very competently taking part in honor band and touring the US in our band. Through this experience, I was able to pick up on tones and pitches where I was able to learn and identify different keys and modes which would later allow me to listen to music in a very analytical manner. I could (of course) also listen to music in a less, or non-analytical fashion, but that has little to do with what this reply is about.

At the age of 17, I purchased my first set of Polk speakers (Monitor 10A's with the peerless tweeters) as well as upgraded my Sansui receiver to a newer (what I thought was much better) Denon receiver (which I also used for A/V) a newer Denon tape deck, and a new at the time Denon CD player. I heard an immediate improvement in the audio produced by this system (from a tonal, detail, and clarity perspective). I still had absolutely no clue about how to properly set up the Monitor 10A's to have them image correctly or produce a soundstage properly, however. In fact, I had no idea what those terms even meant.

At age 20, I heard my brothers Harmon Kardon linear tracking turn table, hooked up to his Mcintosh solid state amplifier and using my Monitor 10A's as speakers. My brother was the one who showed me how to correctly angle the Monitor 10A's to get the correct timing and imaging with them. This was my first lesson in what a difference in HOW the gear was set up made. I also leaned that having a powerful, well designed amplifier can drastically increase the clarity and detail of the audio from your speakers. I had also began experimenting with some Radio-Shack speaker cables (where previously I had been using some inexpensive (hardware store) copper cables) as well as upgraded, Monster cable interconnects (previously I had used the IC cables that came with components). I noticed a definite difference when used with the rest of the equipment. The music was more refined, with greater detail, and sounded "more pleasing". At this time, I didn't know anything about taking notes to distinguish differences in pieces of audio gear so it was all done in my head. I can still remember what that system sounded like, vaguely however.

Those Monitor 10A's sound nice, don't they?

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

First second and third weekends of June are out as I have obligations those weekends. The fourth weekend, I have an awards dinner on Saturday evening but the rest of the weekend is open.

What does July look like?

badchad

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I've got a new name for this thread...

"An electrical engineer, a pharmacologist and a network engineer walk into a bar..."

I hate when that happens, as I have to drink everything blindfolded.

Even the greats sometimes fail when blinded.

http://www.livescience.com/44651-new-violins-beat-stradivarius.html

I don't have the publication yet, but apparently it appears in PNAS. One of the most highly regarded scientific journals in the world.