Five Speaker Jumper Comparisons For The SDA SRS 1.2TL

DarqueKnight · April 2014

kevintomb wrote: »

Kinda like how when you first drive off the lot with a new car. The car seems so fantastic, but a few weeks or months later.....kinda just normal.

Consumers who do a lot of research prior to buying a vehicle report greater satisfaction long after the sale compared to people who buy a vehicle based on impulse and aesthetics. This goes back to the concept of the debiased consumer. A trained (well informed, debiased) consumer is not going to be swayed by appearance and marketing hype, they are going to be swayed by customer service reputation, reliability ratings, reasonable maintenance requirements, and value. They will be thrilled by these attributes long after the sale because the value will still be there. Conversely, an untrained (poorly informed, biased) consumer can and will be swayed by external, superficial factors that have nothing to do with value and performance. Then, when the reality that they paid too much for what they got sinks in, or simply that the "flash" they were so impressed with months ago contributes nothing to value, performance, and long term satisfaction, they have buyer's remorse.

By the way, I know quite a few people who are thrilled with vehicles they purchased years ago. I'm one of them.

F1nut wrote: »

My now one year old car is just as fantastic as the day I bought it.

I haven't bought a vehicle in a while, but my one year old monoblock amps are more fantastic than the day I received them.:biggrin:

On3s&Z3r0s · April 2014

Also, too, might seem like hair splitting, but looking at this as an example of placebo effect is a mis-characterization. Accusing someone of hearing something that isn't there as justification of its price is more accurately an example of rationalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(disambiguation) -- see the making excuses or post-purchase rationalization links).

If you don't want to follow the links, in a nutshell it says your brain will make you think the thoughts that avoid you feeling shame or guilt or whatnot. Like if you think, "People are starving in Ethiopia and these jumpers cost more than the annual per capita income in Ethiopia, but they are worth it because my stereo sounds AMAZEBALLS!!!!!" when, in fact, the jumpers don't sound any better than stamped, gold-plated sheetmetal, that would be rationalization.

Not saying anyone here is doing that, just saying the DSM calls this rationalization, not placebo effect.

BlueFox · April 2014

I think a better example of rationalization is constantly trying to justify (rationalize) the erroneous belief that jumpers, cables, and power cords do not make any difference by quoting pseudo-science and using faulty logic.

headrott · April 2014

kevintomb wrote: »

Our brain is in control, not the ears.

Are "you" in control of your thoughts? That is, is your consiousness and awareness in control of your brain? Or, is your brain controlling your consciousness and awareness?

If the latter is happening all the time, I would suggest you find the nearest psychologist and have a talk.

If the former is what's taking place, you should be able to temporarily overcome your brain controlling your biases when intently listening to high fidelity audio from a stereophonic audio system.

The next time you listen to music, test yourself to see how aware you are of what you are listening to. Make a conscious effort to sit and listen to the music. Be aware of what you are listening to and hearing. Notice the soundstage width, depth and height. Notice the tones, clarity, and detail. It sounds as though you are not doing this if you feel that your brain is "controlling" your ears. Your brain is a body part, just like your ears. A necessary body part? Yes. But, it's not your brain that makes your consciousness aware of what you are hearing in a direct sense. It's your consciousness that is aware of what you are hearing. Your ears and brain are just transport "mechanisms" to reach your consciousness.

F1nut · April 2014

The Zen master speaks.

headrott · April 2014

Hey, now and zen I get it right!

villian · April 2014

BlueFox wrote: »

I think a better example of rationalization is constantly trying to justify (rationalize) the erroneous belief that jumpers, cables, and power cords do not make any difference by quoting pseudo-science and using faulty logic.

Surely you guys aren't talking about me..because I already stated that high quality jumpers make a difference over low quality ones (Notice I said quality, not price) due to the fact that they carry an analog signal. I'm not debating that at all. I just think it's a little funny when you can sit there and pick out the things that DK picks out when comparing cables...especially something as otherwise insignificant as a jumper cable. Things like this give me a bit of a laugh...

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s23/darqueknight88/5-Jumpers-Compared/SoundQualityWithDifferentJumpers-s_zpse85ad2a9.jpg

I want to believe everything on that chart, but honestly I don't see how it's possible to pick something apart in that detailed of a way when you can't even listen or compare the differences between each item being tested at the same time. Your mind can play tricks on you, especially when it comes to comparing items at different points in time, and that's why I threw out the "Placebo Effect" references. Maybe DK "really" does hear those differences and can accurately identify each and every one of them, even when hearing them at different times...so who knows. Or maybe I'm just flat out wrong about this whole thing? I'll tell you what...I just picked up a new Audioquest Vodka HDMI cable, and boy was I surprised. Comparing it to my old $4 Dynex cable, my God. There was a distinct aromatic difference emanating from the whole set! You know..that amazing smell you get when wafting off the top vents? With the Dynex there is only a slight burning smell, but the Audioquest further refines each and every detail of that smell. It's slightly clearer, and more well refined. You can almost smell the oil burning off the PCB's. Not only that but I've noticed a nice fresh fried chicken aroma immediately after viewing a KFC commercial with the new cable. The Dynex lacked clarity and difference between smells during commercials. Needless the say the Audioquest is the clear winner! I can't wait to sample the Masters at Augusta! Fresh cut zoysia grass....Mmmm. Or "Rush"! I always loved the smell of gasoline and race cars

villian · April 2014

headrott wrote: »

Are "you" in control of your thoughts? That is, is your consiousness and awareness in control of your brain? Or, is your brain controlling your consciousness and awareness?

If the former is what's taking place, you should be able to temporarily overcome your brain controlling your biases when intently listening to high fidelity audio from a stereophonic audio system.

Have you ever accidentally pressed the button during the hearing tests?

I rest my case.

PS - Control of the brain is easier said then done. The key is "Subconscious" bias, and the last time I checked NO human is fully in control of their subconscious.

villian · April 2014

Sorry for the triple post, but it's not letting me add to my last post anymore...

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I have never heard or seen a difference in audio or video performance with any digital cable I've tried, whether it was optical, coax, or HDMI. The last digital cable comparison I did was in 2009...

I compared HDMI cables made by Acoustic Research ($20), Rocketfish ($85), and Monster Cable ($130). There was no performance difference among them. I subsequently compared the $20 Acoustic Research HDMI cables to $8 Monoprice HDMI cables, didn't see or hear a difference between them, then returned the AR cables.

I did see and hear a big difference in audio and video quality when I switched from a PS Audio Power Plant Premier AC regenerator to a PS Audio P5 AC regenerator. The difference in pixel sharpness is easily seen in figures 6, 7, and 8 of this thread:

If power quality can affect the integrity of a digital signal it is reasonable that transmission line quality could also affect digital signal integrity.

Worth noting that I agree 100% with you on this one. I think most people would rather simply blame a signal cable (Even a digital one..carrying a digital signal..which in itself cannot alter anything..) than research the interference they're picking up. Rarely is the cable to blame if it's carrying a digital signal, or the digital signal itself. The blame is on the other garbage be carried in/on/or around (By design or not) those digital cables that's effecting what you see and hear. Things like; Power quality, power factors, stray currents, poor grounds, poor transmission line quality. So much has to do with actual power, and not an audio or video signal itself. Great review you did on that btw, been trying to catch up on all the threads and info you've posted. I'm starting to see what you're saying about training yourself to overcome a placebo effect...interesting stuff.

BlueFox wrote: »

The latest example in my experience was with the cable used to connect my Bryston BDP-1 digital file player to my Auralic Vega DAC. Originally, it was a Shunyata Python AES digital. Later, Shunyata released the Anaconda version, which they said they wanted to get right before release, and I upgraded. As soon as I put it in I knew this cable was better, much better.

Last December I added a second 20 amp line for my amps, and this removed another layer of haze from the music. However, it exposed a high frequency harshness on some recordings, especially older rock CD files. This was at the same frequency as the slight tinnitus in my left ear, so it aggravated it. My first thought was it is a digital artifact now being exposed, so I bought the Vega since it is a better DAC, and it has digital filters. Using this DAC, the noise was either eliminated, or tamed enough to be present, but not irritating as before.

It was at this point I added the Anaconda AES digital cable, and the noise just disappeared. This was completely unexpected, and I was totally surprised at that result. It works so well that I now have filters turned off on the DAC, the clock set to 'Exact', and am very happy with the final sound.

You should seriously try some Ferrite cores if you haven't already. Could've saved a lot of money...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/10pcs-TDK-Filter-Ferrite-Core-7mm-Clip-On-NEW-BLACK-/280763076501?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item415ec88f95

headrott wrote: »

Most importantly villian (*not to diminish others' right to bash those who value expensive wire*); after reading DK's two threads regarding blind tests and early stereophonic evaluation, can you now see why blind tests are not suitable for stereophonic evaluation?

Still researching and reading. I can see some merit, but no promises. I'm traveling and have a full plate right now, but we'll see what holes I can find in my spare time

DarqueKnight wrote: »

What accounts for our wives, girlfriends, (and sometimes sisters) being able to perceive small performance improvements in our audio systems, yet they have no interest whatsoever in audio, and often have a strong bias against it ... particularly with regard to huge speakers in "their" living rooms?

The Placebo Effect. You just gave yourself the answer. Who are they? Do they mean something to you on a personal level? Did they hear a difference?

What you'll more than likely find is that a significant other, family member, close friend, etc *will* hear a difference. A random guy off the street will not (If what the others are experiencing is a placebo effect). They hear it because there's an underlying desire to please those that you know and care about. That contributes greatly to a placebo effect.

cnh wrote: »

Excuse the digression. But the Placebo effect in Medicine does NOT mean that the "effect" is imaginary or did NOT happen. The problem Medical Science has is to explain just HOW the MIND is affecting the BODY in a VERY VERY tangible and REAL way. It is producing an effect that actually heals the body in many cases.

Exactly.

Likewise, I believe that a listener (Trained or not) experiencing a Placebo Effect would actually hear something. Just to make sure we're all on the same page. But, just because they hear it, doesn't make it real.

Face · April 2014

The best kind of jumpers are...none. I don't understand the purpose of more than one set of binding posts unless you're biamping or have an active setup.

heiney9 · April 2014

villian wrote: »

But, just because they hear it, doesn't make it real.

That has to be the dumbest statement about audio I have ever read. Seriously, reread what you wrote. What a retarded thing to say. That's sig material right there.

H9

OldmanSRS · April 2014

Face wrote: »

The best kind of jumpers are...none. I don't understand the purpose of more than one set of binding posts unless you're biamping or have an active setup.

That's what I was thinking, about 3 days ago...

Around 1989, The Absolute Sound ran an article touting the application of Armorall to a CD to improve the sound. I applied it and by god it worked very time. That was until I ask someone to play a mix of treated and untreated discs and let me guess which was which. Curiously the improvement vanished.

I've been listening to the same set of speakers for 26 years so I now they are burned in. Some days they sound awesome and some days they sound too bright or too dull, or not enough SDA on the right....Point being unlike the caps which are 5% tolerance, my hearing is 20%.

I envy those of you who have the 1% hearing tolerance.

OldmanSRS · April 2014

The non sonar techs or otherwise untrained among us, might miss the improvement from a $400 jumper.

On3s&Z3r0s · April 2014

Face wrote: »

The best kind of jumpers are...none. I don't understand the purpose of more than one set of binding posts unless you're biamping or have an active setup.

This is a really good point. It seems a little strange that among all the mods everyone makes to these speakers, including replacing the binding cup/plate, I've never seen someone consider just removing that extra set of binding posts that no one uses anyway. Am I missing something or would that not be a pretty sensible way of eliminating the extra expense of an unneeded set of spendy posts plus jumpers and avoiding the chance of any of that affecting the sound.

nspindel · April 2014

I've never owned a pair of the models that require jumpers, but aren't they there for the purpose of bi-amping? Don't the two sets of binding posts feed different output paths, and so if you do not bi-amp then you need a jumper? You can't just remove one pair of binding posts.

On3s&Z3r0s · April 2014

nspindel wrote: »

I've never owned a pair of the models that require jumpers, but aren't they there for the purpose of bi-amping? Don't the two sets of binding posts feed different output paths, and so if you do not bi-amp then you need a jumper? You can't just remove one pair of binding posts.

I think that was Face's point. They are for bi-amping, but I haven't heard anyone on the forum talk about bi-amping their speakers as their preferred setup. I don't see any reason you couldn't remove one pair of binding posts if you change the internal wiring so that the crossovers are all wired directly to the remaining pair. It should be electrically the same as jumpering the posts on the outside of the box, right? And back to Face's point, it could only improve the signal path by simplifying it.

nspindel · April 2014

Yes, but all you'd be doing is moving the jumper inside the cabinet by doing that, not to mention permanently disabling the potential to biamp. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, of course it would.

Ray, it would be an interesting addition to your study. What if you used Cardas Litz to do the jump on the inside of the cabinet? How does this perform compared to the various selections of speaker wire on the outside of the cabinet?

Mr. Bubbles · April 2014

There is no jumper on the inside for the model being discussed by the OP. IOt would simply be moving the wiring for that leg of the crossover to the same posts as the the other. This would not be a permamanet move (IE it could easily be reveresed.). It also is not complictaed. It can be done by removing the terminal cup alone. This is what i was geting at with my last question to DK. His answer indicates he has discussed his reasoning on this already but i currently haven't gone back to look at that. My thought would be like Face; no jumper should be better; 1 less item/ point to introduce any artifacts.

On3s&Z3r0s · April 2014

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You never know what will work, or not work, until you try it. I formerly had the low frequency and high frequency wires of my crossover soldered to the low frequency binding posts. When I upgraded the binding post plate and went back to a jumpered connection for the HF and LF binding posts, I was amazed that the jumpered connection sounded better than the directly soldered connection.

Found it... thanks for pointing that out Mr. B. (That's the problem with having half a dozen conversations going on in the same thread.) There is some even more detailed info cut and pasted into post #40 on this thread. It sounds like DK's setup is the amp connected to the LF posts which are jumpered with silver wire into HF posts, and that sounds better than wiring HF and LF to the same signal input directly. That is super counter-intuitive, but who knows... it seems like people generally characterize silver as sharpening highs at the potential expense of deadening the lows, so this would seem to be a particularly good application for sliver jumpers. I recently re-read another of DK's posts from a while back saying that using a silver lead (from a Dueland resistor, I think) as a jumper on a crossover PCB made a noticeable improvement over a tinned copper jumper. So, if these are auditory hallucinations, at least they are consistent auditory hallucinations. :biggrin: (To be abundantly clear, I don't think they are hallucinations.)

I guess the key takeaway is start looking for places to insert silver into your signal path.

villian · April 2014

heiney9 wrote: »

villian wrote: »

Likewise, I believe that a listener (Trained or not) experiencing a Placebo Effect would actually hear something. But, just because they hear it, doesn't make it real.

That has to be the dumbest statement about audio I have ever read. Seriously, reread what you wrote. What a retarded thing to say. That's sig material right there.
H9

I was talking about the human brain and the Placebo Effect...

If you don't understand that then maybe you should Google it. Goes to show just how much ignorance there is on this board regarding the Placebo Effect...

BlueFox · April 2014

villian wrote: »

I was talking about the human brain and the Placebo Effect...

If you don't understand that then maybe you should Google it. Goes to show just how much ignorance there is on this board regarding the Placebo Effect...

You are correct about your ignorance. There is no placebo effect for listening to music after changing a component. Only those not knowing what they are talking about use ignorant psuedo-science nonsense to rationalize their trolling.

nspindel · April 2014

afim.413chan.net_fim_src_134424136054_dont_feed_the_troll.jpg

drumminman · April 2014

nspindel wrote: »

Agreed, all possible ground has been covered in this thread. Let it die . . .

F1nut · April 2014

I could see the troll standing in front of a mirror pondering, is it me or the placebo effect?

teekay0007 · April 2014

I sometimes forget that most of these "discussions" and "debates" are only for those who agree with some of you and your points of view. Everyone else is just a troll! How silly.

I'm far from ignorant, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why so many of you are so very dead set against picking which jumper or speaker cable sounds the best to your own ears in your own home in your own rig unless you know which one is in place for each listening session. All I can come up with is that you're afraid that that "upgrade" that you just made with its huge price tag would not have been the one you would have preferred without that information. COMMON SENSE tells me that I can listen to some of my own music that I've heard a gazillion times before and compare it to repeated samples with a simple change out of jumpers/cables and pick out the one that sounds best TO ME, even without knowing which piece of wire is in play. The day I'll accept the notion that I need to be educated and trained on how to listen to what I like to hear in my music, so I will know which one of several samples I enjoy more, or can tell which one is "actually" better, is a day that will never come.

Mr. Bubbles · April 2014

villian wrote: »

I was talking about the human brain and the Placebo Effect...

If you don't understand that then maybe you should Google it. Goes to show just how much ignorance there is on this board regarding the Placebo Effect...

Man just give it up. I can easily see that tohers are picking and chooseing your words to argue over things you say but not the point you are making. There is not just ignorence surrounding the placebo effect, but there is also a lot of good knowledge on other details. many of the members have been here for a long time and if you have not fit in with them you will be the troll. just accept it for what it is and agree to disagree and move on. It will not end. The male ego is a fragile thing and bashing for the humor of friends is seemingly ingrained in the male psychie. I get what i think is your main point and agree but also see where it is unimportant to someone elses system but your own, or my own, their own, etc. We each must only be happy with our own system for whatever reasons we are happy with them; sonicly, visually, monetary, etc.

Just give it up and stop the measuring. I just measured and I think mine is the biggest anyway.

DarqueKnight · April 2014

Mr. Bubbles wrote: »

My thought would be like Face; no jumper should be better; 1 less item/ point to introduce any artifacts.

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

It sounds like DK's setup is the amp connected to the LF posts which are jumpered with silver wire into HF posts, and that sounds better than wiring HF and LF to the same signal input directly. That is super counter-intuitive, but who knows... it seems like people generally characterize silver as sharpening highs at the potential expense of deadening the lows, so this would seem to be a particularly good application for sliver jumpers.

It does seem counter-intuitive that a jumpered connection might sound better than a directly soldered one. However, there is more to wire than just the wire. Wire can be milled in one direction and have better conductivity and lower noise in one direction than the other. Since most of the current travels on the surface of a conductor, polishing the surface can also reduce noise. The type of insulation used also has an effect on noise performance. Insulation has dielectric properties and can absorb and release energy into the signal. Termination quality is a commonly overlooked and vital component in cable noise reduction. Soldered connections are electrically noisier than pressure welded connections. Solid core litz wire exhibits less noise than stranded wire due to the absence of strand interaction.

In my case, I replaced a stranded wire, soldered connection between HF and LF binding posts with a solid core wire, non-soldered connection.

On3s&Z3r0s wrote: »

I recently re-read another of DK's posts from a while back saying that using a silver lead (from a Dueland resistor, I think) as a jumper on a crossover PCB made a noticeable improvement over a tinned copper jumper. So, if these are auditory hallucinations, at least they are consistent auditory hallucinations. :biggrin: (To be abundantly clear, I don't think they are hallucinations.)

I guess the key takeaway is start looking for places to insert silver into your signal path.

I caution against a blanket statement that a cable made of silver is always better than one made of copper. I have heard some unpleasant sounding silver cables. Silver is 5% more conductive than copper, but silver's conductivity advantage can be met by making a copper conductor 5% bigger. Again, attention must be paid to how a cable is constructed and terminated rather than just focusing on the type of metal conductor material.

DarqueKnight · April 2014

teekay0007 wrote: »

I sometimes forget that most of these "discussions" and "debates" are only for those who agree with some of you and your points of view. Everyone else is just a troll! How silly.

I always welcome different viewpoints, provided they are based on reason.

teekay0007 wrote: »

I'm far from ignorant, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why so many of you are so very dead set against picking which jumper or speaker cable sounds the best to your own ears in your own home in your own rig unless you know which one is in place for each listening session. All I can come up with is that you're afraid that that "upgrade" that you just made with its huge price tag would not have been the one you would have preferred without that information.

For the life of me, I can't get anyone in the DBT/Null Test crowd to explain why blind tests should be used for scenarios for which they were not designed. I also can't get anyone to explain why, since bias are such powerful mindbenders, the concept of the "debiased consumer" is an established research topic in the field of economics.

teekay0007 wrote: »

COMMON SENSE tells me that I can listen to some of my own music that I've heard a gazillion times before and compare it to repeated samples with a simple change out of jumpers/cables and pick out the one that sounds best TO ME, even without knowing which piece of wire is in play. The day I'll accept the notion that I need to be educated and trained on how to listen to what I like to hear in my music, so I will know which one of several samples I enjoy more, or can tell which one is "actually" better, is a day that will never come.

I thought that one aspect of "training" was doing something over and over again until you become proficient at it. Haven't your ears become trained by listening to the same music over and over again? You don't have to go to a formal school to become an expert marksman. You can just buy a gun, go to a safe area and practice shooting.

You are not one of those people who thinks training and education can only occur in a classroom are you?

Since you are so adept at picking out sonic changes in your system, are you saying that if you knew which cable or jumper you were listening to, your gazillion hours of listening experience would be nullified? Are you saying that you would be unduly influenced by the price, brand and appearance of an item and that those things, rather than what you hear, would have more influence on your performance evaluation?

If I put in one cable and hear the percussion two feet to the right of the right speaker, then with another cable the percussion is directly in front of the right speaker, how is knowing which cable is in use going to influence my spatial perception?

If I put in one cable and hear more sustain and decay on piano notes, then with another cable the sustain and decay is truncated, how is knowing which cable is in use going to influence my ability to hear harmonics and fine detail?

Hermitism · April 2014

I have a question before this thread dies. So many of these threads have reviews and observations based on having a "trained ear". I fully admit before joining this forum that I had no idea that you could actually hear the sound stage if you sit still and just concentrate on the music. I've taken advice from this forum; i.e., speaker placement, trying different speaker cables, acoustic panels, applying Dynamat and I am able to hear a difference. But how does one go about training their ears to hear the subtle difference that a lot of you speak of? I'm sure a lot of you that have been in this hobby for years can pick out changes in sound that I would not be able to. How did you get to that point to where you can pick up on "slight" changes? This might be why some people say that cables don't matter, because they don't know how to listen. It was never the norm for me to sit still while listening to music, it was more like background music, until I joined here. Is it just that some people have more sensitive hearing than others or is there a way to actually learn how to pick up on the most subtle changes in music?

Moose68Bash · April 2014

Hermitism wrote: »

I have a question before this thread dies. So many of these threads have reviews and observations based on having a "trained ear". I fully admit before joining this forum that I had no idea that you could actually hear the sound stage if you sit still and just concentrate on the music. I've taken advice from this forum; i.e., speaker placement, trying different speaker cables, acoustic panels, applying Dynamat and I am able to hear a difference. But how does one go about training their ears to hear the subtle difference that a lot of you speak of? I'm sure a lot of you that have been in this hobby for years can pick out changes in sound that I would not be able to. How did you get to that point to where you can pick up on "slight" changes? This might be why some people say that cables don't matter, because they don't know how to listen. It was never the norm for me to sit still while listening to music, it was more like background music, until I joined here. Is it just that some people have more sensitive hearing than others or is there a way to actually learn how to pick up on the most subtle changes in music?

Like most -- no ALL - of DK's threads, this one provokes thought and helps educate us all -- except those who do not care to learn.

I've been reading this thread since its inception, nd I've learned a lot. I've also been ruminating over a point very similar to the one Hermitism raises and which DK has noted time and again in this thread -- people can learn to listen. Those of us who want to talk intelligently about our subjective listening experiences must learn not only to listen critically, but also to describe what we hear in terms that communicate effectively with others. In other words, we need a "critical vocabulary" that we all understand and share. This becomes the subjective equivalent of the kinds of empirical data that DK uses and present so effectively to explain and justify his analyses. He also is a master of both critical listening and critical writing about what he hears subjectively. A lot of the nonsense that he so patiently rebuts -- in the manner of a master teacher -- reflects his ability to express his analyses in his threads.

My education is in criticism of English literature, and while I was teaching and writing about literature, I struggled to develop a vocabulary to convey my critical approach to others interested in the theory and criticism of prose fiction. since turning to this hobby, I've been struggling to learn and apply a critical vocabulary to my listening experiences so that I can convey them intelligibly to my colleagues on this forum. Criticism of music or any subject is an "interactive" process -- that is, you observe something that you must find terms to describe; then, after you learn terms to describe phenomena, you are able to discern them, even though they were there all the time.

I hope this is not too confusing, and I am not trying to hijack DK's remarkable thread. If that is what this appears to be, I apologize, and please ignore this rambling. With that said, I would like to lay out for discussion and comment a rough cut at some structure and vocabulary for characterizing our listening experiences.These are outlined in "Categories" (1-4) and "Characteristics" within categories (a-x).

1. Dynamics
a. Speed of transients
b. Delivery of Transients without Loss of Definition Regardless of Source e.g., Solo, Ensemble,
Full Orchestra and Regardless of Volume Level
c. Impression of Strain (or Absence of Strain) with Challenging Passages
d. Handling of Reproduction across Full Frequency Range

2. Definition
a. Voices of different sources (vocals, instruments) are clear and distinct
b. Modulations of sources are clear and distinct
c. Realism and verisimilitude of rendering
d. Complexity of source accurately reproduced

3. Timbre
a. Richness
b. Coherence
c. Neutrality (Naturalness/Accuracy/Without Coloration)
d. Nuanced
e. Clarity

4. Spatialization
a. Image
b. Size, Dimensions, Three-Dimensionality
c. Placement of Sources of Sound within Image
d. Precision Compared to Live Performance
e. Stability
f. Openness and Airiness (separation of sources on sound stage)

Five Speaker Jumper Comparisons For The SDA SRS 1.2TL

Comments