HydrogenAudio

CD-R and Audio Hardware => Audio Hardware => Topic started by: jrbamford on 2003-09-05 11:44:11

Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: jrbamford on 2003-09-05 11:44:11
I've often wrestled with the issue of hifi and whether its worth it or not...

I do believe they're are improvements to be had by spending a bit more... compared to an all in one mini system from an electronics store at £300 or more... or rather i used to believe it... its often difficult to try to even persuade hifi people to even consider the possibility of this.. obviously there is an element of protecting your investment in hardware (similar loyalties run deep in games consoles wars etc)...

Anyways i've seen links and discussions on this before, i thought it'd be good to try and collect all of this in one place.. I'm sure somewhere i got a stereophile article off someone on here (dibrom?!) about a blind test they did with interconnect or spaeaker wire.. using real cheap wire compared to some mid range hifi interconnect... few people managed to spot it... if any blindly...

Its this kind of information that'd be great to have to try and let people read about it and at least consider to potentially save them more money... so any articles, links to tests done or discussions would be great.. other than just informed discussion on this thread or links to other threads would be great...

Firstly i think it'd be good to confront the wires issue... leaving whether certain hifi equipment is even useful or not.. this kind of information would be more easily absorbed by hifi-ers than telling them that there really is no need to buy an expensive cd player if you already have one... also with dual output devices (my DAC has two outputs) its much easier to easily let ppl setup two interconnects and quickly switch to do some blind testing...

Thanks
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: ScorLibran on 2003-09-05 12:22:50
I like this idea!  I've often wondered whether someone's $11,000 speakers would really be ten times better than my $1,100 speakers.  I've always doubted it...maybe twice as good, if that much (though it may be hard to quantify "good").

And I've seen similar tests on cabling, with very similar results (although I am actually guilty of perhaps overspending on "superextragood" cables both in my car and in my home...oh well, the money's gone now).

Anyway, I'll try to do my part and find any relevant information I can for this topic and post it here.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: jrbamford on 2003-09-05 12:39:34
Quote
And I've seen similar tests on cabling, with very similar results (although I am actually guilty of perhaps overspending on "superextragood" cables both in my car and in my home...oh well, the money's gone now).


me too on the overspending.. i "upgraded" a cable via my hifi shop 3 times finishing with £300 or more on this bloody cable.. its van den hul the first ultimate or something.. made of linear structure carbon rather than metal.. something to do with this technology makes amp hum a real issue.. I've just brought a turntable and tried this cable first.. the turntable output is nice and quiet but unforunately this involves getting the volume close to 1/2 on the dial... above this and the buzz from the cable is a real pain..

anyways i think most people will admit that speakers at least can make some difference.. there is a lot of scope for making the sound different.. whether its better or not who knows... as for other components i dunno but the leads are a good place to start and if i can prove to myself that my £300 is no better than my £30 one then i'll never waste that much money again (enough to buy a bloody component for gods sake

Russ Andrews are a great company but they prey on this.. they rely on ppl wanting to spend on cables.. there are power cables they sell up to their top of the range silver ultimate power cable .. which is nearly £1000.... for a power cable!!!!!!! power cables are much more difficult to test.. un plug replug etc... i've blindly tested a cheap yello cable of theirs a few years ago, and the night and day differences i'd heard dissapeared under the pressure... the thing is ABX-ing close things on PC sometimes needs you to find the right bit.. this kind of small sound test, quickly switched is just not easily possible on anything other than interconnects with hifi...
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: boojum on 2003-09-05 13:36:03
Wire is wire is wire.  Heavy duty lamp cord will sound as good as anything.  Some speakers do improve as the price goes up, but it is a law of diminishing returns, just like cars, TV, etc.  There is almost as much BS in the hi-fi industry as in real estate and used cars.  Same sales people in all three.  B)
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2003-09-05 13:45:52
It does cost money to do some things well. And it costs a lot of money to do things very well!

This is hidden by the huge amounts of equipment where the price is the only selling point, ie "It's $10,000 so it must be good!"

I don't agree with everything on this site, but on hi-fi magazines I think he's spot on:

http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/magazines.html (http://www.audioperfectionist.com/pages/magazines.html)

Cheers,
David.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: jrbamford on 2003-09-05 13:58:08
Quote
Wire is wire is wire. Heavy duty lamp cord will sound as good as anything.


well with the free interconnects that came with my turntable i got yesterday i think i'm getting some interference/hum... what do i need to look for the minimum cost/spec of wire to cope with noisy interference... i have so much equipment in my room, including wifi, and various mobile phones its pretty much a nightmare scenario.. i assume some kind of decent shielding is what i need but will lamp cord have this?! or is the "heavy duty" part of your description going to satisfy this requirement...

Thanks for the link 2BDecided...
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2003-09-05 14:10:34
See my reply in the turntable thread. And if that doesn't help, maybe explain the problem more fully so we can follow your set-up.

I think the suggestion of "heavy duty cable lamp cord" is for speaker connections, not line-level - these have to be screened.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: fewtch on 2003-09-05 14:28:08
Cable capacitance is also a big issue with moving magnet phono cartridges... the interconnects shouldn't be too long, or treble frequencies can be lost (capacitance can alternately be tweaked at the phono stage, I think).

I think a lot of today's audio voodoo was carried over (incorrectly) from analog to digital days, since various tweaks that actually do something with turntables, do little or nothing with digital equipment.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: jrbamford on 2003-09-05 15:34:22
Thanks fewtch, i did wonder.. the one lead i would replace possibly will be the turntable to phono preamp ... and yes i have a moving magnet cartridge so... the question is what is required.. where can i get it from cheaply!? something with better interference protection than the thin ones that came with it... tho i will be fully testing out the suggestions in the turntable thread and using another cable which i believe is MUCH better (although MUCH cheaper) for this problem. argh!!!  a whole thread devoted to van den hul's (http://www.vandenhul.com i think) LSC technology and micro bridging whatever..  ohh and there are those new eickmen bullet plugs for interconnects which sound good.. will get links later... at least the theory in that makes a little more sense... but again would we hear it
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: fewtch on 2003-09-05 15:51:14
I'd suggest using any well-shielded audio cable (maybe cut the RCA plugs off to use at the turntable end), and around 1 meter in length -- that should be sufficient (I think).  You also need a separate ground wire going to the preamp/phono stage that's grounded to any metal on the table, and the tonearm as well -- hopefully you already have that.

If the cable you use has a separate braided shield, I think that's supposed to be grounded as well to bleed off charges (someone correct me on that, but I'm 99% sure).
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: jrbamford on 2003-09-05 16:23:46
The turntable i got has RCA inputs anyways so thats good.. it came with its own wire complete with ground wire which i got connected between it and the phono preamp, the phono preamp is then connected to the proper amp (without phono stage) and there is no ground connection between the two amps...

So audio cables are the ones that let you have the capacitance you talked over earlier sorted?
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: DonP on 2003-09-05 16:43:18
In the case of phono: if your preamp/receiver can't be close enough to your TT for a short cable, I think you are better off putting a separate phono stage right by the turntable than buying an expensive long cable.

On really cheap (line level) cables,  they may abx as well as more expensive ones, but they are  more susceptable to problems like a conductor detaching from the connector internally so the channel and/or hum cuts in and out when you wiggle the cable 
So for my money it is worth upping the ante to the $15-$20 level (ie cheapest Monster cables) for reliable construction without a dose of snake oil.

I have seen situations at stereo stores where exotic cables were worse in the end because
the connectors fit so tightly that they damage the equipment from the frequent recabling that comes from customers wanting to hear different combinations of gear.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: fewtch on 2003-09-05 17:05:53
Quote
So audio cables are the ones that let you have the capacitance you talked over earlier sorted?

Ideally, it would be good to actually do some exact matching based on the cartridge and phono preamp input specs.  In reality, I would think any cable like Monster or Radioshack Gold Series should be fine, as long as you keep it short.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-05 23:01:44
Speaker cable "differences' over average distances are
usually entirely imagined (http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/circuits/articles/23down.html) (requires registration).



Quote
John Dunlavy, who manufactures audiophile loudspeakers and wire to go with it, does think questioning is valid. A musician and engineer, Mr. Dunlavy said as an academic exercise he used principles of physics relating to transmission line and network theory to produce a high-end cable. "People ask if they will hear a difference, and I tell them no," he said.

Mr. Dunlavy has often gathered audio critics in his Colorado Springs lab for a demonstration.

"What we do is kind of dirty and stinky," he said. "We say we are starting with a 12 WAG zip cord, and we position a technician behind each speaker to change the cables out."

The technicians hold up fancy-looking cables before they disappear behind the speakers. The critics debate the sound characteristics of each wire.

"They describe huge changes and they say, 'Oh my God, John, tell me you can hear that difference,'" Mr. Dunlavy said. The trick is the technicians never actually change the cables, he said, adding, "It's the placebo effect."
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: jrbamford on 2003-09-05 23:35:54
Thanks Audible! great link.. thats what i'm talking about... the more tests we can get the better.. thats so cruel showing them expensive cables  wierd as he does sell these things yet says you wont hear it!?? why is he selling them then
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-06 00:53:50
Quote
wierd as he does sell these things yet says you wont hear it!?? why is he selling them then


Apparently Dunlavy feels his cables are theoretically the best possible design and so he sells them to people who want "the best", regardless of whether it's audibly better to the ear  in any way 
  It seems like he has a good point - those people are going to pay too much for Somebody's speaker cable, it might as well be his.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: ChrisGranger on 2003-09-06 10:22:52
I would like to see a properly conducted ABX test of 1m interconnects. I highly doubt that anyone could tell the difference between expensive cable and the more generic ones. The ones that come with hi-fi equipment are sometimes shoddy, but that's more a construction quality issue rather than a sound quality one.

I agree with the advice above to get an entry level name brand cable like Monster. Then the quality is nice, gold plated connectors, etc. People who spend crazy amounts of money ($1000 for speaker wire, etc.) on cables do so out of fear that they're somehow missing the music with cheaper cables. It's silly. Do they rewire their CD players and amps (the inside circuits) to improve quality? Of course not, unless they're truly certifiable. 

As for really expensive speakers sounding 10x better than ones that cost 10x less, well, I would use the analogy of exotic cars. Is a Ferrari 10x better than a Ford at a tenth of the price? It's entirely subjective. The super expensive speakers will probably sound a little better and that improvement will be worth the expense to some, and to others it will be a huge waste of money for not enough return.

The price of high-end gear often has a lot to do with construction though, so the price of those speakers may include real wood instead of wood-grain vinyl, hand-crafting instead of assembly line, limited edition products, that sort of thing. Price doesn't equal sound quality necessarily.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: ChrisGranger on 2003-09-06 10:34:38
Oh, and to reply to the initial post, I really think those all-in-one mini systems are vile, generally. Some of them may be acceptable but they often have terrible specifications and low power output. They're fine for listening to the radio or whatever, but hardly worthy of a serious music lover's attention.

The price of entry level equipment from a 'real' hi-fi manufacturer isn't too far above the cost of a mini system, so that's what I'd recommend to anyone on a tight budget. You can get very good sound for around US$1000 (CD player, integrated amp and speakers). That is, unless you work for UHF magazine. Those guys seem to think that a CD player under $2000 isn't fit to be used as anything but a doorstop. 
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: DarkAngel on 2003-09-06 11:43:24
I lost almost all faith in high end hi-fi magazines when i saw a certain UK magazine comparing digital audio cables. Fine, but they were coming up with stuff like 'this cable sounds more bassy, this one lacks treble', etc. Unless some cables have mini-dsp's hidden in them, there is a fundamental lack of understanding of digital audio technology. How a cable can produce errors in digital data which results in a change of sound shape is rather difficult to understand.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Patsoe on 2003-09-06 23:39:45
Quote
...Anyways i've seen links and discussions on this before, i thought it'd be good to try and collect all of this in one place...

I guess you mean you couldn't find them back

Here's a good one: http://www.roger-russell.com/ (http://www.roger-russell.com/) - scroll to his speaker related sites.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: polandro on 2003-09-07 00:23:26
If you want a link to a snake-oil type site try

Code: [Select]
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/


Quote
"beginners pack"
We are offering to new customers a "beginners pack" consisting of a pack of Rainbow Foil, a jar of Cream-Electret, half a metre of Spiratube and two Red Ring Ties on crocodile clips and samples of three of the Morphic Message Foils for the inclusive price of 50 UK pounds or 75 US dollars or 75 Euros
 

Um, I can't support this guy's findings but maybe someone wants to ask for a free sample of P.W.B. Silver Rainbow Foil:

Quote
I sent for the free sample of Silver Rainbow Foil being offered at the time. Upon receipt of the foil, I applied the small strips to a number of CDs and then froze the discs, twice, in my refrigerator per Mr. Belt’s instructions. The foiled and frozen CDs sounded better than they had prior to the treatment.
 

apparently

Quote
Mr. Belt’s products change our perception of the sound coming from our audio system. The sound is not changed in any way—it is our brain’s interpretation of the sound that is changed. This is not the sort of concept that receives great acceptance in the mainstream audio press—you know, the people who say there is no difference between zip cord and Nordost cables.
 

Anyway, I'll let you look for yourself. I think I am staying on topic according to the thread title
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-07 00:29:21
Quote
It's silly. Do they rewire their CD players and amps (the inside circuits) to improve quality? Of course not, unless they're truly certifiable.


  Amusingly enough, some of the new mid-high end Yamaha recievers use Monster cable for interior wiring. Does it make a difference? Not that I can tell.

    Monster speaker cable is drastically overpriced. Every blind or double blind test that I've seen between speaker cables shows that any 'differences' are not observed when the observer does not know beforehand which is which.
   
    Component interconnects may be a different story. Gold plating on the other hand, is  useless unless both connectors are gold or you live immediately adjacent to a body of salt water. Galvanic corrosion ensures that Ni plated -> Au plated interconnections cause the Ni plating to corrode faster than it would with Ni -> Ni or Au-> Au connections.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Bongoboy on 2003-09-07 00:50:40
Quote
Anyways i've seen links and discussions on this before, i thought it'd be good to try and collect all of this in one place.. I'm sure somewhere i got a stereophile article off someone on here (dibrom?!) about a blind test they did with interconnect or spaeaker wire.. using real cheap wire compared to some mid range hifi interconnect... few people managed to spot it... if any blindly...

I'd be a little doubtful about few people being able to spot the difference between mi-range an real cheap interconnects. Of course "real cheap" to me means the build quality of the ones that come with equipment just to make it work out of the box. I'v had some of those that were made from the super thin wire that's usually on cheap earphones.

I checked one set and it wasn't even shielded! I'm sure Faraday's rotting zombie carcass hunts that manufacturer in their sleep!

But...if you mean the $10-20 range entry level interconnects then it's really doubtful that they'd be ABXable by John Q Public, as the major thing is resistance, which will reduce line volume (and possibly act as a low pass filter if the wiring is very strange...) while other variables are relatively negligable. Capacitance can't do much at line leveIIRC, and inductance on a straight piece of wire next to a mains cable will likely reach a fraction of a uH - not enough to act as a high pass filter below the UHF range...

and shielded, low resistance cable is quite cheap...just don't do something stupid like using shielded 75ohm TV cable. 

I knew that electrical engineering degree would come in handy one day! 
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Bongoboy on 2003-09-07 01:24:48
Quote
Gold plating on the other hand, is  useless unless both connectors are gold or you live immediately adjacent to a body of salt water. Galvanic corrosion ensures that Ni plated -> Au plated interconnections cause the Ni plating to corrode faster than it would with Ni -> Ni or Au-> Au connections.

what? I can think of at least two things wrong with that.

First of all Galvanic Corrosion (or electroplating as it commonly known) would be generally accelerated by saltwater of other electrolytic fluids, so obviously you would want matched metals near the sea.

EDIT: unless you meant "both connectors are gold AND you live immediately adjacent to a body of salt water." in which case, sorry.

secondly. Gold is the least chemically reactive metal. without the prescence of some extremely toxic (i.e. arsenic) electrolytic fluids or extremely high voltages it just will not electroplate anything but aluminium. That's why it is often used in engineering for as a protective coating specifically to stop Galvanic Corrosion.  also Ni and Au are close enough on the anodic index that as long as the nickel is keptout of humid conditions it will not oxidise. (au=0.00 ni=0.30)

Also, Gold does not naturally oxidise, whereas Nickel does. (Incindentally, NiO is toxic. don't eat it.  )

So technically Au-Ni and is no more likely to oxidise than Au-Au. if anything Ni-Ni is the most likely to rust.

Unless you live somewhere wet like atlantis, of course. Then you should start worrying about that pesky galvanism.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-07 02:03:28
Quote
First of all Galvanic Corrosion (or electroplating as it commonly known) would be generally accelerated by saltwater of other electrolytic fluids, so obviously you would want matched metals near the sea.

That is exactly right. 
Au (all around) is desirable if general oxidation is a real issue obviously.

Quote
it just will not electroplate anything but aluminium.


  You note that Ni is .30V and Au is of course naught. The likelyhood of galvanic corrosion happening is directly related to the difference on the anodic scale -> bimetallics will corrode at a higher rate than monometallics (all else being equal (namely plating not compromised) pure monometallics will not do so at all), with the more highly anodic metal doing the corroding. 
 
  The general rule of thumb in harsh environments is about half the difference here.
I.E. in outdoor environments no more than a ~0.15V difference is acceptable. In non-temp/humidty environments which are sheltered, ~0.25V is the standard.
  (note that the difference here exceeds both these values)
 
  The size of the difference in the index is somewhat irrelevant because I was contrasting it relative to monometallic couples, which by definition cannot constitue a galvanic 'cell' because electronegativity of the species is homogenous throughout.
  No inherent potential difference means no cell.
  No cell means no GALVANIC corrosion, yes?

  "Electroplating" is of course not the only thing that can happen to cause problems with dissimilar metals in direct proximity. Cu will diffuse into Au if in contact with it. This is thoroughly undesirable if you wish to disconnect them at a point in the future. In addition, Au with Cu mixed in can corrode. Hence, Cu-Au couplings in industry almost invariably have an intermediate plate layer.

Quote
Also, Gold does not naturally oxidise, whereas Nickel does

Yup, hence it's (Au) always going to be cathodic in any bimetallic 'cell'.

edit: diffusion in  reverse order, italics fixed, spelling fixed, clarity improved X3, "in addition"
next time I should edit before posting 
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Auric on 2003-09-07 16:10:42
I certainly think there's a difference, but only between the really cheap stuff and the low-level stuff.  In other words, as long as long as the speaker wire is relatively pure stranded copper at a fairly large gauge, you're fine.  The same thing applies for interconnects, but you also need gold-plated plugs that have a tight fit.  That's really about it.  While I do believe that high-end speaker cable makes a technical difference, I don't think you can hear it.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-07 21:41:15
Quote
In other words, as long as long as the speaker wire is relatively pure stranded copper at a fairly large gauge, you're fine.


  The gauge of the wire should be related to the length of wire used. For a twelve foot (~4 meter) speaker cable, 16 gauge should be more than sufficient for almost any amount of power a typical speaker would draw.

Quote
The same thing applies for interconnects, but you also need gold-plated plugs that have a tight fit.


    Gold-plated plugs (all around) are undeniably more corrosion resistant in general than Ni-plated plugs, but no one I've ever heard of has been able to hear the difference between them in a blind testing scenario.
 
    This implies that there is no audible difference, meaning "need" is far too strong a word in this case
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Bongoboy on 2003-09-08 01:34:43
Quote
The size of the difference in the index is somewhat irrelevant because I was contrasting it relative to monometallic couples, which by definition cannot constitue a galvanic 'cell' because electronegativity of the species is homogenous throughout.
  No inherent potential difference means no cell.
  No cell means no GALVANIC corrosion, yes?

Absolutely.
Quote
"Electroplating" is of course not the only thing that can happen to cause problems with dissimilar metals in direct proximity. Cu will diffuse into Au if in contact with it. This is thoroughly undesirable if you wish to disconnect them at a point in the future. In addition, Au with Cu mixed in can corrode. Hence, Cu-Au couplings in industry almost invariably have an intermediate plate layer.

Yup.  BTW I only mentioned the term electroplating as a simple way of explaining to others what was being discussed. I know the term is really the wrong choice, and that plating and corrosion are a different effects from the same process...
Quote
Quote
Also, Gold does not naturally oxidise, whereas Nickel does

Yup, hence it's (Au) always going to be cathodic in any bimetallic 'cell'.

(Oops! I suppose i should have thought about it as which way round cathode/anode pairings will work.)

well, I have to agree, you are correct.

Note for others: If this is gibberish to you, it's fairly basic electrochemistry. If you have the time and never covered it, why not learn? If you're reading this forum, a grounding in electricity (and related subjects) may be interesting. The internet is full of porn, wild opinions AND highly technical information, after all! 
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Bongoboy on 2003-09-08 02:12:05
Quote
The same thing applies for interconnects, but you also need gold-plated plugs that have a tight fit.

The reasons for gold plated interconnects are purely physical - Gold's a (very) good conductor, (~3.5x less resistant than nickel, although at this thickness the difference is truly negligable) and neutral. Although personally I'd choose gold over others, etc. at the same price,you should only really concentrate on getting gold plated jack plugs if the sockets are gold too. (see earlier posts by Audible! and I)

Also, gold can actively be a bad choice if you frequently handle and unplug things. gold plating can wear off comparitively easily! (I have done this to a headphone jack)

IMO the main reason gold plating features so heavily is a purely aesthetic one. To most, gold is prettier than the silvery metals..
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Pio2001 on 2003-09-17 23:00:48
Could someone post the equivalence between AVG and  mm2 ? I've got 4 and 12 mm2 cable. How much gauge is this ? I remember that the 12mm2 must be below 10.

I've got a lot to post : 0.4 dB peak to peak difference in frequency response from speaker cables (in accordance with the impedance curve of the speakers and Ohm's law) with samples, samples of turntable on stone/table, not to forget the old thread with 5 meters line cable, not abxed by anyone, and the analog recording of the 450 € CD Player ABXed against the digital rip, while the 5x loopback of audiophile 2496 card could not be ABXed.

Bump this thread if I don't post within one week. I'm sooooooo busy (http://perso.numericable.fr/laguill2/smileys/crying.gif)
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: DonP on 2003-09-18 00:58:42
Quote
The reasons for gold plated interconnects are purely physical - Gold's a (very) good conductor, (~3.5x less resistant than nickel, although at this thickness the difference is truly negligable) and neutral.

Silver conducts better than gold, and is cheaper.  While silver will tarnish, the kicker is that silver oxide conducts virtually as well as the shining clean stuff.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: sthayashi on 2003-09-18 05:38:03
Quote
Could someone post the equivalence between AVG and  mm2 ? I've got 4 and 12 mm2 cable. How much gauge is this ? I remember that the 12mm2 must be below 10.

I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine...
Google's wire reference table (http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Technology/Electronics/Reference/Wire_Tables/) has links to a convenient table (http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/awg_e.html)

It indicates that your 12mm2 wire is between 6 and 7 gauge (closer to 6).  Your 4mm2 wire is somewhere between 11 & 12 gauge (closer to 11).

This site (http://www.reade.com/Conversion/wire_gauge.html) has a more comprehensive table, but it makes less sense for non-metric conversions (at least to me).

Now if you (or someone else can help me).  Most of my speaker hookups are using what I think is a copper/aluminum hybrid wire. One wire is silver in color (and I suspect it's aluminum), the other is copper.  I got them because they were cheap and easy to make sure that the polarization of the speakers were correct (the +/- orientation). Now I'm getting concerned that I'm not getting the best use out of my setup.  Should I drop the cash and get more expensive/better wire?
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-18 05:48:17
Quote
Should I drop the cash and get more expensive/better wire?


  I strongly doubt you will ever be able to A/B a difference unless your speaker wire travels a long distance. You probably would be able to measure it though, which of course is a different can of worms. 

  You could always purchase a single length of stranded 12-16gauge copper wire, have a friend substitute it in for one of the speakers (or not at all) and not tell you which one is which. Try A/Bing with mono material and the balance knob.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: monkeyboy on 2003-09-18 16:31:52
Most copper is 99.9% Oxygen free.  The main difference between audio cables is the quality of termination and the type of sheilding/coating/sleeve (call it what you will).  Now, whilst the listener may not instantly perceive a quality difference between £10 and £80 interconnects, in a situation where lots of power cables and other strong signals are present, the difference would be very noticeable.  Essentially, all you are paying for is for the signal to remain as pure as possible, under any circumstances.

Essentally, this is the same with the difference between separates (lost of space = less interference and more space for solid reliable componants) and intigrated systems, where everything is cramped and exposed to such interference.  Lesser quality componants.  Obviously the other advantage is the life expectancy of separates - I have good sounding kit that is 18 years old (though most is relatively new).  Who do you know that has had a midi system last that long - I doubt anyone does!

It is investment and pound for pound, hifi sounds superior 
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-19 00:01:00
Quote
Now, whilst the listener may not instantly perceive a quality difference between £10 and £80 interconnects, in a situation where lots of power cables and other strong signals are present, the difference would be very noticeable.


I would enjoy watching people A/B $15versus $90 speaker cables in their homes if they didn't know which was which.

Stereo Review did an expose' of so-called "golden" ears" who were sure they could A/B differences between speaker cable. The magazine editors rigged one system with identical components (excellent speakers, superb amplification) save speaker wire. One setup got 20 year old rusty 14gauge wire from someones garage and the other got the "highest quality" OFC availible ($100's per foot).
  Surprise, Surprise, no one (including some of the editors of Audio and Stereophile, IIRC) could A/B the difference by ear.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: jrbamford on 2003-09-19 00:17:08
I plan to record some outputs from my DAC20 (with twin outputs) comparing different leads... sadly i can't find an adapter for twin phono female to single 3.5mm stereo male... so i am going to have to use an additional lead with this kind of setup (actually with twin male phono as thats all i could find, using some female to female connectors to bridge the gap) ... annoyingly this extra lead will contaminate the signal path (audible or not I'd prefer to not have to do it so only the leads in question were being recorded) .. I'll use my creative jukebox3 to record seeing as i only have a SB Live in my main machine i doubt the differences will be much (this may be worth another test sometime as if quality is better on my live i'll use it for my vinyl recordings)

Be interesting if anything is audible, i'll put samples online but i'm sans broadband at the moment sadly
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: KikeG on 2003-09-19 07:48:23
At http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/stest (http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/stest) you have a test where I passed a piece of music through my Audiophile soundcard and a cheap (around $3) 1-meter interconnect, 3 times.

So far nobody has been able to tell reliabily the original file from the 3-times passed file. Not even people with so-called "audiophile" equipment that tried, reported being able.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: JeanLuc on 2003-09-19 10:21:41
Quote
The same thing applies for interconnects, but you also need gold-plated plugs that have a tight fit.

Hmm ... it is even more important to have plugs that have separated contact areas (no solid circle, but segments that can adjust themselves independently) on the outer "mass" ring ... a solid mass circle will have contact to the female connector at only two small points if you take into account that there is a deviation from the "real" circle on almost any machined round piece of metal ...

The way that some manufacturers go by outfitting their plugs with segmented mass rings (additionally, segmented or profiled "inner" plugs) is far more effective IMHO (regarding conductivity) than any plating or cable selection, because you do not gain anything with pure oxygen-free-copper of 99,9999% if all is lost in the adjacent mechanical connection.

Abdication of soldering in favor of cold welding is a good way to add some extra conductivity ... low-temp soft-soldered connections (using a lead/tin alloy) increase or create a transistion resistance of any connection.

These measures are not expensive and can be found even in the lower mid-price segment ... you just have to take a look at more "independent" electronics stores ... no need to go for Oehlbach, Monster Cable or Kimber ...
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: ScorLibran on 2003-09-19 10:40:18
Out of curiosity, I am wondering what any (theoretical) audible difference between cabling could possibly be caused by.  Whether it's speaker wire or component cables, they all carry a signal right?  An electrical signal.  Electricity.  Electrons.

Now, I understand how poor shielding could enable interference problems, but let's assume for a moment that you have two very well-shielded cables of equal gauge...one for $5 per foot and the other for $25 per foot.

With the cheaper cable, are electrons falling out the sides of it?  Do electrons not travel as quickly down the cheaper cables as they do down the pretty ones?  Are the electrons not lined up as well in lower-quality cabling?  I'm not an idiot, nor am I an electrical engineer either.  But I notice that when I read about how great cabling makes a lot of difference, or even some difference, I'm not seeing exactly [span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%']why[/span] this could be the case.

I *do* see references to "conductivity" quite often, but what would an example of conductive variance between different quality cables be?  And, again, does poor conductivity mean fewer electrons being sent at once?  Are electrons transferred in parallel or in series.  If it's the latter, then there is no "at once".  So it would then be a matter of only speed for determining conductivity?

If someone could explain how signal accuracy relates to a physical attribute of electron flow, I'd seriously appreciate it.  And for reference, yes, I'm guilty of buying the "pretty wires".  My car and home systems are all full of Monster reference-quality cabling, and I'd bet I couldn't ABX it from decent-grade (and cheaper) Radio Shack wires from most of what I've seen/heard over the years.

I just wonder whether the only thing that makes any real difference between wires of equal gauge is the quality of the plastic (or whatever material) they're wrapped in.  Once you've got the right gauge, and solid shielding is achieved, what else is there?

Or is it all in the shielding?  Is "enough" shielding really that much more expensive than "not enough" shielding?

Edit: Added "conductivity" questions, because you know, my post just didn't have enough questions in it.      Removed stupid joke.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2003-09-19 10:57:47
Quote
Or is it all in the shielding?  Is "enough" shielding really that much more expensive than "not enough" shielding?

For RF applications it certainly is.

But this is for frequencies of many MHz, not kHz. And the cost difference is approx £10/100 metres vs £50/100 metres.


However, the measurable resistance of any wire is never 0.


This is one of the most annoying areas of audio. There are often real and audible problems in connecting and interfacing equipment. They can be solved, too. But there's no real proffit in this, because the solutions aren't particularly expensive.

So, instead we have this massive cable industry making money from nonesense, and it's difficult for any normal person to know what to buy. We also have hi-fi components that are sensitive to differences in interconnect, even though these sensitivities are well understood, and easy to design out of the circuit.


The science behind all this (and it's well known science) is hidden by nonensense, and the only people who benefit are those who want to sell you expensive cable.


Cheers,
David.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: KikeG on 2003-09-19 11:00:16
Quote
Once you've got the right gauge, and solid shielding is achieved, what else is there?

Nothing, in most systems. On very long speaker cables, different inductance might make for slightly audible differences at high frequencies. Low inductance can be achieved using coaxial speaker cable, which shouldn't be expensive either.

Quote
Is "enough" shielding really that much more expensive than "not enough" shielding?

I don't think so. Brands such as Belden, Canare or Mogami sell inexpensive cables of just any kind of type you can imagine, and are widely used at recording studios.

All else about expensive cabling is marketing ripoff.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: JeanLuc on 2003-09-19 11:47:48
Quote
I *do* see references to "conductivity" quite often, but what would an example of conductive variance between different quality cables be?  And, again, does poor conductivity mean fewer electrons being sent at once?  Are electrons transferred in parallel or in series.  If it's the latter, then there is no "at once".  So it would then be a matter of only speed for determining conductivity?

1. conductivity is the reciproke value of electrical specific resistance
2. "speed" is not a problem ... alternate currents travel without any significant time-shift

OK, serious ...

there is more to cable than simple electric (in terms of pure Ohm) resistance ... besides inductivity and capacity which can affect high and low frequencies by losses (if I & C are high enough - that's what impedance is all about), there are some other effects like e.g. the "skin-effect" (high frequency currents are pushed towards the surface of the cable, reducing effective conduction diameter) which can make cables sound "lower" (could be a good idea to use cable with a lower surface area, if your speakers sound a little too analytic  )

I agree with 2bdecided that any major manufacturer could easily produce devices with matching electric specifications of their in- and outputs which would make any cable discussion (regarding capacity, inductivity etc.) absolutely useless ... there would be one good standard cable for all circumstances ...

I also agree with you guys that most people are not able to seriously ABX a difference between normal cables and overpriced so-called High-End-stuff ... but modern HiFi magazines state that as well and point out that no cable can significantly affect your stereo system's tonal balance (like different loudspeakers can) ... that's why ultra-expensive cables never get a "best buy" recommendation whatsoever ... what these magazines state is that you can influence certain characteristics of a stereo system in a marginal way that might be determined if listened very closely and concentrated.

My point of view, regarding mechanical components (like plugs) is based on my personal opinion as well as my engineer knowledge ... good-old mechanical properties are too often regarded as negligible ... that's why I wanted to point out that a proper plug's connection (this concerns optical toslink cables as well) is far more important (regarding future stability/reliability as well) than slight differences in cable material.

Edit: removed some errors in orthography ...
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: KikeG on 2003-09-19 12:27:01
Quote
there is more to cable than simple electric (in terms of pure Ohm) resistance ... besides inductivity and capacity ... there are some other effects like e.g. the "skin-effect" (high frequency currents are pushed towards the surface of the cable, reducing effective conduction diameter) which can make cables sound "lower"

There are other effects, but they are negligible at audio frequencies and levels. Skin effect just increases resistance at high frequencies. Even in case of thick, very long cables, which would be the more affected from this effect, most speakers have greater impedance at high frequencies, so the loading effect due to resistive skin effect at high frequencies won't be important. Edit: even if there were audible problems in this respect in any strange case, the solution is inexpensive too: just run several inexpensive thinner cables, instead of a thick one.

Quote
I also agree with you guys that most people are not able to seriously ABX a difference between normal cables and overpriced so-called High-End-stuff

Not most people, but *any*. There's a pool from several years at the rec.audio.* groups of a few thousand dollars for anyone that can tell any competent inexpensive cable from an expensive, competent one (note that there are some incompetent expensive cables too, they color the sound on purpose) under blind conditions. So far nobody has even tried.

Quote
what these magazines state is that you can influence certain characteristics of a stereo system in a marginal way that might be determined if listened very closely and concentrated.

Then they could be ABXed.

Cable performance can be relatively easily measured. There's nothing that an expensive cable can do that an inexpensive cable can't.

Quote
... good-old mechanical properties are too often regarded as negligible...
I agree here, good connectors offer a more robust, less error-free connection. However, cheap connectors that are doing good contact (not that strange) won't sound worse.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: kennedyb4 on 2003-09-19 12:57:57
This is a great thread. There have been many claims about various cables for a long time and a lot of money spent.

Personally I would like to see some blind testing done with bi-wiring.Some guys claim radical changes in sound and it's not hard to do usually if your speakers are set for it.

Me, I could not detect a change but I could not do abx effectively.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: DonP on 2003-09-19 13:26:01
Quote
Not most people, but *any*. There's a pool from several years at the rec.audio.* groups of a few thousand dollars for anyone that can tell any competent inexpensive cable from an expensive, competent one (note that there are some incompetent expensive cables too, they color the sound on purpose) under blind conditions. So far nobody has even tried.

The usual rec.audio excuse from those who claim differences is that blind testing  doesn't work because there is too much pressure to perform.  On the other hand many of the same folks say that they can easlily tell the difference between hearing cable A in one store and cable B in another store.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: JeanLuc on 2003-09-19 14:00:49
Quote
even if there were audible problems in this respect in any strange case, the solution is inexpensive too: just run several inexpensive thinner cables, instead of a thick one.

That's why some people use solid copper wire (like the one used for electrical installations) for loudspeaker connections ... to make their speakers sound with less treble ... although I would prefer to place absorbing elements like a thick carpet (great for absorbing high-frequencies, e.g. reflections) in line with the loudspeaker's listening axis ...

Edit:

Perhaps we should also be aware that most HiFi magazines test any piece of equipment under circumstances that are totally "unreal" for the normal home listener ... as an example, the german mag "AUDIO" uses a specially-designed, resonance-free (or low-resonating) listening room that looks like ... erm ... not worth living in it  ... with no or negligible disturbing resonances, differences between components will interfere with room resonances less severe and thus may be easier to determine ...

Maybe it should be suggested to perform a double blind test in addition to HiFi magazine's standard test procedures when testing components ...
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: KikeG on 2003-09-19 14:20:44
Quote
That's why some people use solid copper wire (like the one used for electrical installations) for loudspeaker connections ... to make their speakers sound with less treble...

As I explained, I don't think skin effect can be audible in most situations, if any. Some measurements would be good to test the actual relevance of this effect.

Quote
Perhaps we should also be aware that most HiFi magazines test any piece of equipment under circumstances that are totally "unreal" for the normal home listener

If that is true, how relevant are their reviews for home listener? Why don't they try an ABX test?

Quote
... as an example, the german mag "AUDIO" uses a specially-designed, resonance-free (or low-resonating) listening room that looks like ... erm ... not worth living in it  ... with no or negligible disturbing resonances, differences between components will interfere with room resonances less severe and thus may be easier to determine ...

What about a good pair of headphones?
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: bawjaws on 2003-09-19 14:31:24
A condensed version of this thread and the information linked from it would make an excellent addition the new hydrogenaudio wiki (assuming it is considered relevant to the wiki's goals by those in change).
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: JeanLuc on 2003-09-19 14:33:11
Quote
As I explained, I don't think skin effect can be audible in most situations, if any. Some measurements would be good to test the actual relevance of this effect.

If that is true, how relevant are their reviews for home listener? Why don't they try an ABX test?

What about a good pair of headphones?

1.

that would be very useful information, especially regarding different material's frequency and impulse response ...

2.

they claim that only a resonance-free listening environment will create equal conditions for e.g. every loudspeaker tested because some models suffer more from resonances than others ... from their point of view, this would not be a "fair" test ... and ABX is not a mean to determine sound quality (what hifi magazines claim to do), but pure differences in sound.

3.

heaphones are unbeaten when it comes to tonal music experience but they suffer when it comes to correct reproduction of staging (spatial information) ... if you ever heard how a carefully placed set of stereo speakers (the so-called stereo triangle) is able to create a virtual stage where you can pinpoint the location of different instruments (e.g. when listening to a philharmonic orchestra's recording), you will miss that information when using headphones ... the low distance between sound source and ear does not allow proper reproduction of "staging" in depth (this is negligible for pop/rock music, though, where Left/Right information is all you need in most cases)
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: KikeG on 2003-09-19 14:58:17
Quote
they claim that only a resonance-free listening environment will create equal conditions for e.g. every loudspeaker tested because some models suffer more from resonances than others ... from their point of view, this would not be a "fair" test ...

Those speakers would then be worse under real-world listening conditions. won't they? I don't see why that would be unfair... if that is what you mean.

Also, only true anechoic chambers are totally resonance-free. Anechoic chambers are damn expensive and difficult to build. I seriously doubt any hi-fi magazine uses true anechoic chambers for their listening evaluations.

Quote
and ABX is not a mean to determine sound quality (what hifi magazines claim to do), but pure differences in sound.


If no differences can be found, then sound quality will be exactly the same.

Quote
3.

Could be. But for all other sound characteristics, they would work fine.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Pio2001 on 2003-09-19 22:06:13
Skin Effect Summary.

The skin effect in a cylindrical conductor has two components :

The resistance is increased because the usable section is reduced.
The inductance is also changed.

I calculated the effect on the resistance.
Here is the formula giving the resistivity R' in IS units (ohms per meter). Note it, it is very difficult to find ! It comes from the "Traité d'éléctromagnétisme" de l'Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne.

R=1/(2*Pi*radius^2*gamma)*RE(k*radius*J0(k*radius)/J1(k*radius))

Where
Radius is the radius of the cable in meters
Gamma the conductivity of the metal in ohm^-1*Meters^-1
RE (x) is the real part of x
plus or minus k = (1-j)/d
j is the imaginary number such as j^2=-1
d is the penetration depht in meters defined as
d= square root of (2/(omega*µ*gamma))
omega is 2*Pi*f where f is the frequency in Hertz
µ is the magnetic permeability in Henrys per meter

JN(kr) (N integer from 0 to infinite) is the Bessel function of order N defined as
JN(kr) = (kr/2)^N * [1/N!-1/(1!(N+1)!)(kr/2)^2+1/(2!(N+2)!)(kr/2)^4-1/(3!(N+3)!)(kr/2)^6+ ......]

For a speaker cable of 3 meters (6 meters the two ways), this gives

Section / R at 20 Hz / R at 20 kHz
0.75 mm2 / 0.128 Ohm / 0.132 Ohm
1.5 mm2 / 0.0640 Ohm / 0.0703 Ohm
2.5 mm2 / 0.0384 Ohm / 0.0484 Ohm
4 mm2 / 0.0239 Ohm / 0.0362 Ohm
6 mm2 / 0.0160 Ohm / 0.0287 Ohm
12 mm2 / 0.00804 Ohm / 0.0196 Ohm

075 mm2 is your standard 1200 W zip cord
2.5 mm2 is the big zip cord (must be rated around 3600 W)
4 and 6 mm2 are common in audiophile speaker cables.
I gave 12 mm2 a shot because I used some 12 mm2 cables in my tests (to be published after this), though it is quite impossible to find.

I then computer the treble loss, between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, if the speaker is 8 Ohm at any frequency, and the ampli 0.08 Ohm.

0.75 mm2 : -0.0042 dB
1.5 mm2 : -0.0067 dB
2.5 mm2 : -0.011 dB
4 mm2 : -0.013 dB
6 mm2 : -0.014 dB
12 mm2 : -0.012 dB

The loss is maximal at 6 mm2. Below, the skin effect is decreses because the cable is so small that the current fills its section completely even at 20 kHz. Above, the effect decreases, because the resistance of the cable becomes negligible at any frequency. This maximal loss, about on hundredth of a dB, is completely inaudible.

This page came to a similar conclusion : http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audiop...fect_Cables.htm (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SkinEffect_Cables.htm), using different methods.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-19 23:29:26
Very informative post Pio!

Quote
The usual rec.audio excuse from those who claim differences is that blind testing doesn't work because there is too much pressure to perform. On the other hand many of the same folks say that they can easlily tell the difference between hearing cable A in one store and cable B in another store.


  Bwahahahahahaha!!! That's hilarious!  edit: Pio is not all caps
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: ChrisGranger on 2003-09-20 01:01:01
Quote
Quote
The usual rec.audio excuse from those who claim differences is that blind testing doesn't work because there is too much pressure to perform. On the other hand many of the same folks say that they can easlily tell the difference between hearing cable A in one store and cable B in another store.

Good god, that's just idiotic.  Comparing different systems in different store listening rooms and using that to make a claim that you can hear the differences between cables?  The expensive cable makers need people this foolish in order to sell their $100+ /m stuff.

As an aside, auditioning stereos in a dealer's showroom is just plain pointless too. The only way to tell if you'll be happy with a piece of gear is to take it home and use it in your room, in your system. The differences between a dealer's room acoustics and your own listening room's probably outweigh the differences in the sound of two pieces of equipment.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Pio2001 on 2003-09-20 01:23:22
Speaker cables recordings.

Don't try this at home unless you have a diploma about electric engineering !!!

I recorded the speaker signal delivered by my ampli at the ampli plugs and at the speaker plugs, with three different speaker cables, with a coaxial cable connecting the speaker plugs into the line in of my DAT deck (47 kOhm standard line in).
The tricky part : if you mistake the + for the -, you fry your amplifier connecting the positive speaker out to the ground of your recorder !

The samples are mono, because I didn't have enough coax to reach both speakers.
They are available at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=13401&st=0 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13401&st=0)
I made 4 samples.
-Recorded from the ampli (Arcam Diva A85), with double A2 cable (12 mm2 solid core copper), about 4 meters long, with a Dynaudio Gemini speaker (4 ohm).
-Same thing recorded from the speaker
-QED Qudos cable (4 mm2 stranded copper), 4.5 meters, speaker side
-Same thing with 6.5 meters of cable

The RMS levels (over 123 seconds of recordings, while you have only 20 seconds samples) are :
Ampli : -16.64 dB
Speaker / A2 : -16.64 dB
Speaker / QED short : -16.68 dB
Speaker / QED long : -16.70 dB


Compared spectrum analysis.

I made Samplitude draw the spectrums over the 123 seconds recordings, with the same settings. I then superimposed them in additive mode and colors inverted.
As a result, you get the A2, QED long and QED short spectrums compared to the ampli spectrum.
White lines are identical levels. When you see red pixels at the top, then the speaker signal is louder (the cable emphasizes this frequency). If you can see cyan pixels, the ampli signal is louder (the cable attenuates this frequency). Look closely in order to see the tiny pixels !
One pixel equals 0.1 dB. I counted the pixels moving the layers step by step until the pixels change colors in Corel Photopaint.

(http://3141592.pio2001.online.fr/pictures/speakercable/a2.png)

Above, the A2 cable gives up to +0.15 dB between 3 and 8 kHz, and up to -0.2 dB above 8 kHz

(http://3141592.pio2001.online.fr/pictures/speakercable/qedshort.png)

Above, the short QED gives up to -0.2 dB above 8 kHz

(http://3141592.pio2001.online.fr/pictures/speakercable/qedlong.png)

Above, the long QED gives up to -0.3 dB above 8 kHz

If we assume that the speaker impedance can fall as low as 3 Ohm, and that the ampli impedance is 0.08 Ohm, then, the long QED cable being about 0.07 Ohm ,skin effect (20 kHz) taken into account (4mm2, 13 meters), just to get an idea (anyway the real speaker impedance is unknown), it should give
U'/U=(3+0.08)/(3+0.07+0.08)=0.98
Loss = 20 log (0.98) = -0.2 dB

Thus the differences measured can be explained by the speaker impedance and the cable resistance only.

ABX Listening tests on the samples (8 sessions each ) :
Long Qed vs Ampli signal : failure (I don't remember my bad score)
A2 vs ampli signal : failure (5/8).


Edit : pictures links
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-20 01:37:19
Quote
Loss = 20 log (0.98) = -0.2 dB

But, but, but, but, my psychic chihuahua hear a 0.2dB drop easy!!!! 
     
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Pio2001 on 2003-09-20 03:10:02
Then, looking at him you can ABX ?
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-20 03:37:05
Quote
Then, looking at him you can ABX ?

Well, not under controlled conditions and only when I'm not looking at him. Then he tilts his head slightly to the side to indicate to me which cable he prefers. Of course, if I look back to see which side he meant, he straightens up and I can't tell.
  I know for sure that he does though, because he told me in a dream.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: ger@co on 2003-09-20 06:01:56
Quote
Most of my speaker hookups are using what I think is a copper/aluminum hybrid wire. One wire is silver in color (and I suspect it's aluminum), the other is copper.


If you hook the copper wire to the positive pole and the silver wire to the negative pole, I don't think the quality of the sound will be affected, because one of the wires (the silver one) is the ground.

Later
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: lucpes on 2003-09-20 19:27:59
The audio signal is alternative current, so it doesn't matter what good conductive material (decent gauge) you hook the speakers on the ground/active with as long as the speakers are in the proper phase.

also check this link: http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_wire.htm (http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_wire.htm)

Another link: http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm (http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm)

However, the "warm fuzzy feeling" is non ABX-able, and costs a lot in some situations... maybe a head wire check is required

edit: added 'good conductive' to material
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-20 21:27:54
Quote
However, the "warm fuzzy feeling" is non ABX-able, and costs a lot in some situations... maybe a head wire check is required

  Comedy Gold!
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Pio2001 on 2003-09-20 21:50:40
Quote
The audio signal is alternative current, so it doesn't matter what good conductive material (decent gauge) you hook the speakers on the ground/active with as long as the speakers are in the proper phase.

The fact that the current is alternative is not a good argument, because in line connections, the current is alternative too, and the choice of the wire (core or shield) to plug is crucial.
The main argument for speaker cable immunity is the extremely low output impedance of the power amplifier : around 0.08 Ohm, compared to the 470 Ohm standard of line outputs...
I realised, recording the speaker output into the line input, that I had to push the volume quite loud in order to get a decent line level into the speaker output. Audio amplifiers are mostly current amplifiers, that can be interpreted as "impedance decreasers". They can amplify the voltage too, but that's not what makes them "power" amplifiers.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: lucpes on 2003-09-20 22:05:42
Quote
If you hook the copper wire to the positive pole and the silver wire to the negative pole, I don't think the quality of the sound will be affected, because one of the wires (the silver one) is the ground.

@Pio2001
Quote
The fact that the current is alternative is not a good argument, because in line connections, the current is alternative too, and the choice of the wire (core or shield) to plug is crucial.


Sorry, I was trying to counter the 'quality won't change if you use the silver wire to the ground' post.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Welly Wu on 2003-09-20 22:10:55
I certainly respect the opinions of my fellow HA members on matters relating to cross-platform / cross-format psychoacoustic audio compression.  I agree with the notion that spending more capital resources to acquire "better" audio equipment does not necessarily mean "better" sound quality.  However, I agree to disagree that with respect to "audiophile" cables: juxstaposing a $20 dollar Radio Shack IC versus my $170 dollar DiMarzio M-PATH IC does produce a dramatic increase in sound quality.  Furthermore, I am a proponent of carefully defining one's specific audio goals prior to investing any capital; thus research is critical.  I do believe that more carefully thought out and constructed cables do deliver beneficial increases in sound quality.  I just do not want to quantify these perceptual "gains" in cold, hard, monetary figures.  I listen to music to relax and to be entertained.  If there is to be had a "better" cable that can help me to achieve that level of satisfaction, then I will commit my time to research it and I may possibly commit my own money to acquire it.  These are just my opinions.

By the way, I compared two power cords with my recently acquired and refurbished Denon DVD 2900 universal player.  I listened to "cheap" stock power cord for one week.  The results were very good but I felt that my music was a bit "congested" and "dry."  So, I did my research into power cords al la Head-Fi, AudioAsylum, and AudioGon.  I came to the conclusion that the PS Audio XStream Plus power cords could help me eliminate those sonic imperfections.  I ordered them and I have noticed an ever growing and dramatic improvement in sound reproduction qualities with my Denon DVD 2900.  I am very happy with the results delivered by the PS Audio XStream Plus power cord.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: lucpes on 2003-09-20 22:25:25
Quote
Furthermore, I am a proponent of carefully defining one's specific audio goals prior to investing any capital; thus research is critical.  I do believe that more carefully thought out and constructed cables do deliver beneficial increases in sound quality.

Here are some themes to research: http://www.audiotweaks.com/collection_ascend.htm (http://www.audiotweaks.com/collection_ascend.htm) 
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: fewtch on 2003-09-20 22:25:46
Welly Wu,

I'll allow that cables may make a difference in some cases (probably due to capacitance issues, better shielding, etc. that could be interpreted as improvements).  However, how the hell do you think a power cord will make a difference?  I'm not sure you realize what the current is traveling through before it hits the wall socket -- are you?  You think it's "audiophile grade" wiring in there?

If you rewired your house completely from the transformer outside to the wall sockets, you get my respect.  Otherwise, I have to say "complete BS" as far as power cords go... you're imagining it, period.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: lucpes on 2003-09-20 22:29:05
Quote
...I have noticed an ever growing and dramatic improvement in sound reproduction qualities with my Denon DVD 2900.  I am very happy with the results delivered by the PS Audio XStream Plus power cord.

Listening to the emotional audio platitudes is such great sport!!  So mild, yet flaccid, with warm buttery overtones, eh?  Such precipitous velvety fuzzylicious bass too!
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Audible! on 2003-09-20 22:35:10
Quote
However, I agree to disagree that with respect to "audiophile" cables: juxstaposing a $20 dollar Radio Shack IC versus my $170 dollar DiMarzio M-PATH IC does produce a dramatic increase in sound quality.


  That's a pretty bold claim, but not particularly unusual.
  What length of cable are we talking about here, and have you ever subjected yourself to blind or double blind conditions to see if you can verify this claim with cables sight unseen?
 
  I have never witnessed or read about a situation where individuals could distinguish a difference in audio quality when subjected to verifiably stringent conditions. In fact, quite the contrary - every test of this type that I have ever seen has shown exactly the opposite.
Title: A collection of anti-hifi [ripoff] information
Post by: Pio2001 on 2003-09-21 00:04:56
Quote
juxstaposing a $20 dollar Radio Shack IC versus my $170 dollar DiMarzio M-PATH IC does produce a dramatic increase in sound quality.

To Welly Wu and all who answered : the basic and absolute rule in HydrogenAudio.org is to only make statements that are backuped by a scientific proof.
See the two links at the top of the FAQ, under "Hydrogenaudio.org's basic rules on listening tests".

Statements are divided into two categories.
1- Statements that have been tested in the past and became part of HydrogenAudio recommendations, like "Lame provides better quality than Fronhaufer encoders at high bitrates", or "joint stereo provides better quality than pure stereo". For these ones, it is admitted to restate them without providing other proof than a suggestion to read the FAQ.
2 - Statemens that either go against previous ones (like "Lame APS gives me a better result than MPC Standard"), or that are new and untested (like "a power cable improved the sound of my CD Player").

The second category of statement is only admitted with a proof, that is usually a double blind test with statistically valid results (example:  recognition of the right source 8 times out of 8). It may also be a measurment showing an obviously audioble difference (-20 dB noise, +5 dB medium boost, etc).

The placebo effect has been proven, read for example http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/...les/23down.html (http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/circuits/articles/23down.html) 

Quote
"They describe huge changes and they say, 'Oh my God, John, tell me you can hear that difference,'" Mr. Dunlavy said. The trick is the technicians never actually change the cables, he said, adding, "It's the placebo effect."


So we can't think anythink about someone claiming he can hear "huge differences". I myself already thought that I could hear "huge differences" between some devices (24/96 vs 44.1/16 recording of a vinyl), and changed my mind later, no hearing anymore any difference. This is also true for professionnal people, like sound engineers ( http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....t=75#entry48032 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4605&st=75#entry48032) ), or audiophile critics (quote above).

Therefore the only way to gather information is to test the audible differences. Perform a blind test and see if you can recognize your cable not knowing if it is plugged or not, at least 7 times out of 8 (only one mistake allowed).
I also thought I could tell the recordings of my cables, posted above from each other. I tried in blind, I failed. I though I heard one while it was the other playing etc...
Most audiophile say that all differences vanish in blind tests because of the stress caused by the test. But in your case, a "dramatic increase in sound quality" can't be masked by "stress", and should turn the blind test very easy and fast.

Please HA members, when someone makes an unsupported statement about sound, recall the term of service number 8, until we setup a short and informative article about blind tests. Just answering that they are wrong won't help. The fact that blind tests are compulsory here must be recalled at once in order to avoid flaming...

EDIT : ...people don't know it and thus naturally discuss their impressions about sound, like in any other forum. The real point is that the rule is different here. The point that this is a valid approach was discussed elsewhere and is off topic in this thread. Here, the pertinent information is that it is the rule.