Prana-Bindu

Using the chosen test system, the various units we seek to measure (soundstage, detail, stability, noise, etc.) can be identified using a signal specifically designed to show each unit through a well discernible range. For example, use digital signal processing to alter the size of the soundstage on a test signal prior to the listening test for soundstage size. In other words, use a signal that clearly shows a narrow soundstage and follow it with a signal clearly showing a much bigger soundstage. Then explain to the subject the difference he/she just heard: "that's what we mean by soundstage width, got it? Now listen for that in the following test...." That would probably suffice. If we get this thread longer than that obnoxious "All your base are belong to us" thread, we can all be proud. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

The test should ask the right questions. I'm not comfortable with just asking "Do you notice any differences?" or "What is different about this sound than the last you heard?". The differences cables make are too subtle and require a practiced ear to hear: transients, soundstage, background noise, dynamics, etc. The questions should be more like "How do the transients compare?" and "Is there a difference in the decay times?" and "How do the widths of soundstages compare?" and "Is there a difference in low-level detail?". Otherwise, it would be too easy to ignore such details and to notice no difference. Also, all cable should probably be terminated with banana plugs, to speed up the waiting intervals. Why would the ignorance of the person administering the test make any difference in a cable comparison test? As long as they shut up about it and sometimes pretended to switch cables without actually switching (listener blindfolded), the test should be sufficiently bias-proof, right? Maybe next time people make the pilgrimage to Hope, Arkansas, Klipsch would be willing to host such a test? There may be other factors that make the test more difficult. For example, what if some component combinations aren't that sensitive to cable switches? I have read that the Audio Refinement Complete is very sensitive to cable choice.... The room would have to be set up so as not to get in the way, etc. It's already too much to think about. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

To prevent this hopeless discussion from being drowned out by all this friendly, conciliatory language, please consider this approach: What measurements is the Scientific Method Society waiting for before they'll admit that cables make an audible difference? It appears that these slide-ruler types want some kind of proof before they'll concede that cables can make an difference. The differences of which we speak are already presented by Believers in the language of sensory perception: "quieter background", "sharper imaging", "tighter bass", "faster dynamics", "smeared transients", etc. What kind of vocabulary do the white-lab-coat types require? What's the measurement(s) that is/are associated with a lower or higher noise floor? What electric phenomena are associated with well-defined transients? If we answer these questions, we'll be closer to the kind of certainty required by these math geeks. How do the engineers here describe the smearing of transietns in numbers and variables? Would any of you be able to read and understand a mathematical exegesis of variance in cable performance (as originally set forth in the language of sense-perception)? I know I wouldn't last two equations.... If you WOULDN'T understand a mathematical proof, why do you demand one? At some point, you have to place faith on one kind of vocabulary or another. It may still be a debate whether wires are just wires, but faith IS faith IS certainty. And yes, faith IS improved/maintained by practice (that's one of the reasons churchies still have to go to church). Let the belittling begin!! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I love you guys.... No, really. Ahh the old "I have my side, you have your side" dialectic. The drawing of lines between sides does not help our effort to reach agreement on an issue; it merely provides an artificial barrier between sets of information that hinders the process of understanding. Why can't we all just get along? I suspect a group of my trained and practiced listeners are never going to get together, design a valid test, and put an end to this controversy. Do you realize how many such folks it would take to satisfy the society of scientific method? How often do you get that many audio dudes together, and how would you know that each participant indeed could detect the minutae at issue? You'd end up testing a bunch of fellers that all claim to be able to hear the difference between cables.... Again, such a test would be severely flawed. I can certainly understand why one would be capable of calling the differences between cables "obvious". When I first got my RF-3's, I couldn't identify one flaw; they were the shizznat and they rocked my p**per. After a couple of years of listening, though, the difference and lack of coherence between the sounds coming out of the horns and those coming out of the cones is plain as the day is long. It took a while to get from perfect sound to kind of annoying. I still think perfect pitch can be learned with practice. (barring deaf ears or one-sided conviction, of course) And I sincerely believe that cable differences can be noticed with extended observation. And once you see it, you'll always see it (just like Waldo). Keep tryin' little buckaroo, bless your heart, you'll get there.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Any such test is likely quite flawed: if you're not familiar with the subtle differences cables are supposed to make, of course the cables are gonna sound the same. In other words, if you're not familiar with the way a bike reacts to a bump, an air/oil shock will feel the same way as an elastomer bumper shock. If you're not familiar with Sean Young's face (oh god help me), you're not gonna notice that she's wearing different colored lipstick (it was red before, it's red again). The problem of confirming the difference at issue is that you almost have to be familiar with the difference before you set out to confirm it. I want to see tests involving participants who have been listening to high-end audio equipment for a long time. I'm sure all tests done so far involve homeless half-wits hired right off the street.... Practice makes perfect, but practice makes perfect. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... This message has been edited by Prana-Bindu on 01-18-2002 at 06:36 PM

With some tweaking, you could bi-amp: one amp for the highs and mids, the other for the lows. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

What I can't fathom is that opponents of the idea that cables make an audible difference tend to presume that the burden of proof in this issue belongs to those who assert that a difference can be heard. So equality is the default? Please! Equality is only found in mathematics. Otherwise, it is a convenient tool used to make conversation easier. If you put me on a mountain bike with air/oil suspension, I would not be able to tell the difference between that bike and one with elastomer bumper suspension. Make me ride those bikes over rough terrain every day for a year, and I'll write pages on the amazing differences. Slap some crimson lipstick on Sean Young one day and scarlet lipstick the next, I will not notice a difference. Make me marry the woman, and after a few months it'll be the first thing I notice. By the way, Ms. Young, if you're reading this: will you marry me? What is so difficult to understand about this progression? P.S. - since I CAN'T STAND not having the last word - I still don't know any skill or activity that does not improve with practice. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Interesting.... Using the definition you provided, please provide an example of something spontaneous. An example of a skill or activity arising without apparent external cause and that does not improve with practice? A skill or activity arising from a natural inclination or impulse that does not improve with practice? A skill or activity unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior that does not improve with practice? A skill or activity that grows without cultivation or human labor (practice)? I think the problem is that spontenaity is not a skill or activity, as much as it is a quality. Maybe? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... This message has been edited by Prana-Bindu on 01-16-2002 at 09:51 PM

I disagree: spontaneity seems to be a function of creativity and timing, two skills actors must hone with practice. Look at that comedy show -- I think it's called "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" -- all those little games they play were originally made to exercise the performer's sense of timing and creativity. Somebody just got the bright idea of putting such funny practice sessions on the air. We are creatures of habit, my friends. Excellent try, anyhow. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I'm hard-pressed to name one single skill/activity that does not improve with practice.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

For those who think that we (hairless monkeys) know all there is to know about how electricity works, do a little search for recently declassified Navy research on a quantum phenomenon called phononic energy. Research was driven by efforts to improve passive radar systems. Electronic noise is the biggest problem faced by passive radar. Onward hairless monkeys, marching as to war.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Marble rocks!!!!! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Yes, the hissing seems exactly the same in each channel. Driving RF-3's, but seriously considering moving away from speakers using both horns and cones. Thanks for the diagnosis. I shall ask what exactly was done at the factory when I make a claim under the warranty. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Thanks for the help, t. I'm going to contact the manufacturer immediately. Warranties wrock! Does lowering the efficiency or sensitivity of one's speakers (like from 98 db/w/m to 92) lower the noise floor? If you add power to make up the loss in dynamics, etc., does that eliminate any benefit from lower efficiency or sensitivity? I need to find a very patient audio dealer.... By the way, does anyone know how low the Jubilee is gonna go? Thanks again. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Hello all y'all! A problem with my system is bugging me more and more: I had some warranty work done on my VTL IT-85 integrated amp (tubes) a few months ago, because the remote would not work (it was the amp itself). When I got it back, my dealer told me they had also upgraded some of the components. Well, I think they turned up the gain or something comparable, because the hissing noise floor was increased quite a bit. I didn't complain before, because listening to music was never compromised by the hissing noise. As I've been listenting lately at lower volumes, the hissing has become a real problem. I can hear it in the room with no effort, and the volume or character of the hiss does not change when I adjust the volume. The RF-3's don't make the hissing noise when I switch to headphone operation on the amp, and the choice of source seems to make no difference. In other words, it's coming from my amp. Any suggestions beyond contacting the manufacturer? Will improperly biased tubes raise the noise floor? Old tubes? What gives? Thanks for the beta, people. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

In all my drivel, I forgot to mention that some manufacturers have attempted to resolve the S/PDIF jitter issue by synching up their DAC's and transport's clocks somehow, without the use of a unique interface. I don't know how successful they have been. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Dude! You've got an excellent player!! The MCD is one of the two or three multi disc players out there that has ever been compared to single disc players. As I understand it, the DAC in your player is very high quality. In fact, some reviewers have contemplated the idea of using the MCD as an outboard DAC for other digital transports. In other words, it sounds to me like you'd have to make a huge upgrade to hear a difference big enough to justify giving up the convenience of multi-disc playback. Another warning: the addition of a separate DAC will likely result in some loss of quality from digital jitter (smeared transients, unstable soundstage, compromised imaging). A single-disc player doesn't suffer from the same source of jitter as digital separates, because the transfer of info from transport to DAC does not involve S/PDIF encoding. If your transport uses S/PDIF outputs (optical, coaxial, just about all currently popular outs) timing error will be introduced by the S/PDIF encoding that the transport does before sending off the data for the DAC to reconstruct. Some manufacturers have addressed the jitter problem with new interfaces that don't burn the clock info into the raw data (what happens in S/PDIF encoding). This way, the DAC can just calibrate it's clock to the transport clock without having to decode it from the S/PDIF signal (containing both sets of info with any transport timing error burned into the one signal). There are a few iterations of the I2S (I squared S) interface out there, and I think Muse may have developed it's own version of it, so the interface that resolves the separates jitter problem has not been universalized yet. Some are working for a better interface that allows the DAC's clock to be master to the transport clock by feeding its time info back into the transport to calibrate the transport's encoding processes (whatever those may be outside of S/PDIF encoding). I would wait until the interface issue was resolved before making such a necessarily huge upgrade. Like I said, you've got a great CD player. I won't be able to wait, because I learned about all this nonsense after I purchased my Perpetual Technologies P-3A DAC, in contemplation of ultimately incorporating a 5-pin I2S compatible transport and the P-1A Resolution Enhancement unit. I won't get the DAC's clock to act as master, but I'll have removed the biggest source of jitter inherent in running separates. Keep the Arcam, young bruh.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Stereo West in Omaha, Nebraska was recently advertising RF-3II's for under $400 (U.S.). ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Just speculating here, but I would think that the speed of a horn or woofer is a measure of the time it takes for either to get the wave started on its way to our ears from the moment of first vibration. I don't know anything about how speakers work, but I am under the impression that the horn uses some kind of vibrating diaphragm at the beginning of the throat and the shape of the horn amplifies the small vibrations of that teeny tiny diaphragm (through resonance like blowing air over the mouth of a bottle?). In a woofer, on the other hand, the diaphragm is on its own and uses no resonance or anything else other than itself to add volume to the sound. It makes sense, in such a description, that a horn would be faster, because it would be easier to move the teeny tiny diaphragm than the 8-15" diaphragms of typical woofers. In other words, the teeny tiny diaphragm does not have to have the kind of spacial extension a woofer has to have to make the same wave. Of course, I may have just woven a nice little fairy tale out of my total ignorance of speaker technology.... We all need to be careful in how we use the word "subjective". Every and any thing we can talk about is rooted in some kind of perception (be it sense perception or some kind of basic propositional attitude); in that sense, everything is subjective insofar as it involves the interaction of a subject and an object. But the use I see here seems to be a criticism of statements made without the participation of the vocabulary of science; as if statements that don't cohere with a particular vocabulary are automatically useless. So, which sciences have enough clout to make therewith coherent statements meaningful? Does geography count? What about psychology? Phrenology? Psychoacoustics? Quantum physics? Entomology? You're asking us to ignore perceived differences because they cannot be expressed in terms commonly used by dudes in white lab coats. It would be great if we could speak about the different speeds of speakers using words like "resonance" or "density" or "pressure" or "work" or "friction". Just because we don't seem to be able to do so doesn't make it meaningless to use other vocabularies that seem to cohere with the perception. Just trying to keep us all honest, kids. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

It's all subjective unless you can prove it? That's like saying, "It's all nacho cheese sauce unless you can prove that it's anything else." Why does a perceived object HAVE to be labeled as varying in itself from interaction with subject to subject if there is no description of the object available in the vocabulary of proof? Presumptuous.... Solipsism, eh? I've noticed a difference in the dynamic capabilities of the tweeters in my RF-3's and their woofers. At this point, in fact, I consider that difference to be the weakest link in my system (besides the room problems). I totally love the forward sound of horns for much of my favorite music, but I can't stand the marriage of horns and woofers in my RF-3's. Perhaps the addition of a midrange horn will solve many of my problems, but the difference is most apparent in the lower octaves that my RF-3's can reach. I would love to stick with horns if I could get adequate (read: linear down to the lowest music usually reaches) low frequency extension, but it seems that the project of getting that kind of extension from bass horns requires some architectural commitments (corner horns or huge rooms for huge horns). I wish I could make such commitments. Unless y'all can keep me in the fold, I suspect I'll be going for some woofers when the upgrade comes along. Maybe some Aerial Acoustics 7's with their primo sub even further down the road? Sorry dudes, but the difference is too apparent to ignore. I am, however, planning on getting the Perpetual Technologies P-1A digital correction engine sometime in the not too distant future. The unit offers speaker correction algorithms as well. I wonder if such their algorithm would correct the speed discrepancies? Hmmmm.... Of course, I've read of people identifying more than speed differences between horns and woofers. I think I'm only hearing speed differences right now, but I'd like to know more about other differences. Are they tonal? what does "tonal" mean? are there huge differences in decay time? what else is there? All help is appreciated greatly. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Thanks for the info, Ray. Does anyone know whether Klipsch speakers are voiced with spikes on? It would be great to have every detail of the voicing process: room size, treatments, associated equipment, etc. Choices like diffusion vs. absorption in room treatments may be easier to make with such information. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I heard that Mark Levinson is getting into the car audio gig. I can just see it: How much did your car cost dude? $50K. And your kickin' car stereo? $50K. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I suspect that whatever differences cables make are not measurable in units available on any available "meters". The differences reported cannot be more than subtle, but important when listening attentively for things like imaging clarity, low-level detail, background darkness, soundstage qualities and ants farting. The differences between cables seem to be described as differences in the way they color the music. By the way, I don't buy the whole schpeal about the goal of audiophilia being to remove the colorations of equipment that are added to the recording: a recording is silent without a minimum of hardware to hear it; the only reference sound is the one we name as such. The goal of audiophilia is to throw tons of money at equipment and fret about whether it was the right equipment until you throw more money at more equipment. This character of the cable differences seems to be what makes it difficult to come up with the "controlled, verifiable and repeatable listening test" to which Kevin referred. If Joe Schmoe identifies differences between certain cables, we'd probably have to run the same test with the same equipment, room, AC, etc. to hear what Joe heard. That's not so easy to do when most published comparisons involve hard-core (read: expensive) equipment and many pieces to have to match; not to mention room and power qualities (or tidal forces at work) not easy to duplicate. The only way you're gonna feel comfortable about the issue of cables is to assume they make a difference and worry about which cable you would like best. It's easier on the psyche than worrying about whether or not cables actually make a difference.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I can definitely understand the power of the convenience and options that come with running multi-disc players. In my search for digital upgrades, I started by looking at multi-disc players, but I wanted to hear cd's like I heard them through some nice single-disc players (Arcam stuff, e.g.). Though my original purpose was to reach a higher level of detail, dynamic range and darkness behind the music, I couldn't swallow giving up the ability to play six discs on random. I can only imagine the features your digital system must have, Soundog.... However, I see my musical interests placing a higher value on high fidelity and 2-channel lovelies like imaging, soundstage, "airiness", etc. the more I get into this crap. Such musical qualities vary from digital system to digital system (I suspect) in very subtle ways. My tastes are going in a direction that makes those differences very valuable. For example, the things the P-3A is doing to stuff like Sarah McLaughlin (spelling?), Cowboy Junkies, and (believe it or not) Guided by Voices are so wonderful, I can hardly wait to add the P-1A's influence; however, the things it's done to Jane's Addiction, Soundgarden, Butthole Surfers and Guided by Voices (heh, heh -- their harder stuff, I mean) I don't believe complement the music as well as they do the other music mentioned. Of course, the problem may be that the P-3A has brought such dynamic music to the limits of my RF-3's and VTL integrated amp (the horns seem more dynamic than the woofers, and the amp may not have the juice to keep up). I still don't understand why an s/pdif cable like Toslink or coaxial wire HAS to carry a clocked signal. Why can't the output be modified to carry only the disc data bit-by-bit for the DAC/P-1A/whatever to clock first? All that I read states that the reduction of jitter resulting from avoiding the marriage between the clock signal and the data stream inherent in s/pdif makes a big difference (relatively, of course). "Why clock it all all in the transport?" says I.... Nevertheless, I'm encouraged to get a transport with I2S output: I want to maximize my CD's content with the stuff added by the P-1A, the P-1A has a I2S input, I value highly the benefits of reduced jitter, s/pdif encoding is identified a major source of jitter. I sure hope SACD's end up victorious in the pending battle. Of course, my hope is not coupled with the financial commitment to start buying SACD's and players (rainy day supporter, I guess).... I've read that SACD is better suited to reach 192khz sampling than DVD-A. And isn't DVD-A made for multi-channel music anyway? The only-apparent problems associated with getting multi-channel music right are enough to hope the idea never gets anywhere near off the ground. It looks like Shannon Dickson is discussing only two versions of the I2S Enhanced interface: the one invented by Sonic Frontiers and the original 13W3 cable version (such cable has been used extensively by the computer industry). The Perpetual Technologies doesn't use either of these two; it uses a 5-pin mini-DIN interface, whereas the 13W3-I2S interface uses a thin, wide termination with like 10 pins (I think). The difference appears to be that both I2S-E and 13W3-I2S allow the use of the DAC clock as the master clock (forcing the transport to clock to be the one fed into it by the DAC), but the PTech mini-DIN doesn't allow for the DAC clock to be sent back to the transport. I don't think there are any transports that take advantage of the DAC's clock (Level 1 performance) at this point. The only possibility for jitter that I see in I2S Level II performance (DAC's clock is slave to transport's clock), is in the fact that the DAC would have to synchronize it's clock to the transport's clock; the idea being that this synchronization would end up being imperfect, since the clock cycles that we're talking about are as close as you can get to infinitesimal. Even so, however, what difference would it make to have the transport clock be slave to the DAC clock if the same synchronization has to occur at the transport clock (with some kind of phase lock loop, I think). I know Spider knows quite a bit about this clock issue. Where is he? Nobody knows who you are.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

You know an issue has been beaten into the ground when you end up with quantum uncertainty. The cable issue is so old.... I recently read about a phenomenon called phononic energy, created by electrons colliding with certain crystalline matrices on their way along a conductor. It is some kind of quantum resonance (wave) that behaves like a particle. It's created by electricity, but it travels at the speed of sound, and it's supposed to be converted back into electricty a points of changing impedence. This is where we get to the added noise to the music signal.... And you thought talking about cables was frustrating? There's this dude named Bybee that has developed these filters from recently released military technology. I guess they used the technology for passive sonar, where electronic noise is the worst enemy. I learned about the phonon crap at Dan Wright's Web Page while waiting for my modified P-3A to arrive. Sorry: had to brag. There's nothing like audiophilia to keep you in that mineral despair so crucial to survival.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....