any suggestions for cables? - Page 8

Agreed.

( What loudspeaker is that, my 4" diameter small bookshelves do slightly better than that? )

Marketing BS without a material difference.

If what you mean is that they're not designed for long throws, then their overall SPL limits are actually less.

Doesn't change anything.

Your SPL claims are wildly, wildly optimistic.

There exists no marketting for these speakers to begin with.

No, it's proven fact time and time again by different people. (There's at least two other AVS members that would vouch for it.) I've "just" had mine up to 115 and the subwoofers were set for +10, so they were at 125 and there were quite some margin before they even left Xmax, and far left to Xmech. Since you don't know Ino Audio, I can forgive your doubtfulness, though, even if it's bordering on offensive.

If my memory serves me well, the larger model is rated for max 127dB, and without having access to exact specs I believe it's the same tweeter as in mine. It might be only 124.
Together with subwoofers a system with the big model was tested at 135-140dB levels, and they'd probably gone higher if the 2000W(8 ohm) amps to the fronts would give more. New revisions of them has been inproved to 2500 after this event. Subwoofers were getting about 8x375W ( Dual Rotel 1090, two more were available if that wouldn't have been enough).

( About 25 pair of these has been buit over the 15 years they've existed, so they aren't common goods, you'll have about a years waiting on them after placing an order. )
Edited by Nightlord - 12/23/12 at 9:11am

It is well established, at least on all other sites, that changing capacitor microfarad values can change the sonic signature of an amp. Speaker wire can be purchased with varying degrees of capacitance, inductance and resistance. So if I buy a speaker cable of a very large awg with very low resistance and capacitance it is only logical to conclude that these values can impact sound. So why do capacitors change sound in solid state products, but an exotic speaker cable's capacitive reactance and it's effect on various frequencies can not change sound? I have read that a 50' run of speaker wire can add 5,000 to 15,000 pf, which is equivalent to making a moderate value change in a capacitor.

This is science and not vodoo as Jneutron would likely confirm, though he would add that high cable cost is not necessary to change these values. This is why I went with the Purist Audio Venustas, very large awg (over 8awg) very low capcitance/pf values over very long lengths. The Venustas speaker cables are 20ppf per foot, while many other cables ie Cardas stranded can be 300-400 ppf per foot. My right speaker at 6' vs my left at 3x that length show no ill effects and are indiistinguishable...ie no rolled off highs on left speaker, which could occur if the capacitance/pf values got too high for a long run.
Edited by G-Rex - 1/27/13 at 1:25pm

Is it really? Or is it just widely believed? There's a big difference.

Also, magnitudes matter. Yeah, if you make a dramatic enough change, anything can make a difference. But the "sites" that have "established" this rarely go into that much detail. (:
Again, magnitudes matter.
I don't believe common speaker wire comes anywhere near those numbers.

I didn't see any specs at that cable company's web site for that cable other than it is 8 ga. I did read that it needs about 125 hours of break in time. Will that affect its inductance, resistance or capacitance???? Or all three?
I am under the impression that speaker cable capacitance is not the factor in rolling off the high end but inductance may be. Between components and interconnect cable could do this if the input and output impedance are close in value, as in passive pre amps.

typical audiophile BS?

Here some data from an actual cable manufacturer
http://www.who-sells-it.com/images/catalogs/1314/pdf_4707.pdf

16 AWG stranded (19 x 29) tinned copper
• Insulation & outer jacket: PVC
• UL1685 FT4 flame test
• Nominal inductance: 0.184μH/ft. • Color: Chrome
• Nominal capacitance: 16.4pF/ft. • Nominal DCR: 4.49Ω/1000'
• Max. operating voltage: 300Vrms • Max. current: 7.1A per conductor

at 50' a total of 800 pF....

a far cry from anywhere close to 5000...and that is just an ordinary unshielded two conductor stranded cable and not some boutique crap.

14 AWG stranded (42 x 30) tinned copper
• Insulation & outer jacket: PVC
• UL1685 flame test
• Nominal inductance: 0.19μH/ft . • Color: Chrome
• Nominal capacitance: 33pF/ft. • Nominal DCR: 2.86Ω/1000'
• Max. operating voltage: 300Vrms • Max. current: 9.6A per conductor

http://www.aerospacewire.com/2catalog/firealarm42.asp

Specifications

Conductor:
Solid BC

Insulation:
FEP or
Halar (ECTFE) Add "K" to P/N

Color Code:
Chart 1

Jacket:
E-CTFE (150°C)
Plenum PVC Jacket Available

Industry Approvals:
NEC Article 760-17 NPLFP

Impedance: (FEP only)
(AWG 18) 132 Ohms Nom.
(AWG 16) 116 Ohms Nom.
(AWG 14) 103 Ohms Nom.
(AWG 12) 90 Ohms Nom.


Vel. of Propagation: (FEP only)
69% Nom.

Capacitance: (FEP only)
(AWG 18) 11 pF/FT Nom.
(AWG 16) 13 pF/FT Nom.
(AWG 14) 14 pF/FT Nom.
(AWG 12) 16 pF/FT Nom.

Temperature Rating:
-40°C to +150°C

Voltage: UL 150V


May I call ******** on the referenced posting?
Edited by kraut - 12/23/12 at 3:11pm

And the difference between a woofer and a "boomer" issssssss??

I must have missed it-but what speakers are you talking about?

Unbelievable!!!!... This is the only thread out of the 50 I read that believes that!..some people have no idea what there missing out on!...go on the parasound thread and bryston ..and krell owners thread..the differences ARE there..even if its a slight one...as you all know,a slight difference in this hobby goes a long way..we pay good money for a very slight improvement. That's just the way it goes,I really can't figure out why some people can not tell the difference between a 50$ amp and a 2500$ amp..I just do not know what else to say

^Ever done a blinded, level-matched amp comparison?

I have, and it's an enlightening (possibly humbling) experience.

I've done the comparison with two Parasound amps, an NAD integrated, a Cambridge integrated, and a Denon avr, and a 20 year old Kenwood receiver.

The Kenwood was very noticeably worse.

The others, I couldn't pick apart.

Now, I have no doubt my Parasound can be pushed more than my Denon, but at my normal listening levels? No difference.

Unbelievable that you never read any threads where blind testing between amps driven WITHIN their operational parameters revealed NO audible difference between them.

And since we compare anecdotal evidence: I could not hear a difference between and ancient quad 405, a Bryston 4Bst and a hypex AS2.100.

But I guess those amps don't fall into the "audiophile" category
Edited by kraut - 12/23/12 at 5:43pm

I'm shocked, just completely stunned, that the same people who spent large amounts of hard earned money on an expensive amp have the subjective opinion that what they spent on made an improvement. Have you ever googled the term "expectation bias"?

If any of them posted results from a DBT or measurement supporting their opinions, please supply a link.

If I'm not mistaken esh you alone have participated in multiple threads on this subject. You just don't believe it, that's clear. Define slight difference to start. Define within spec. Why do you always start with some extremely low end of the spectrum (like a $50 amp) and then compare to amps that cost far more (and cost far more than $2500 than the ones you mention for example)? You are one of the very very few in these forums that keep spewing the interconnect, power cable and amp garbage "science" and the only conclusion many of us can come up with is that you are clueless.

 

That has certainly been my conclusion too.

You don't think that this belief that amplifiers don't all sound different is behind much of what people are saying around here?

It is true that if you have the false belief that audio components all sound different that you will miss out on many opportunities for good sound.

It is also true that if you do good listening tests you will learn that an overwhelming proportion of audio good components sound the same.

Oh, you mean one of those retro-technology anti-science threads were people seem to be sharing their self-gratifying illusions?


No they are not. I'm quote sure that you have never ever personally done a listening test of just sound quality differences between amplifiers or DACs. You know, the ones that match level, synchronize the music, and remove other sources of listener bias.

The so-called listening tests that I read about in those threads are very primitive. People seem to be listening to amplifiers at different volume levels, in different rooms and with different speakers playing different music on different days and then quite unimaginably attribute the differences they hear to just the amplifiers. Of course they hear differences! But, the differences are not necessarily due to the amplifiers. Those other things I listed - different listening levels, different speakers, different rooms, and different music are very, very strong influences compared to the small if not insignificant differences among modern amplifiers and DACs.

If the differences are slight, why make a federal case out of them?

Do you not hear how huge the SQ differences due to the other influences I listed are?

Not really. Why obsess over tiny to non-existent differences when there are huge differences due to things like speakers and listening rooms?

You may, but many people don't any more. Instead they spend their money where the ROI is very strong.

That sounds fatalistic! Why be fatalistic about the possibility for SQ improvements when there are so many opportunities in other areas of system development than amplifiers and DACs?

Obviously, you need to have the personal experience of a well-done listening test where the levels are carefully matched, the music is carefully matched, and the other parts of the system are carefully matched.

One of the ironies of life is that anybody who is serious about it can do far more scientific listening tests than the highest end of the high end ragazines because those magazines have, in highly-publicized moves, turned their backs on science. They must do this to survive because their stock and trade is the idea that all audio components sound different and you need to taste-test them and spend the big bucks to get good sound. Science tells a different story and many audiophiles are taking advantage of the fact that what matters the most is loudspeakers and rooms, not electronics and cables.

 

All entirely true of course. I think you have touched on the serious issue wrt to the people who believe they can hear all these non-existent differences which is that they could be spending their money instead on the things that really do make a difference: the speakers and the room. This is the tragedy of it IMO - one can take the view that "well it doesn't do any harm to spend $10,000 on an amp and if they believe they can hear a difference, so what?" - but the real problem is that most people don't have limitless funds, so overspending in one area usually means cutting back in another. And the areas they often cut back on are precisely the areas where a real difference can be made. I despair when I see guys spending big bucks on interconnects and amps and DACs etc and then using them in an untreated room with 'average' speakers. Similarly, I am amused when they then profess to hear 'night and day' differences, despite the fact their room is a nightmare of modal issues, reflections, poor sub and speaker placement etc etc.

 

The magazines also contribute their share of misinformation too - as you say, they have to 'hear differences' or what will they fill their pages with?  I continue to read a fair number of the mags because I like to keep up with what is going on, but do you know, I can't ever remember reading a single article in an 'audiophile' mag (over decades) about the contribution the room makes and how it can be tamed.

Arny's New Year resolution is to stop using ; - ) and to start using . Personally I've never liked ; - ) for an emoticon and I sincerely hope you put that behind you next year! That being said, cables make no difference unless the RLC are completely out of whack. Otherwise, no difference.

; ^ )

 

:-0

So a $1000 mass production Japanese amp has the same harmonic distortion levels and current driving ability as a $10,000 American amp? Same quality power supply and transformer? Have you ever heard a cheap amp on a pair of full range speakers that have moderate sensitivity and range from 2 to 6 ohms? The speakers will not sound very good.

How would I know that? Got any specific examples?

Don't be insulting! Of course I have. ;-)

Got any reliable evidence to back that up? Or, are you expecting everybody to take this vague, overly-general statement on your say-so?

slow down. If both amps' distortion is inaudible, the fact that one is 10 or even 100 times better makes no audible difference. Because it's inaudible. If the power supply and transformer are adequate for the atsk at hand, there will be no audible difference based on the power supply. If not, then the underpowered amp will distort when driven hard enough. By definition. So you're really asking if one amp is more powerful than the other. If I never use more than 25 watts, then whether my amp is audible clean at 25, 50 or 500 wats makes no audible difference. If an amp has a high output impedance you might notice frequency response anomalies driving speakers that present difficult impedance curves.

I loved my Bryston and can easily imagine owning Bryston or similarly designed and built amps in teh future, but in truth, I don't expect a significant audible difference between it and my midlevel receiver under my usage.

If all cables, amps, blu-ray players, and processors sound and look the same then why read or post on the forums? The hobby is so simplified for you as there is nothing more to learn, try or test. I would think the only forum that would be of interest to you would be blu-ray movie reviews.

Not necessarily—the Japanese amp might be better! There's plenty of overpriced audiophile crap out there.

In any event, $100, let alone $1000, can buy you inaudible levels of harmonic distortion. As for "current driving ability," it all depends on how much you need for your particular speakers. But you can buy however much power you need for a lot less than $10,000. Spending more (on amplification, at least) won't get you more.

To act as counterweight to technically-challenged audiophiles, that's why.
Speakers. Room treatment. Analog gear, if you're into that. There's plenty to learn, and try. Why waste your time and money on the things that really don't matter?

There are many facets which still merit discussion, debate, comparison and questions, etc.

Speaker design, room layout, room treatment, EQ program comparisons, measurement tools and software, setting up multiple subs for smoother in-room response, the relative merit of these different tools and solutions, how all these different elements can either negate or compliment each other, etc.

I hate it when people claim that what we measure and what we hear are two different things. There is a tight correlation between the two. I think Floyde Toole is the pioneer in this regard, but I'm open to hear who else (as an authority figure on the subject) subscribes to that idea. If measurements don't show changes that could explain subjective audio experience then there are logical reasons to assume why. But I hate it when people try to discredit science in support of their subjective experiences when there is no evidence in support of their experience.

I agree with your list and these are certainly the areas that will give you the most results per dollar spent. I have read on these topics over the years and have implemented them into my theater with good results. I believe there are more improvements that can be made beyond your list but it can become quite costly to do.
Edited by G-Rex - 12/24/12 at 8:26am

 

You didn't answer Arny's questions...

Oh Oh sorry, I agree with you Arny, I am sure you have tried many cheap amps.

 

Er... he asked you if you had specific examples of $1,000 and $10,000 amps in mind when you replied what you replied, and he asked you if you had any evidence to back up your assertion that the speakers 'wouldn't sound very good'. So do you?