Eiron wrote:

We are still waiting for you to publish a couple of short wav files to
demonstrate the difference between interconnects.

And I shall do, when I have an hour or so spare to delve behind the
hi-fi to start swapping cables around.

It would probably be best to agree a testing method in advance.

How about this:

Analogue output from DVD player (Arcam DV79) interconnect Sony CD
recorder. Use a piece of music from mid to late 1980s, non-remastered,
so no "loudness wars" and overcompression to worry about.

Rip resultant recording to FLAC or high-bitrate MP3 (let's say that MP3
achieves transparency somewhere around 224kBit, let's make them 320kBit).

Upload to web site somewhere, post URLs on here.

Allow people to listen and attempt to determine which one was the
freebie and which one was the "expensive" interconnect.

Post answers after say 7-10 days.

--
Squirrel Solutions Ltd Tel: (01453) 845735
http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/ Fax: (01453) 843773

Registered in England: 05877408

Glenn Richards wrote:
Eiron wrote:

We are still waiting for you to publish a couple of short wav files to
demonstrate the difference between interconnects.

And I shall do, when I have an hour or so spare to delve behind the
hi-fi to start swapping cables around.

It would probably be best to agree a testing method in advance.

How about this:

Analogue output from DVD player (Arcam DV79) interconnect Sony CD
recorder. Use a piece of music from mid to late 1980s, non-remastered,
so no "loudness wars" and overcompression to worry about.

Rip resultant recording to FLAC or high-bitrate MP3 (let's say that MP3
achieves transparency somewhere around 224kBit, let's make them 320kBit).

Upload to web site somewhere, post URLs on here.

Allow people to listen and attempt to determine which one was the
freebie and which one was the "expensive" interconnect.

Post answers after say 7-10 days.

That sounds good except that I'd prefer a wav file
and a reference to the original CD so we can compare with that too.

--
Eiron.

In article , Glenn
Richards wrote:
Eiron wrote:

We are still waiting for you to publish a couple of short wav files to
demonstrate the difference between interconnects.

And I shall do, when I have an hour or so spare to delve behind the
hi-fi to start swapping cables around.

It would probably be best to agree a testing method in advance.

How about this:

Analogue output from DVD player (Arcam DV79) interconnect Sony CD
recorder. Use a piece of music from mid to late 1980s, non-remastered,
so no "loudness wars" and overcompression to worry about.

Rip resultant recording to FLAC or high-bitrate MP3 (let's say that MP3
achieves transparency somewhere around 224kBit, let's make them 320kBit).

Upload to web site somewhere, post URLs on here.

Allow people to listen and attempt to determine which one was the
freebie and which one was the "expensive" interconnect.

The above approach would mean each individual's reponse would have a 50:50
chance of being 'right' purely by random. Thus if a number of people
participated the results could be characterised (inappropriately) as "X
percent of people could tell which was which" when the result might simply
be due to chance.

It might be better to have a number of 'recordings' so each individual
could have a number of tries. Might also be better to provide trios of
recordings, one with one cable, the other with the other, and the third
with a randomly chosen cable.

An alternative would be to use either the same - or different - cables for
the L and R channel, and see if anyone could tell. :-)

Then we might be able to assess if the results had any significance.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

No one is a fool for being skeptical. Many of the claims in audioland
are quite foolish indeed.

Yet in a high resolution system, power cables and interconnects can
make a difference. Not always an improvement, but a difference. A
large fat power cable can augment an insufficient power supply in a
real world power situation. Admittedly not the right solution, but it
can help.

I recently changed the IC's in a Quad 306 power amplifier (TI's to
Burr-Browns) playing through some Quad 988s. My wife (not an
audiophile), walked in the room and immediately asked what had
changed... "it sounded more alive" was her comment.

In article
,
wrote:
Not always an improvement, but a difference. A
large fat power cable can augment an insufficient power supply in a
real world power situation. Admittedly not the right solution, but it
can help.

I've never come across a piece of decent equipment with an inadequate
power lead. Indeed in these days of IEC types they're all the same - and
the cable rated at 10 amps +.
Perhaps you could say what you're referring to?

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

No one is a fool for being skeptical. Many of the claims in audioland
are quite foolish indeed.


** And this ****** is about to add some more.


Yet in a high resolution system, power cables and interconnects can
make a difference. Not always an improvement, but a difference. A
large fat power cable can augment an insufficient power supply in a
real world power situation.

** LOL !!

What UTTER AUDIOPHOOL ******** !!!!


I recently changed the IC's in a Quad 306 power amplifier (TI's to
Burr-Browns) playing through some Quad 988s. My wife (not an
audiophile), walked in the room and immediately asked what had
changed... "it sounded more alive" was her comment.


** ROTFLMAO !!!

There simply is NO op-amp in the signal path of a Quad 306 - the circuit
is entirely made from discrete transistors.

So you fell for one of then dumbest SCAMS on eBay.

You ridiculous PITA moron !!




....... Phil

In article
,
wrote:
No one is a fool for being skeptical. Many of the claims in audioland
are quite foolish indeed.

Yet in a high resolution system, power cables and interconnects can make
a difference. Not always an improvement, but a difference. A large fat
power cable can augment an insufficient power supply in a real world
power situation. Admittedly not the right solution, but it can help.

People often make such claims. Usually on the basis of not having done any
test whose results could be assessed for reliability, nor having bothered
to ensure that the many well-known possible causes of error were dealt
with. Thus making the claim worthless.

I recently changed the IC's in a Quad 306 power amplifier (TI's to
Burr-Browns) playing through some Quad 988s. My wife (not an
audiophile), walked in the room and immediately asked what had
changed... "it sounded more alive" was her comment.

Comment much as above. It is a common experience that what we hear
'changes' from one situation to another. Afraid that simply isn't a basis
for deciding *why* a 'change' was heard. Far too many other possible causes
or reasons which your simple anecdote fails to deal with.

Or are you saying you had her repeatedly walk into the room, having
switched at random between the two types of IC? And that you carefully
arranged to always play the same music at the same volume? And that you
changed nothing else whatsover? And that she always walked in by the same
path, to the same position? etc, etc...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 30 Jul, wrote:
In article
,
wrote:


I recently changed the IC's in a Quad 306 power amplifier (TI's to
Burr-Browns) playing through some Quad 988s. My wife (not an
audiophile), walked in the room and immediately asked what had
changed... "it sounded more alive" was her comment.

Comment much as above. It is a common experience that what we hear
'changes' from one situation to another. Afraid that simply isn't a
basis for deciding *why* a 'change' was heard. Far too many other
possible causes or reasons which your simple anecdote fails to deal with.

BTW I just looked at my copy of the 306 diagram. If you are referring to
'IC1' (TLC271) then you might like to note that IIUC its role seems to be
to null the dc offset of the amp. The 2M2 resistor (r33) and 680nF cap (c3)
mean it only really does much around the 1 Hz region and below.

You loudspeakers (and wife) are remarkable if they can hear this. I'd also
be curious to know what recording you were playing that had something
audible at such low frequencies.

Of course, since you didn't give any sign of establishing that your 'test'
had any value, it could just be that you and or wife are simply mistaken.
It does happen, I'm afraid, even for the wifes of audio fanatics. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
..

BTW I just looked at my copy of the 306 diagram. If you are referring to
'IC1' (TLC271) then you might like to note that IIUC its role seems to be
to null the dc offset of the amp. The 2M2 resistor (r33) and 680nF cap
(c3)
mean it only really does much around the 1 Hz region and below.

Indeed, unlike the 405 in which the TL071 op-amp is in the signal path. So
why is anybody stupid enough to waste good money "upgrading" the op-amp in
the 306?

David.

"David Looser"

Indeed, unlike the 405 in which the TL071 op-amp is in the signal path.


** The original Quad 405 used LM301A op-amps.

http://www.geocities.com/quad_esl63/...c/power405.jpg

The TL071 did not exist when it was designed.



So why is anybody stupid enough to waste good money "upgrading" the op-amp
in the 306?


** While there are definite limits on human intelligence - there is no
limit to human stupidity.



...... Phil