Prana-Bindu

Perhaps the difference would be likelier to be considered better by most of us if the speakers are voiced with that kind of coupling in place? What does it mean to "voice" a speaker anyway? I was just pretending to know what that means when I asked the above.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Soundog: My Onkyo Integra cd carousel only has a Toslink output. As I understand it, the P-1A does not have a Toslink input. No matter what, I'll want to take advantage of the I2S format to link the digital components: the jitter reduction inherent in the separation of the clock info from the music data appears to be worth it. However, I wish Perpetual Technologies supported the I2S Enhanced format, because the regular I2S format does not appear to support what is referred to as Level 1 performance (where the clock in the unit receiving the signal from the transport is fed back to the transport to use as its clock). Communications with the dudes at PTech indicate that they intend to come out with a transport in the far future. Hopefully they will also issue an upgrade to feed the P-3A's clock back to the transport (right...). It's not gonna be that big of a deal until I have a total system revealing enough to make it an issue, but I'd like to be future-proof with CD's. My understanding of how the clocks work in the digital domain is very limited, but I'll try anyway. As I understand it, the transport mechanism has to send a clocked signal to the DAC, because the transport itself performs some kind of encoding before it sends the signal to the DAC. So, if the original analog signal was converted to digital at a sampling rate of 44.1khz with 16-bit words, the transport has to encode those 44,100 16-bit words every second at the same time as those words were created to begin with in the analog to digital conversion. This is a source of timing error (jitter), I believe, but not the biggest source. It's a source of error, because it's difficult to make a clock that is THAT accurate. As I understand it, a timing error of 100 picoseconds is audible; 100 picoseconds is the time it takes light to travel about one inch. If it's tough to make a clock that ticks off whole seconds to an accuracy of better than a few seconds per year, what would it be like to make a clock that's accurate to 100 picoseconds every second or nanosecond even? If the transport signal has to be converted into s/pdif format to send to the DAC, the data becomes "stamped" or burned into the transport's clock information. In such a situation, the DAC has to reconstruct the clock from the s/pdif signal by making certain assumptions about how many bits are supposed to be in one clock unit, but which may not be correct due to the timing errors of the transport clock. In other words, the DAC may presume that there are supposed to be so many bits in one clock cycle, but error has actually lengthened or shortened the amount of bits included in an s/pdif clock cycle designation. I2S is supposed to solve the damage done by s/pdif encoding by keeping the clock information separate from the data, so the data is not crammed into the transport clock's time divisions. Instead the DAC takes the clock info and applies it to the data (much like a cookie cutter) for a second time around. The trick is that the second application of clock data (done by the DAC) uses the clock data of the transport, so it is less likely to introduce its own timing error. However, if that is the case, why would it be that important to have the transport clock act as slave to the DAC clock when the same amount of error seems to be avoided by the DAC clock acting as slave to the transport clock? Maybe the various levels of encoding of cd information make the DAC clock less susceptible to jitter? Anyway, that's how I understand it. Any corrections would certainly be appreciated. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

As I understand the matter, the only enemy digital playback has is timing errors. Of course, the sample rate and bit-length of a particular medium seem to make a difference too (cd vs. sacd), but that's not a deficiency we can address very easily (unless you're soundog, with his fancy-schmancy Perpetual Techonologies P-1A digital correction engine that interpolates upsampled signals with info more useful than dither). However, the errors in the timing of digital to analog conversion and in other digital signal processing events has been touted as being the biggest boundary between digital and analog sound. I don't have any listening experience with these timing errors (yet -- I have the P-3A, soundog; the P-1A will come when I can upgrade transport), but the explanations make sense. If the digital to analog conversion does not occur in the same time context as the conversion from analog to digital, then you have the right note being played at the wrong time. As most musicians will tell you (I'm also not a musician), the right note at the wrong time is the wrong note. However, I don't see how digital copies of digital media could possibly introduce timing errors. AFter all, there is no clock at work when a cd is copied to a cd-r, right? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Meaning is use. The more that is said about a paticular subject, the more meaningful it becomes; more vocabulary surrounding the subject, more meaningful it becomes. One of the various tests for truth used by us hairless monkeys is coherence of the statement being tested with other statements we consider true. Certain types of statements are considered more true than others, especially those that have enjoyed uncontroversial use throughout long periods of time (this is an observed phenomenon: the language of science vs. the language of literary criticism, for example; or the language of Peter Jennings vs. the language of anyone at Fox News, as another good example). The more that statements like "speaker cables make a difference in the perceived sound" are used successfully in the language of science or Peter Jennings, the more truth such statements acquire. TBrennan: it was not my intention to guide easyeyes through the gauntlet of verification (another popular test for truth). Rather, it was to counter the point, made by you, that easyeyes' observation "doesn't signify much." It signifies quite a bit. We can all feel a lot more comfortable about saying "speaker cables make a difference" when that statement coheres with other statements, such as with those arising from the language of science and Peter Jennings. But that doesn't mean that the statement is useless until science and Peter Jennings make it. I do indeed feel that room conditions affect the sound (more than speaker cables, obviously), but the kind of difference noted by easyeyes would not easily be attributable to room conditions if he was running the old cable on both speakers before he switched the one speaker cable with fancy-shmancy wire (which is what appears to be going on here). The only change to the system identified by easyeyes (we trust him to tell us all, don't we kids?) is the one speaker cable. Kevin: just because easyeyes didn't run his observations through all the tests that you demand from folks for them to have the invitation to share them doesn't make them useless (meaningless). I, too, dabble in tests for truth, but I hope I won't thereby fool myself into thinking that the tests I adopt will ever suffice for certainty; we all (including the dudes in the white lab coats) draw a line between comfy language and non-comfy language. I feel comfy with the language used by easyeyes, but I'm pretty damned lazy.... If I wanted to chase certainty, I would HAVE to take tidal forces and EVERYTHING into account (our perception is definitely affected by memory associations with things like clothes, smells, tastes, gastric cycles, etc. -- for example, if you study for a test while you're high, you should take the test high as well, while wearing the same clothes in which you studied). After all, you don't know that tidal forces don't affect speaker performance until you KNOW that tidal forces don't affect speaker performance.... I'm sorry if I was too derisive in my criticism. I love all y'all, because you have to read my drivel if you want to participate in this neverending dispute. Despite my regret, I feel horrible about omitting the Comfy Chair. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Indeed, spikes are supposed to reduce the amount of vibration traveling into the speaker cabinets. They are supposed to improve performance by reducing the amount of unintended vibrations moving the diaphragms on the speakers or whatever part of the speaker vibrates to make the sound. All speakers vibrate in some way to create the air vibrations that make up sound. Constructive and destructive interference from cabinet vibrations can change the vibrations of the speakers' moving parts and I think can also affect the resonance that contributes to the sound in the speaker cabinets. If you squint your eyes real hard, every component of a stereo system is basically a controlled vibration maker/conductor.... Also, spikes look really hard-core high-tech under speakers, impressing all your non-audiofreak friends. Just don't start talking about it, because that will just elicit yawns and obviously feigned attempts at attention. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Yeah, dude: whatever difference you heard is unreliable. You need to be sure everything in the room is symmetrical, that the line perpendicular and equally dividing the line between the two speakers lines up exactly with the center of gravity of the tidal forces at work in your particular geographic locality, that you use the same ear to listen to the difference, that you're wearing the same clothes, eat the same meals, crap at the exact same times and that you freeze time to prevent ear and other equipment aging during the conduct of the test. No one expects the Scientific Method!! After all, just because 1+1 appears to equal 2, doesn't mean that 1+1=2.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I just don't buy the whole schpeal about the goal of our efforts being the original recording. What is the original recording? Is it what the sound engineer heard in the booth while the whole band was playing all at once? Not likely. Was it what he/she heard after all the mixing was done through the studio monitors? If it sounds different through different monitors, then we're back to searching for the "true" recording. Truth is for suckers, kids. "What about live events?" you say. Well, in what venue? sitting where? with all the people there snorting, sneezing, coughing, farting, smoking and clearing their throats? No thanks. There is no such thing as the original recording without the facticity of a means by which it is played back. Some playback systems sound smooth and silky, but lack the dynamics and forward presentation of a live kick drum; other systems keep up with your enthusiasm but don't seduce you with smoky sweetness. There doesn't appear to be a "reference" sound out there at all. Of course, I haven't heard systems that would encompass my net worth with just the amp section, but no one out there seems satisfied that they've heard a system that can do it all as well as all of it can be done. If one claims that the goal of the gear is to reproduce the music faithfully, I'd like to hear from him/her what music exactly is he/she talking about? The stuff heard in the recording studio? On the front center seat of the auditorium? The stuff you hear just looking at the cd? What? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Ray, as always, you rock! It's helpful to know that the I2S-E design is still new. I wish Shannon had made it clear whether the standard I2S design supported Level 1 operation (using the transport as a slave to the DAC's master clock). However, I believe the P-1A has to reclock the signal anyway when it converts and interpolates into 24/96, so perhaps it's a non-issue for me. I'll do a search under 13W3 and update as it becomes relevant. Thank you Ray! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I know Spider is into this stuff, so if you see him anywhere, let him know about this thread. O.K.: I just got a Perpetual Technologies P-3A DAC. The plan is to get the P-1A digital correction unit when the digital floats up again as the weakest part of the system (after I upgrade my speakers). As the P-1A does not accept the Toslink output of my cd-player, I plan to get a transport at the same time. I want to minimize jitter problems, so I'd like to get a transport with a I2S output to feed into the P-1A's I2S input. In my search for compatible transports, I discovered that there's now I2S Enhanced, but I can't find any information that compares it to regular I2S. What gives? If there's anyone out there that knows this junk, please help me out. I'm concerned about compatibility issues down the road, as all new transports seem to only include I2S Enhanced. Does regular I2S include in its transmission the biphase-mark encoded signal? Is regular I2S capable of the as-of-this-time theoretical Level 1 performance (where the receiving unit's clock is transferred back to the sending unit to use as its master clock)? Is the only difference between the two formats that the Enhanced version has sturdier termination? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Spider, if you're out there, I know you're working on a way to get the above-mentioned Level 1 performance included into your system. Where are you coming from, SpiderMan? Nobody knows who you are.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I was never comfortable with the idea of high-fidelity. Of course, most of the music to which I listen does not usually sound better live. For example, most venues usually have horrible acoustics and too much crowd / noise. I find the difference between listening to music at home and enjoying a band live to be quite pronounced. I guess I wouldn't like to have all those folks in my listening room, and it would suck to listen at home at mosh-pit volume while all the strangers in my house put their cigarettes out on even my cheap rug. Going to see Guided by Voices in my underwear would have distinctly different results than going to a Laurie Anderson performance in the exact same skivvies. Get the drift? Some music was made in a manner that sounds much better in a nicely equiped listening room than live. Who cares why? What? Oh, yeah: I want a mid-range and extended bass as fast and forward as the horns on my RF-3's, but I also want a complete speaker as laid back as the Aerial Acoustics 7. I'm neglecting a lot of packing. Good night! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

boa: check beneath the amp to see if the thing is melting through venting holes. You know: the thing with the thing.... I'm not familiar with the mag, but I understand there are quite a few components from Sony that have made it to the coveted "Recommended Components" list. I doubt that Stereophile would recommend the gear only because the machine was innovative. I'm certain that the listening tests have a bit to do with the evaluation. It's not drugs that kill people, it's me. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I had the same problem with my RF-3's being run by a Luxman LV-117 integrated amp (solid state). The harshness was tamed quite a bit when I switched to a VTL IT-85 integrated amp (all tubes). Being a necessitous man, I have not been able to experiment with room treatments very much (the couch has to go somewhere, after all). However, I do notice a silkier sound from the left channel. It may be that the couch is taming the brightness of the speaker on the first reflection; whereas the right channel bounces off a plaster wall in its first order reflection. Nevertheless, the tubes do a far more extensive job of smoothing out the highs than whatever accidental room conditions are in effect with my system. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I love this mystery. I was reading somewhere recently ( somewhere in here (forum?) ) about a quantum effect called phononic energy that is supposed to be generated by the signal going through a conductor and is converted into electrical energy at points of different impedances. It was a discussion about what these things called Bybee Filters have done to Dan Wright's home system. By the way, he's modding a P-3A for me this week to patch up the digital weak link in my system. I can't wait.... Back to the point: I found a couple of definitions of "phonon" on the worldwideweb: A quantum of crystal lattice vibrational energy. Phonons are analogous to the quanta of light, i.e. photons. phonon , quantum of vibrational energy. The atoms of any crystal are in a state of vibration, their average kinetic energy being measured by the absolute temperature of the crystal. In certain phenomena it becomes evident that this energy is divided into discrete bundles (see quantum theory); the energy bundles behave like particles in some respects and are termed phonons. These effects are most apparent at low temperatures where only a few phonons are present. For example, interactions between phonons and electrons are thought to be responsible for such phenomena as superconductivity. Ray: perhaps the dudes in the white lab coats have come accross something with which to measure these mysterious differences? If measurements become useful, I'll name my first kid Phonon. The second one would thereby HAVE to be named Phonoff.... So, assuming this phonon phenomenon (ha!) is in substantial ephect, maybe the closer impedances match, the less phononic energy is converted to electrical energy (noise). In other words, the magnitude of the dipherence in impedances has a direct relation to the magnitude of converted phononic energy being phed back into the signal as electrical energy. That would work nicely. Phfffssss!! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

t-man: are you sure you want to invest in MP3 for your home 2-channel rig? After all, it's lossy compression. Perhaps get something that includes the ability to play MP3's off of a cd-r? If you like to play cd's or mp3's in your car, perhaps there is a product out there that copies cd's and can also play mp3's off of the cd-r? Otherwise, you'd probably be looking at a unit that's basically a big hard drive with a user interface within which you can store MP3 files. Expensive and subject to becoming outdated as compression formats change. I say go for the combo unit. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I just found out from my local dealer that the Arcam Alpha MCD has been discontinued and is unavailable. He also tells me that the difference between any multiple disc player and a quality single-disc player is quite apparent. As such, we're gonna do a comparison test next week, using my amp and the brightest speakers he has, of the Marantz multi-players he has and single-disc players (both comparably priced and beyond but still in my range). There would have to be quite a difference for me to give up the tasty multiple-disc treats. Otherwise, I'm in the market for a used Arcam Alpha MCD or a used Anthem CD-1.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I'm exhausted with that debate. I made a commitment on another thread to participate in a double-blind test of various speaker cables, but I haven't found a sucker I trust to swap out cables for me. Of course, I wonder if the rest of my system is revealing enough to perform such a test.... (wagging the dog?) ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

You're right. I want to avoid digital edginess, but if the Arcam avoids it well, I don't want to pay the extra $1000 for just a tubier sound. It would be feeding a VTL IT-85 (all tubes), so perhaps the amp can do the same. The two players use the same changer mechanism, but I'm not sure how the transport qualities, DAC's, and analog stages compare. I wish there was an Arcam owner around to contribute.... I decided not to buy the 12-gauge Browning Lightning Feather, so the extra cash is burning a hole in my crippled cd player.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Patience? What's that? I haven't spoken to a dealer yet about it (the closest one is probably in Missouri), but I'm hoping the price for a new one has gone down from $1700. I understand the Arcam model was cut in price by $300 in response to the arrival of a couple other multi-players claiming audioschizo sound for below the $500 mark (the NAD and a Nakamichi as well?). I'm sure the Anthem plays circles around the NAD and Nakamichi, but its quality has been compared to the Arcam at $700! Dean: have you heard of those popular tweaks for the Anthem? I believe they include a different tube and replacing the capacitors with higher quality (read: $$$$$) parts. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

It's happened: my Onkyo Integra cd-carousel has developed an acute case of schizophrenia. Besides being unexplainable by the Oedipal cycle, it stops playing for no reason, refuses to play anything, will play a few tracks and then stop when it finishes playing some random track, and must be shut off and turned on again a few times before it will behave normally. The thing is older than dirt, and it is the weakest component in my system, so I've decided I need to replace/upgrade. One problem: I've become addicted to multiple disc capability. This is non-negotiable. Must have option to play all discs randomly without leaving the chair. However, I want to have an excellent player with quality, "audiophile" parts that takes advantage of the current technology in digital-to-analog conversion. My research has revealed two players: Anthem CD-1 and Arcam Alpha MCD. The Anthem has a tubed output stage to smooth out the digital edge, but I think it's priced beyond twice the cost of the Arcam. I've seen reviews that find the two players quite comparable. Do any y'all have any experience with either of these two players? Are there any other multi cd players out there I should be considering? I know California Audio Labs makes one, but there doesn't seem to be too much info about it. Are these players I mentioned old technology? Any help will be greatly appreciated. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I saw the NE pair in ebay; I assume that's the pair.... I don't know, man, the way the seller describes the speakers, I'd give them a good test before committing to the purchase. Otherwise, good luck! I need to find a dude in Nebraska with a newish pair of LaScalas itchin' to find a new home. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Dude! I don't know where you found them, but if you decide they're not for you, please let me know. Lucky duck.... ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Earlier you had asked about old Luxman gear: My previous amp was a Luxman LV-117 integrated amp (not the hybrid model -- it was all ss). However, it was driving RF-3's, never KHorns, so please accept my observations with reservations. Compared to the tube gear I'm currently using (VTL IT-85), the Luxman was too bright (harsh even). It wasn't as detailed, and everything seemed smeared together (again, comparing to the VTL). The soundstage was big enough, but not very stable. I bought the Luxman around 1990, and I was told by a salesman once that the LV-117 came out right before some significant technological advances were adopted by the industry; whatever that means.... The bass handling was great on the Luxman (I, too, listen to a lot of rock), but its tightness wasn't worth the other deficiencies. I don't know about newer Luxman gear, but I'd stay away from the older stuff. For the price, you can do much better. The only other SS gear I've had a chance to audition extensively is the Audio Refinement Complete integrated amp. Very dynamic, tight all around, huge and solid soundstage, very detailed. A very musical sound that was allegedly designed to approach the warmth of tubes, but it made some very harsh sounds with the tweeter horn on my RF-3's. Now that I've gone the way of the tube, I wouldn't go back to SS if you paid me. Good luck with your decision. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

Is it best to totally minimize resistance? or does too little resistance have sonically detrimental effects? Is the gauge size the only method of reducing resistance, or do other factors such as design (braiding, solid, etc.), nature of shielding, or the type of conductor used affect the resistance of the cable? Is the 16 gauge solution the one that gets maximum reduction in resistance, or is it considered enough by convention (much like the 16-bit/44.1khz sampling rate was considered sufficient)? I think I read somewhere that the relationship between resistance, capacitance and inductance was one of interdependence. In other words, to have optimal ratings of one meant a compromise in one or both of the other. Is this the case? Is the relationship of the length of the cable to the capacitance and inductance problematic insofar as there is a length threshold after which those characteristics become a problem? or are they gradually related to the length and shorter lengths are by convention not a problem below a generally agreed upon maximum? Now we're getting somewhere, bruh's.... What about a cable's susceptibility to picking up radio frequency and electromagnetic interference? How do the various methods of preventing this compare to each other? Is a braided design more protected than one that uses thick insulation? What about other means to minimize this? Is it even a factor, or is there a big margin of error within the limits of human hearing to detect the anomalies created in the playback by RFI and EMI? Does the kind of termination make a difference? Is the signal affected by a soldered terminal differently than by a crimped terminal? Does electricity even care? Yeah, what about how electricity feels about all this? Electricity is people too.... Is the impedance of cable a factor? I know: you're all gonna tell me to take classes in engineering. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

What I like about this debate is that it really hits home with everyone involved. It seems that few people can just acknowledge ignorance and walk away hoping their equipment choice is adequate. O.K., let's get back into it, boys.... Discorules: The confirmation we seek from measurements is secondary to the thorough understanding of what characteristics of the electrical signal actually have any operative relevance to the stereo system's work in reproducing the music. Otherwise, how would we know which measurements are relevant? Let's see, if we compare a pair of 6' long cables to a 10' long pair, I suspect the length difference won't mean much to the character of the signal and the output received from them by the speakers or their input from the amp. So if the length of the cable is not all that relevant to the final result, what measurements are? I also don't agree that the only question is whether I can hear a difference between two cables. To recycle an example I've used before on these boards, if you swap out the derailleurs on my bike with lighter parts, I won't be able to tell that the bike is lighter when I ride. If you swap out many parts, you can lose as much as ten pounds off the bike; and I guarantee you I'll notice a ten-pound difference going up the tallest mountain in Nebraska. Any one part swapped out won't present a noticeable difference; add them up, and it's clear. Dig? This is another reason double-blind tests (even with whip cream and sprinkles) don't provide satisfying information. We need the math, people. Who can break off the math? As I keep saying, the first information we need is to know what qualities/quantities in the electrical signal are relevant to the stereo system? Then we can ask whether the choice of cable makes a difference as to these qualities/quantities. If you don't know (as I don't), you're relying on faith and conjecture in your uneducated decisions regarding cables. Not so blissful, is it? O.K. Fine! I'll try doing a double-blind test. Don't expect anyting soon, though: I'm off tomorrow for a week of flyfishing in Washington. Don't warn the fish.... Now I have to find someone with the patience to swap out cables. Geeeeeezzzz!! Just remember: even if I don't notice a difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one there making the ride a little easier. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....

I doubt that any of us dispute the fact that paying $5000 for two 8ft runs of space-age, Ron-Popeil-certified God-wire goes a long way to convincing people that they hear a difference. It goes just as far as double blind tests go to convincing someone that his/her perceptions are unfettered by bias or any other expectations. DBT's may add the bias that one's senses are free of error. My point about the vocabulary of them fancy-lad magazines is that the differences of which we speak are so subtle/obscure/minute that they tend to remain unnoticed until we look for them specifically. If you show me two aerial photos of a section of a stadium filled with Nebraska football fans (even in a double blind format) and you ask me if I notice any differences between the two photos (especially if the photos were taken very far away -- as if with a cheap clock radio), I'll only be able (at best) to notice if one photo includes a big "Notre Dame Sucks" banner and the other doesn't. Even if the photos were taken with the best camera out there (such as those fancy-lad Mark Levinson cameras with the neat round platic buttons), the differences identified would be relatively huge: the pejorative banner, that there are more people wearing red on the right upper corner in one of the photos, etc. If, instead, the question to the viewer is "Do you notice a difference in the number of white people between the two photos?", that difference, if any, will be identified. Without that question, most people wouldn't ever bring it up -- unless it was obvious. None of the differences I've ever noticed between wires would be obvious, to the uninitiated (I love that word). Double blind tests don't prove that there is no difference in the sound of cables; they only prove that the particular listener did or didn't identify any. To lack mathematic proof that different cables carry a signal differently with sonically relevant results and thereby conjecture that all cables produce equal sound is the same mistake one makes when one conjectures that cables do color the sound differently from that same lack. Otherwise, we can stay away from scientific vocabulary and start talkin' in terms of sense perception, and no amount of blinding our prejudices will make our own hearing uniform or free from all bias. After all, if you participate in the DBT already believing or suspecting that cables don't make a difference, how free from bias are you? It's very easy to ignore the minutiae that make this nightmarish hobby such a joy. If electrical signals are so simple to understand, what characteristics of the electrical signal going through the cables are relevant to the system's ability to reproduce music? Does it's smell matter? Does the amount of energy required to break the valence bonds matter? What about the color of the shielding? If we're not gonna use the vocabulary of electricity to answer these questions, we're just conjecturing. I suspect we don't yet have an exhaustive list of electrical phenomena that are relevant to the reproduction of music, but I'm sure NASA is on it. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way....