Jump to content

Cable Myths Continued


thebes

Recommended Posts

Many bookshelf speakers are made that are nearly ruler flat, or in any case, far flatter than a K-horn, and cost orders of magnitude less.

who, what, when, where? "I'm sorry could you repeat that I think you were talking into my bum ear" (George Bailey- Its a Wonderful Life) but I thought you said or insinuated that a pair of $300 bookshelf speakers would out perform my or anybody's KHorns. C'mon.

Now that is BS, Total BS.

babadono

No, you are incorrect. I didn't say or insinuate that $300 bookshelf speakers would out perform your or anybody's KHorns.

My apologies. I am obviously in over my ability to understand.

but babadono

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, you mentioned that we can hear only one slice of music at a time, so using our ears and memory to compare different components, recordings, or accessories is a futile effort right from the start. The analogy of looking at slices of two photos was helpful.

However, what about looking at screen shots of the audio waveforms? With two screens, the waveforms of the two items being compared could be seen at once, and you could scroll back and forth until you see every frequency in the particular piece of music.

A really good-sounding system could be used as the reference, and then other setups could be compared with it visually. That way, the deviation from the ideal, or state of the art, system would be easy to spot, even if the reviewer had clogged ears due to a cold.

Has this been tried? If so, did it work or not work, and why? It has certainly been useful in detecting clipping in recordings.

The ability of an amp to reproduce square waves is often seen as a measure of its performance, with higher slew rate and lower incidence of ringing being better. Is this kind of measurement applicable to other audio components? I seem to recall that speakers don't like square waves. Is that correct?

The first problem is that it is being measured through a microphone, when the premise is, what can be heard? There are numerous instrument tests that show differences in measures that don't correlate to what people hear.

Not an answer to your reply, but what you wrote reminds me that the music we listen to has always been through microphones and hundreds of feet of wires before it even got recorded. How is 15 feet of speaker wire going to undo all that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternate idea is to use the electrical signal as a guide to helping to produce an illusion. The illusion desired would be to pretend we are hearing something like the original performance. It has to be an illusion, because the original performance is lost forever as explained above. Instead of measuring outputs with a distortion analyzer, we measure the output with our brain. We listen to the whole presentation and decide if it "feels like" the way real performances feel. Especially paying attention to how dimensional it is. We're trying to extract a 3D feeling from a 2D input. It turns out that while some amplifiers have vanishingly low measured distortion, they may not produce very convincing 3D illusions. No one knows why. This alternate method is referred to as euphonics. What counts in euphonics is the illusion produced, not the measurements produced

As I read this paragraph I was reminded about the time a few years ago when I went to a high end audio salon while on vacation. The owner and I were talking about audio and when I told him I was using modified Khorns he took me to a listening room where a small system was playing. The speakers were Spendors about the size of shoeboxes. They were hooked to a 110 wpc Audio Research amplifier with an Audio Research preamp, an Esoteric CD transport hooked to an Audio Research DAC, magic cables etc., over $25K worth of equipment. He asked what kind of music I liked and I told him I had been listening to a lot of classical lately. He put a disc of the William Tell Overture in the transport and we sat down and began to listen. I was surprised that these small speakers were able to reproduce the frequency range of a symphony orchestra as well as they did. As the music played on I could hear a clear separation with distance between the instruments and a front to back separation with some of the instruments located higher than other instruments. But as the music played on I stopped enjoying it. Something was wrong. Very, very wrong. I had heard that overture several times at concerts and the presentation was all wrong. It was like I was somehow hanging 10 feet in the air over the 5th row, looking down on the orchestra with a volume level more like I was in the back of the hall. It was really phony sounding. The best analogy I can come up with is like looking down the street and seeing a beautiful woman walking towards you, then as the two of you near each other realizing that you are looking at a transvestite.

I expect a stereo system to have a reasonably accurate reproduction of a real life audio event. That system did not do that. I understand that some people might like that sort of euphonic presentation much like some might prefer to be with a transvestite instead of a real woman. That's OK, whatever floats your boat, but as far as I'm concerned I prefer the real thing. And for $25,000 you should get a system that would do better than what I heard.

Edited by Don Richard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternate idea is to use the electrical signal as a guide to helping to produce an illusion. The illusion desired would be to pretend we are hearing something like the original performance. It has to be an illusion, because the original performance is lost forever as explained above. Instead of measuring outputs with a distortion analyzer, we measure the output with our brain. We listen to the whole presentation and decide if it "feels like" the way real performances feel. Especially paying attention to how dimensional it is. We're trying to extract a 3D feeling from a 2D input. It turns out that while some amplifiers have vanishingly low measured distortion, they may not produce very convincing 3D illusions. No one knows why. This alternate method is referred to as euphonics. What counts in euphonics is the illusion produced, not the measurements produced

As I read this paragraph I was reminded about the time a few years ago when I went to a high end audio salon while on vacation. The owner and I were talking about audio and when I told him I was using modified Khorns he took me to a listening room where a small system was playing. The speakers were Spendors about the size of shoeboxes. They were hooked to a 110 wpc Audio Research amplifier with an Audio Research preamp, an Esoteric CD transport hooked to an Audio Research DAC, magic cables etc., over $25K worth of equipment. He asked what kind of music I liked and I told him I had been listening to a lot of classical lately. He put a disc of the William Tell Overture in the transport and we sat down and began to listen. I was surprised that these small speakers were able to reproduce the frequency range of a symphony orchestra as well as they did. As the music played on I could hear a clear separation with distance between the instruments and a front to back separation with some of the instruments located higher than other instruments. But as the music played on I stopped enjoying it. Something was wrong. Very, very wrong. I had heard that overture several times at concerts and the presentation was all wrong. It was like I was somehow hanging 10 feet in the air over the 5th row, looking down on the orchestra with a volume level more like I was in the back of the hall. It was really phony sounding. The best analogy I can come up with is like looking down the street and seeing a beautiful woman walking towards you, then as the two of you near each other realizing that you are looking at a transvestite.

I expect a stereo system to have a reasonably accurate reproduction of a real life audio event. That system did not do that. I understand that some people might like that sort of euphonic presentation much like some might prefer to be with a transvestite instead of a real woman. That's OK, whatever floats your boat, but as far as I'm concerned I prefer the real thing. And for $25,000 you should get a system that would do better than what I heard.

. The best analogy I can come up with is like looking down the street and seeing a beautiful woman walking towards you, then as the two of you near each other realizing that you are looking at a transvestite.

I expect a stereo system to have a reasonably accurate reproduction of a real life audio event. That system did not do that. I understand that some people might like that sort of euphonic presentation much like some might prefer to be with a transvestite instead of a real woman. That's OK, whatever floats your boat, but as far as I'm concerned I prefer the real thing. And for $25,000 you should get a system that would do better than what I heard.

:huh: Having a hard time trying to wrap my head around your analogy..... ;)

Edited by oldenough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the priviledge of meeting Mr. Almarro once. His room was set up with a very small set of his monitors, which were actually sitting on the floor and tipped up with a couple of books. He was using a portable Panasonic CD/DVD player, which was fed directly into his A318B SET amp. The sound was stunning, and I told several that day that I thought it was the best sounding room on the floor. The sound was gorgeous and expansive -- you simply could not tell where the sound was coming from. I heard some of what you are describing, and I thought it was nothing short of awesome. Seems to me the issue that was bothering you could have been resolved by working with placement -- it's a game of inches with small monitors.

I find it interesting how the meaning of the word "euphonic" keeps changing depending on what you want it to mean. Let's see, is it distortion that causes a loudspeaker to sound great, or is it when $25K worth of stuff makes the gear disappear? Basically, anything that's capable of blowing you away is "euphonic", but you need to stay away from it because like a transvestite, it's not "authentic". OTOH, transvestites can look really good, and they have balls too.

Edited by DeanG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how the meaning of the word "euphonic" keeps changing depending on what you want it to mean. Let's see, is it distortion that causes a loudspeaker to sound great, or is it when $25K worth of stuff makes the gear disappear? Basically, anything that's capable of blowing you away is "euphonic", but you need to stay away from it because like a transvestite, it's not "authentic".

The word is not terribly useful to the audiophile. The sound of fingernails on chalkboard is certainly not "euphonic," but the ability to reproduce it is something we strive for. The old vacuum tube radio I mentioned earlier was anything but "hifi," but was certainly euphonic.

"If it sounds good, it IS good." Actually, I suppose one could slightly alter that and have it fit the transvestite as well: "If it feels good, it IS good."

I did a considerable review of definitions of euphony/euphonic and found none that have real implications in audiophile land. It's essentially meaningless to us. The sound of the clocks going off in "Dark Side," the thunder and crash in the Parsons "Fall of the House of Ussher," and such are anything but "euphonic" but we want them. They'd be much more euphonic on that old AM vacuum tube radio, but euphony isn't what we are after with everything.

I certainly desire euphony from the Beethoven "Moonlight" sonata, but not from a recording of a steam engine passing at close range.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting euphonic is the opposite to accurate?

Not sure who the question is addressed to, but my opinion, based on the definition and common usage, these two have nothing in common. A sound may be euphonic, but completely inaccurate...as in the case of my old AM vacuum tube radio. Or it may be accurate, but hardly euphonic as in the case of fingernails on chalkboard accurately played back.

Some find the sound of money being peeled off "euphonic." Certainly the high-end audio dealers do. :P

No agreement is likely in this group in these areas in text. It's interesting that we can get together as a group and get along great listening to tunes, equipment head and music lover alike. But reading about listening is like listening about painting. What our ears agree on our words to describe same may not, in fact, demonstrably DO NOT.

Dave

Edited by Mallette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that I refer to as the sonic benefit of a cable or wire has nothing whatever to do with frequency response curves, dips, peaks, valleys, or mountains. Those anomolies are farther down my priority list. Wire benefits clarity, space, liveliness, distortions, smearing and attributes like that.

Aah, the smell of bullshit in the morning. It smells like... :pwk_bs:

Filter firmly in place. Now I can breathe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit to finding the discussion on "euphonics" interesting, in particular Marks assessment of a system with "small speakers". It maybe helps explain why my most enjoyable listening is, and always has been, while listening to my Mission 780's . Lot's of larger speakers have come and gone, from my smaller listening room, and none of them have given me the enjoyment of these small bookshelf speakers. Enjoyment is what it is all about after-all.

Edited by oldenough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not be afraid even to save yourself some major money and get some decent lamp cord at Home Depot for Speaker wire. I promise you, it will not kill you! Make both sides the same length. Have your "friends" come over with esoteric $2,000. cables and see if you can hear tell a difference..My guess is, you just might be surprised.

And, you will have enough money to go our to dinner, buy some more stuff.. Buy stuff for your other half, and keep him/her happy too.

OK, the "cable snobs" can pelt me now!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find a convergence between accurate and euphonic. If you focus on the important things (speakers, room acoustics, quality source material), things like euphonic tube amps are like the icing on the cake. Sometimes the euphonic approach can get almost too honest (at least to my ears). What I mean is that on a dry studio recording, my set powered klipsch rig really allows me to peel apart the layers of the mix in a way that other, more conventional amps I have tend to miss/gloss over/homogenize. On bad source material, this can be kind of distracting.

This thread seems to be drifting back to "how do you listen" and accuracy debate subject matter, so I'll throw this Sean Olive blog post out on the subject for discussion:

Audio's Circle of Confusion

Seems there are some analogs to Mark's stance in terms of accuracy and what we, as end users, with practical limitations, are stuck with (the euphonic approach). I mean it would be nice, but I simply don't personally have the full resources of Harmon to ensure the accuracy of my system, and no control over the source material aside from what I decide to purchase. So I'm stuck taking the euphonic route in any case, and thanks to places like this forum have managed to cobble together rigs that reproduce some exquisitely pleasing music. (Using cheep commodity speaker cables! Sorry, I had to.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find a convergence between accurate and euphonic.

I see no reason why you shouldn't. OTOH, it is entirely subjective. Since euphonic simply means "nice," which is entirely subjective, there can be no direct correlation to "accurate," which can be either subjective or objective depending on how it is used. As Mark pointed out, one can measure whether at signal is passed accurately. There is, however, no measurement for euphony.

One man's euphony is another man's cacophony, and neither is wrong.

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternate idea is to use the electrical signal as a guide to helping to produce an illusion. The illusion desired would be to pretend we are hearing something like the original performance. It has to be an illusion, because the original performance is lost forever as explained above. Instead of measuring outputs with a distortion analyzer, we measure the output with our brain. We listen to the whole presentation and decide if it "feels like" the way real performances feel. Especially paying attention to how dimensional it is. We're trying to extract a 3D feeling from a 2D input. It turns out that while some amplifiers have vanishingly low measured distortion, they may not produce very convincing 3D illusions. No one knows why. This alternate method is referred to as euphonics. What counts in euphonics is the illusion produced, not the measurements produced

As I read this paragraph I was reminded about the time a few years ago when I went to a high end audio salon while on vacation. The owner and I were talking about audio and when I told him I was using modified Khorns he took me to a listening room where a small system was playing. The speakers were Spendors about the size of shoeboxes. They were hooked to a 110 wpc Audio Research amplifier with an Audio Research preamp, an Esoteric CD transport hooked to an Audio Research DAC, magic cables etc., over $25K worth of equipment. He asked what kind of music I liked and I told him I had been listening to a lot of classical lately. He put a disc of the William Tell Overture in the transport and we sat down and began to listen. I was surprised that these small speakers were able to reproduce the frequency range of a symphony orchestra as well as they did. As the music played on I could hear a clear separation with distance between the instruments and a front to back separation with some of the instruments located higher than other instruments. But as the music played on I stopped enjoying it. Something was wrong. Very, very wrong. I had heard that overture several times at concerts and the presentation was all wrong. It was like I was somehow hanging 10 feet in the air over the 5th row, looking down on the orchestra with a volume level more like I was in the back of the hall. It was really phony sounding. The best analogy I can come up with is like looking down the street and seeing a beautiful woman walking towards you, then as the two of you near each other realizing that you are looking at a transvestite.

I expect a stereo system to have a reasonably accurate reproduction of a real life audio event. That system did not do that. I understand that some people might like that sort of euphonic presentation much like some might prefer to be with a transvestite instead of a real woman. That's OK, whatever floats your boat, but as far as I'm concerned I prefer the real thing. And for $25,000 you should get a system that would do better than what I heard.

. The best analogy I can come up with is like looking down the street and seeing a beautiful woman walking towards you, then as the two of you near each other realizing that you are looking at a transvestite.

I expect a stereo system to have a reasonably accurate reproduction of a real life audio event. That system did not do that. I understand that some people might like that sort of euphonic presentation much like some might prefer to be with a transvestite instead of a real woman. That's OK, whatever floats your boat, but as far as I'm concerned I prefer the real thing. And for $25,000 you should get a system that would do better than what I heard.

:huh: Having a hard time trying to wrap my head around your analogy..... ;)

I was attempting to describe a situation where something turns out to be different than one's initial impression of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accuracy is an objective attribute.

Nope. I judge accuracy entirely subjectively...and, as many agree with my assessment whose ears I trust, I have reason to believe I am making accurate assessments. However, I certainly understand the difference between such judgments and measurements made by instruments.

Both have their place. However, there are NO instruments that can measure euphony.

I you go to denotative extremes, "accurate" is like "clear." However, both are used by people and understood to have degrees. If not, we could not use the term at all since an accurate recording by definition is completely beyond our science.

Pays to be reasonable or we can't talk at all.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...