Cables, wires, power conditioners, etc.

blemons

Being new to this forum, I was wondering if any of you have ever:

A: Done testing yourself - Or - B: Read any published information

regarding the audible benefits of "esoteric" or "audiophile" speaker cables, inter-connect cables, power conditioners, etc. I am asking for information based on real world use, not marketing materials or claims.

Example: Stereo Review magazine did a "blind" test between Bob Carver's M 1.0t and a Conrad Johnson back in the early 1980's. After exhaustive listening tests and mega electronic measurments, the outcome was that the Carver had more power, better S/N ratio, better damping, etc.

Although this was not very popular with audio "purists", it made me go and audition a Carver. Over 15 years later, I'm still happy I bought a 1.0t.

I have not made any major changes to my music listening system in several years and was wondering if any of you would share your experiences, good or bad...

George Grand

Blemons, I wasn't aware of the Stereo Review blind test you discussed, but I am well aware and versed on the Stereophile Amplifier Challenge. About 11 or 12 yrs ago I was a Carver rep, demoing their products. In the mid 80's, Bob Carver told the editors of Stereophile, that he could make his new 200wpc, solid state M1.0t power amp sound EXACTLY like any other amplifier of roughly 200wpc. They accepted his challenge, had him flown out to Santa Fe, and set him up in a hotel room. The "curve ball" they threw him was this: The "amp" they selected for him to replicate was a PAIR of Conrad-Johnson Premier 5 TUBE monoblocks. No problem. In LESS than 24 hours, he invited them back over to the hotel room for the first listen. "Hey Bob, the amp sounds fantastic, BUT, the low end on your amp is MUCH tighter and better defined than the low end on the C-J's. The deal was to make it sound EXACTLY the same. So far, you lose!"
Less than 24 hours later, he invited them back. Overnight, he dumbed down his amp, and muddied up the low end a bit. The result? After exhaustive listening, the Stereophile pukes had to throw in the towel and admit, the MAN'S 200wpc, solid state, $629 list price amp, was VIRTUALLY indistinguishable from the $5,000/pair C-J amps. Of course, when they reported this in their magazine, they had to taint it, and throw in that he "probably could not ensure that ALL the amps coming off the production line could maintain that standard."

I requested copies of the report that Carver released, but the Carver legal people said they could not accomodate me for legal reasons. The issue of Stereophile that it was reported in, strangely enough, is one of the back issues that you CANNOT order.

The "t" at the end of your amps model number indicates "Transfer Modification". Your amp was voiced to sound EXACTLY like those Premier 5's.

The M1.5t was voiced after the Mark Levinson ML-2, another pricey audiophile special.

The M4.0t, TFM-35, 35x, TFM-42 and 45, were all transfer modified to emulate the sound of his own no holds barred, $17,500/pair, 375watt, Silver Seven monoblocks.

And that's the whole story.

I own one M4.0t, one TFM-42 (EXACT same 375wpc amps, different cosmetics), one TFM-35, and one M1.5t. I had an M1.0t, but I didn't like the pops that came at shutdown when the cap's discharged, so I sold it. Seems like this was a problem with the M1.0, and some of our own forum members(Mike McG for one), contacted Carver, and was sent both parts and instructions on how to rectify the problem.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grand's)

The man to talk to about cable, is Bob McG. HE is the master cable man on this forum. However, he is in over his head with work and some personal affairs right now, and may not be here as often as we (I) would like.

I-SIG

Blemons,

I'm in the process of trying to purchase some Audioquest CV-4 speaker cables for my Polks'. I'll let you know the differences I hear. I have little doubt that cables can make a noticeable difference. (Shields to full force, Scotty! I'm givin' 'em all she's got, Cap'n!) I noticed a slight difference when I got a single pair of higher-end Monster interconnects. If you don't get anything else from better cables, you'll get high quality materials, and that alone can be the biggest difference.

Wes

gidrah

I recently came across a site that has me wondering. WWW.Geocites.com/venhaus1/. I'm thinking cat5. I did a search and found 1000 ft of 350/10 for about $75.
If I do it, I'll let you know.

RuSsMaN

http://beyond_gomer.tripod.com/

Neat site, I have plenty of cat5 layin' round, thought I would give it a shot this weekend BEFORE I start drinking....(that way I wont automatically say it sounds better)...

Cheers,
Russ

blemons

Mr. Grand:

How right you are !! I'm getting so old, I confused two separate stories into one.

I too read the Stereophile article you reference.

I agree with you: Mr. Carver is "THE MAN" !!

I also read, in Stereo Review, a blind test setup that was engineered by Julian Hirsch. In this setup, he rigged an A-B-X box to two amplifiers and one set of speakers (Thiels if I remember correctly), all hidden from view.

Anyway, the listener could select amp A, amp B, or amp X. If X was selected, the box would randomly connect either of the amplifiers. It was then the listener's job to figure out which amp they were listening to when the X selection was made.

Julian's position was that the human ear could not tell the difference between solid state and tube amplifiers, as long as they were:

1. Of quality design and construction
2. Carefully tuned so that the output levels were identical when listening
3. Measurable electrical characteristics were very similiar

Extensive testing with both "novice" and "audiophile" listeners proved that no one was more than 50% accurate in their observations as to which amp was which.

I later read that Julian had chosen a Carver 1.0t and the Conrad Johnsons for the test because of the Stereophile report that was circulating around.

This may not be a fact, it was a long time ago...

All I know is I'm lucky to have the ears I have. They have certainly saved me some money over the years !!

BTW, I have not had a problem with the amp making any noises when it is turned off. Do you think maybe they changed something in the design after you bought yours ??

George Grand

Blemons,
I have no idea why some would and some wouldn't whack at shutdown. All I can say is I'm very happy that yours does not. Maybe it's those manufacturing "inconsistencies" that Stereophile was talking about. Maybe one of our more learned forum members can provide some insight. The only thing I know for sure, is that mine did, as well as some other forum members.

I met Julian Hirsch in 1994. He is a real gentleman. I remember discussing Acoustic Research equipment with him, and how the electronics they manufactured in the 60's and 70's did not hold up over time as well as the AR speaker designs did. I have an original AR integrated amp, and it manifests no problems. Nice talking to you.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grand's)

blemons

Mr. Grand:

I always liked reading Julian's write-ups, especially before Stereo Review got "mainstreamed".

It seemed like their reporting became a little less direct after some of the larger companies began advertising in the mag.

Julian also did a review on some of the early Polks. I still remember the quote: "My advice is don't buy speakers until you hear the Polk's" (or something like that-we've already determined that my memory is a little blurry... :-) )

I have a friend who has a pair of Acoustic Research speakers. If I'm not mistaken, they are AR-1's ?? Still sound good after all these years...

Nice talking to you, too. Seems like a lot of decent folks around here. Kinda' cool to find people with the same interests.

One last thing - What are those guys talking about regarding the CAT5 cable ??

George Grand

Blemons,
First off, please feel free to call me George. I also wouldn't mind having a proper name to call you by.

I have NO IDEA what the guys are talking about with the CAT5 cable. While I am far from being a disbeliever in different pieces of cable having properties which may affect overall sound, I don't think they are as important as speaker positioning, and having a young enough, non-abused pair of ears to hear the differences with. Hopefully, one of the guys who does know will see this post and answer your question.

I have no doubt the AR-1's sound pleasant. The entire early AR catalog of speakers sounded pleasant.

There ARE a lot of decent folks here, but I can't help but think that I am at least twice as old as the AVERAGE member.

I also note (very recently), that some disgruntled individuals may take offense at me going on at length about anything other than the LATEST fads, movies, and such. I enjoy talking about the "golden-age" of hi-fi (remember when it was called hi-fi?) and would probably enjoy doing it off the forum more than on, especially with someone who shared the experience. I can be reached at njgrand@bellatlantic.net

Feel free to transmit. I should be available for at least the next couple days.


George Grand (of the Jersey Grand's)

mario frenza

Hi Belmons,

Just a quick reply and comment on the carver 1.0t,
I love it. I bought it about 12 years ago and it still kicks with my
carver sonic holography pre-amp. And now with the addition
of my rt800i ,its the perfect match.

Happy listening. Mario