Cable Myths Continued

[psg]

The first problem is that it is being measured through a microphone, when the premise is, what can be heard?

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?

I can't say I know exactly what the question means, or how it relates to the quoted sections above the comment. However, my answer is that 15 feet of speaker wire doesn't undo anything. There are no "undo" functions in any stereo systems.

If your premise is that 15 feet of speaker wire can alter the sound signal so much from what it should be, then isn't it a lost cause considering the hundreds of feet of ordinary wire the signal had to go through to get recorded? It must be messed up beyond recognition by then.

[Sancho Panza]

^^^ LoL, FUBAR

[Don Richard]

Don for example, very nicely represented the accurate preference. He described getting a mic and a computer and some software and making measurements of the output of his stereo system. That measurement he made is an objective, not subjective procedure. Now, I would never use that to select a system. I would listen and make a completely subjective analysis. That means judging with nothing but what I am hearing against my goal that the whole sound should be pleasing in these specific ways: 3 dimensional, transparent, effortless, and creating an illusion that I am hearing a real performance instead of a stereo system. That kind of pleasing, I call euphonic. There is no objectivity involved because nothing is being measured. Now, Don could take his objective measuring kit, come and apply it to my system, and he could say, "this is less accurate than mine, as shown by these instruments." That's how these approaches differ. There's no value in trying to muddy that up by insisting Don was subjective and I was objective and so on.

The purpose of my friend performing that measurement was not to compare what we worked on to any other loudspeaker. It was used to perform a before and after test on my system to verify whether the system alignment settings we used had made an improvement or not. Electronically time aligning a 3 way loudspeaker that is as far out of physical alignment as a Khorn is cannot be easily done without the use of measuring equipment, although I touched up the final PEQ settings by ear afterwards.

[Mallette]

If my machinist making parts told me that, I would not hire him. If the lab technician checking my blood tests told me that, I'd find another lab. If my accountant doing my taxes said that, I'd find another accountant. If my real estate agent completing a a transaction for me said that, I'd find another real estate agent.

No points for changing the subject. Remember. we have a word for that in polite debate. Starts with "R." We were talking about audio in this thread. You simply repeated my denotative definition of accurate. I said there is another, subjective version used by audiophiles.

It isn't entirely subjective in that it involves a comparison of source vs. recording. Few have that luxury, but that doesn't close off the judgement of the accuracy of a recording played by a group they've heard in a venue they've experienced. AAMOF, even a picture of a venue can allow an accuracy judgement. I found it easy to determine which tracks on the Pugnate CD I reviewed a while back were recorded in the beer cellar and which were not simply by looking at the brick arches and knowing what the returns would sound like. An accurate judgment. However, whether the result was euphonic to another is a matter of opinion, and level of knowledge need not apply. A person from those Duck Dynasty people might love it while a Harvard musicologist finds it barely tolerable.

This is fun... at least a LITTLE like the old days!

Dave

Edited January 31, 2014 by Mallette

[ZAKO]

AND hundreds of different microphones that don't sound like your ear,,,OR like one record I have that has 12 microphones just on the DRUM KIT...

[Schu]

this thread still rolling on?

:facepalm:

[Mallette]

AND hundreds of different microphones that don't sound like your ear,,,OR like one record I have that has 12 microphones just on the DRUM KIT...

Yezzir. I admit to complete ignorance of "created" music and do not involve myself with it. LOVE it, well done, but I never confuse it with an "event" and judge it only euphonically. Sux or it don't.

All my comments about accuracy and recording apply only to mixerless recordings of acoustic space/time events done with two or four microphones depending upon the desired outcome. .

Dave

[Mallette]

Actually, speaking of 4 mikes, I've been thinking about doing a 2 channel recording and summing the right and left rear before the ADC. I think it would be interesting to see how the DynaQuad or ProLogic/DTS handles it and routes the out of phase returns...which might be more prominent via this method.

Heck...it's an experiment with nothing to lose and you don't know until you try.

Dave

Edited January 31, 2014 by Mallette

[NBPK402]

We know they're making fraudulent claims, but that's not the point of the discussion. Fraudulent claims doesn't do away with the fact that wire is an interface that effects the behavior of the components it's connected to, or that some wire types or topology are more ideal than others. For example, we learn that in spite of the continued insistence that zip cord is all that anyone ever needs, it's not really all that ideal, and that some audiophile favorites, like Goertz ribbon cable, can actually cause some amplifiers to go into oscillation.

It pays to be open minded and to learn a few things.

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~apm3/diyaudio/Connections.html

I remember years ago I tried making some rg6 speaker cables as Sumiko was marketing some and they were the rave... I made them and they made my amp go into oscillation. Sounded like a really messed up surround sound with my ML Sequels.

[Mallette]

You know, stuff like Diana Krall or Frank Sinatra or Benny Goodman.

Have plenty of the last two, mostly from way back and on 78s. Some excellent Sinatra work, quite transparent and real. Goodman's stuff varies a bit but tends to be distant with some exceptions.

Note above I've also limited my comments on accuracy to recordings of acoustic time/space events. While one's own work presents the best way to judge, I do not believe one has to witness the event to make a judgement with reasonable degree of success if you have some knowledge, even just pictures, of the venue. Certainly one can put a picture together of places like Avery Fisher hall, Carnegie Hall, the Meyerson, St. John the Devine, and similar places by listening to a lot of recordings over the years.

Then, there are place like medieval German beer cellar I mentioned that one can get a pretty good acoustic signature by looking at a picture and listening to the recording.

Dave

[Ski Bum]

Oops, Dave, you're talking on the recording end, my bad.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Ski Bum

[Mallette]

Well, I've no intention of processing. Use a couple of summing transformers to merge the signals from 4 identical mikes. No clue as to what the result will be. If I knew, I wouldn't bother...

Dave

[Ski Bum]

See edit. Since ProLogic and Dynaquad rely on L/R difference you probably have a pretty good idea, right? Stay curious, I say.

[Mallette]

See edit.

Gotcha. DynaQuad, and to a lesser extent ProLogic, can do a decent job of routing out-of-phase information from microphones to the rear. While I've no specific expectations, the concept is to see what effect, if any, those returns and room ambiance sample in an essentially omnidirectional method but summed to two channels might have on these devices. My "worst case" is that it will have no audible effect on these devices that a single pair of omnis might provide and no impact at all on a two speaker setup. Beyond that, no idea. Hence, the experiment.

Dave

PS - I experimented with PLII and DTS, etc, for ambiance recovery from 2 channel sources and found it much less satisfying than the beautifully simple Hafler circuit. These circuits make decisions and route stuff accordingly. That's fine if it's engineered that way as for movies. However, the out of phase information on 2 channel sources can cause them to make poor decisions, then emphasize them. Hafler's circuit simply plays the ball where it lies. Works much better for my ears. As Neil discovered, it is rarely "a revelation " (though it can be on certain material) but always adds to the depth and breadth of well engineered recordings, especially those made with two coincidental mikes.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Mallette

[minermark]

I keep it simple and reasonable, upgrading to blue Jeans sometime back removed static, all cross feed. just about ready to order a couple more in fact.

I went with them because of the double Braid, cannot beat that for the money.

Edited January 31, 2014 by minermark

[Ski Bum]

While I've no specific expectations, the concept is to see what effect, if any, those returns and room ambiance sample in an essentially omnidirectional method but summed to two channels might have on these devices. My "worst case" is that it will have no audible effect on these devices that a single pair of omnis might provide and no impact at all on a two speaker setup. Beyond that, no idea. Hence, the experiment.

Sounds like an interesting recipe to end up with a recording with a lot of natural wetness and ambient cues. (I like those type of recordings, they are the ones that transport me to the event.)

Edited February 1, 2014 by Ski Bum

[Mallette]

What's an example of an acoustic time/space event?

Any acoustic event in a space happens over time.

Any exceptions you can think of?

Dave

[Mallette]

Sounds like an interesting recipe to end up with a recording with a lot of natural wetness and ambient cues. (I like those type of recordings, they are the ones that transport me to the event.)

And precisely my quest. I want an audio holodeck such that I can close my eyes and BE THERE.

Anything less may well be very euphonic, but is not accurate, IMHO.

Dave

Edited February 1, 2014 by Mallette

[Mallette]

Oh, I see. It means "sound." A guy banging a drum, or blowing a sax would be an "acoustic time/space event." Got it.

Just that simple. If a tree falls in the forest and there is a microphone there, you have a record of an acoustic time/space event. If it falls on the engineer and they holler it's even more interesting.

Dave

[Don Richard]

The purpose of my friend performing that measurement was not to compare what we worked on to any other loudspeaker. It was used to perform a before and after test on my system to verify whether the system alignment settings we used had made an improvement or not. Electronically time aligning a 3 way loudspeaker that is as far out of physical alignment as a Khorn is cannot be easily done without the use of measuring equipment, although I touched up the final PEQ settings by ear afterwards.

Understood. How did you select the components in your system?

I'm still selecting components. What I've done till now is to run experiments to prove a concept; my goal is to reduce the clutter of having a processor and 3 amplifiers connected together with enough wire to choke a horse and put it all into a single, smaller box that contains everything. I'm investigating class D amplification to see if that would be suitable for some or all of the channels, then I'm probably going to build it all myself. It's a work in progress.

Edit note: There is some sort of bug in the forum quoting system. I originally wrote the first paragraph and mdeneen wrote the reply in boldface.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Don Richard