| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Something struck me the other day whilst reading this group.
All these "do they/don't they" arguments about speaker cables and interconnects... if there is a difference then the likes of Pinkerton, Phil Allison, Krueger etc are so busy trying to out-Tourettes each other that they wouldn't be able to hear it over the swearing anyway. And these people expect us to take one word they say seriously? -- Squirrel Solutions Ltd Tel: (01453) 845735 http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/ Fax: (01453) 843773 Registered in England: 05877408 |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Glenn Richards wrote:
And these people expect us to take one word they say seriously? Nutters, the lot of them :-) OT:/ Which 'Bit-Perfect' soundcard did you end up with? -- Adrian C |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message Something struck me the other day whilst reading this group. All these "do they/don't they" arguments about speaker cables and interconnects... if there is a difference then the likes of Pinkerton, Phil Allison, Krueger etc are so busy trying to out-Tourettes each other that they wouldn't be able to hear it over the swearing anyway. It would take a seriously imperceptive person to confuse Allison's profane rants with the moderate comments by Pinkerton and Krueger. You expect us to take seriously anything you'd say about perceiving differences, given how confused you obviously are? |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
It would take a seriously imperceptive person to confuse Allison's profane rants with the moderate comments by Pinkerton and Krueger. I should add that there are a large number of posts under my name that quoted subjectivists who were themselves very profane. I don't think it is my place to change their posts when quoting them. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"Glenn Richards" ** Is this a person or a squirrel ?? Something struck me the other day whilst reading this group. ** Wot - did a big nut fall right on your pointy head ?? All these "do they/don't they" arguments about speaker cables and interconnects... ** Crikey - you really don't have much going on up top do you - pal ?? if there is a difference then the likes of Pinkerton, Phil Allison, Krueger etc ... ** Yawn ...... wot fabricated ****ing drivel pretending to be some kind of a half arsed TROLL. Best this grossly autistic compewter geek can manage, though. And these people expect us to take one word they say seriously? ** Not me - since congenital ****wits like you are incapable of such a feat. Squirrel Solutions Ltd http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/ ** What' a squirrel's idea of a solution ??? Hording as many * nuts * as possible - of course. ...... Phil |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote: All these "do they/don't they" arguments about speaker cables and interconnects... if there is a difference then the likes of Pinkerton, Phil Allison, Krueger etc are so busy trying to out-Tourettes each other that they wouldn't be able to hear it over the swearing anyway. Eh? Mr Pinkerton doesn't post here anymore but Mr Kruger certainly does - and I can't remember him ever using a swear word. Allison on the other hand... -- *If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Glenn Richards wrote: Something struck me the other day whilst reading this group. All these "do they/don't they" arguments about speaker cables and interconnects... if there is a difference then the likes of Pinkerton, Phil Allison, Krueger etc are so busy trying to out-Tourettes each other that they wouldn't be able to hear it over the swearing anyway. And these people expect us to take one word they say seriously? I don't follow your 'argument'. Electrical signals (including audio band ones) follow the laws of physics and their behaviour is easily predicted. My belief is that certain 'cable differences' are easily explained by those laws, rather than any audio 'voodoo'. If so, and the PRO-audio world certainly believes so, those differences could easily be eliminated by using 'pro' type interfaces which have now become actually LESS expensive than 'audiophool' ones. Graham |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: Glenn Richards wrote: All these "do they/don't they" arguments about speaker cables and interconnects... if there is a difference then the likes of Pinkerton, Phil Allison, Krueger etc are so busy trying to out-Tourettes each other that they wouldn't be able to hear it over the swearing anyway. Eh? Mr Pinkerton doesn't post here anymore but Mr Kruger certainly does - and I can't remember him ever using a swear word. Allison on the other hand... Observant comment ! ;~) Graham |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"Glenn Richards" wrote in message ... Something struck me the other day whilst reading this group. All these "do they/don't they" arguments about speaker cables and interconnects... if there is a difference then the likes of Pinkerton, Phil Allison, Krueger etc are so busy trying to out-Tourettes each other that they wouldn't be able to hear it over the swearing anyway. And these people expect us to take one word they say seriously? **You should, perhaps, ask the question directly to each. You could, for instance, ask: Are there are any audible differences between speaker cables, under specific conditions? You may well be surprised at the answers. Don't assume answers, before you hear them. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
|
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"Bob Latham" wrote in message
I'm happy to agree that in many cases a cable will sound different simply because it is not a very good cable electrically speaking but that its poor performance may suit the balance of the speakers or the personal taste of the owner/listener. Thing is, you really have to do something exceptional to have a cable that actually makes things sound different. There are no such things as "many cases (where) a cable will sound different simply because it is not a very good cable." There are some cases where a good cable becomes a bad cable because of issues like corrosion on jacks, and broken conductors in the cables, particularly at the connectors. For example, there are about 40 generic mic cables in a sound system that I work with all of the time. Some might be up to 30 years old, but most are less than 10 years old. Some are very cheap and some are well-known brand names and advertised for rough service. Over the 7 years I've been working with this system, a cable goes bad every few months. In every case but one, the problem was a broken soldered connection at a XLR connector. In the one exceptional case, the cable itself ended up with many breaks within the cable due to being twirled incessantly by a certain vocalist. All of the broken cables but that one were repaired by completely redoing the attachment of the connector, and in some cases the connector was replaced. Once repaired, the broken cables were put back into the pool, where their reliability was about the same as all the rest. This is very different from a typical home audio system. I know that the maths predicts that differences in frequency response of the speaker as a result of using different cables is so small that they cannot be heard. Depends on what you call "different". There are speakers like those that Trevor Wilson likes to talk about, that are incompetently designed and have such bizarre impedance curves that most common speaker cables can cause audible differences. There is the matter of overpriced Monster cables that are actually pretty thin-gauge wire, and may cause audible differences with some speakers in a home environment. Ironically, less money spent on competent commodity cables would solve the problem. I agree, if you turn the volume up or down by 1dB you will struggle to notice it. In an ABX test, that is generally easy to detect. However, turn the bass up or down by somewhat less 1dB and leave the mid and tweeter where they are and that is much more obvious, surprisingly so because you have a reference and a balance to listen to. In an ABX test, that is generally easy to detect. However you've made a relevant point, and that is that the better job you can do of presenting the alternatives so they are readily comparable, the easier it is to hear differences. That's why those of us who have years of experience tend to snicker about comparisons involving cable-swapping. You can't swap cables manually and have a close comparison. Too much time elapses. I think this is why speaker cables have a surprising effect for many people. No, the most common cause of audible differences in home comparisons of audio gear are due to two things: (1) A badly-done comparison that either adds trivial but highly audible differences like level changes, and/or completely masks true audible differences because its so awkward. (2) The natural human tendency to hear differences where there are none. I've never noticed a speaker cable have any effect on the sound stage or the image presented by the speakers, it only, for me at least, changes the tonal balance. If I get to pick the cables and I get to pick the speakers, the answer is either yes or no, depending on what I want you to hear. Interconnects, for me do the opposite. I've never noticed a tonal change but have noticed sound stage and imaging differences. I've no idea why. It's really tough for home audio interconnects in good shape to make audible changes to sound quality. But the same human imagination is engaged in any listening test. A lot of setting up a listening test is ensuring that whatever results you get are actually relevant to what you are changing. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
In article , Bob Latham
wrote: In article , Eeyore wrote: Electrical signals (including audio band ones) follow the laws of physics and their behaviour is easily predicted. My belief is that certain 'cable differences' are easily explained by those laws, rather than any audio 'voodoo'. Yes, I can go along with that. A lot better statement than the usual 'all competent cables sound the same'. Much as my electrical and electronic knowledge would love to agree with the 'all sound the same' argument my ears tell me (and easily) that they don't. No amount of bullying from here will convince me otherwise. No 'bullying' is required to point that there are a number of factors which can cause a 'difference' that actually have zero to do with changing the cable. So that unless your comparisons dealt with these, your conclusion that the change of cable was the 'cause' for what you heard simply isn't reliable. I know that the maths predicts that differences in frequency response of the speaker as a result of using different cables is so small that they cannot be heard. Not just 'maths'. Also measurements and experimental results when people only have the sound to go on, and the results are done so we can check for statistical reliability and exclude the main, well known, other factors that would lead to a 'difference' for many other reasons. Okay, now rip me apart, do your worst. OK. Feel free to consider yourself terrorised by the above. :-) 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 wonder people can't hear the difference...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. .. But the same human imagination is engaged in any listening test. A lot of setting up a listening test is ensuring that whatever results you get are actually relevant to what you are changing. When I did subjective listening tests for a living (OK it was telephone transmission equipment, such as low-bit rate codecs, rather than Hi-Fi equipment, but the principle stands) none of our listeners was allowed even to know the purpose of the test. In a "HiFi" analogy might be that in a listening test to compare CD players the listeners would not know that it was a test of CD players rather than amplifiers, cables, or speakers let alone which players were being tested. This rule was rigorously enforced. Also there were at least 24 listeners per test (tested individually with no opportunity to compare notes), who all got the various "conditions" in a different order (to eliminate precedence effects). Even though some of these conditions might actually be identical they could still get different scores from some listeners. Volume levels were strictly controlled to ensure that minor level differences didn't skew the results. Unless these sorts of precautions are taken listening tests are valueless. David. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Bob Latham wrote:
In article , Eeyore wrote: Electrical signals (including audio band ones) follow the laws of physics and their behaviour is easily predicted. My belief is that certain 'cable differences' are easily explained by those laws, rather than any audio 'voodoo'. Yes, I can go along with that. A lot better statement than the usual 'all competent cables sound the same'. Much as my electrical and electronic knowledge would love to agree with the 'all sound the same' argument my ears tell me (and easily) that they don't. No amount of bullying from here will convince me otherwise. Trouble is that statement is not true. What would be true is that to your ears in YOUR SYSTEM, different cables sound different. The generalisation you made is certainly not proven. Cheers ian |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"David Looser" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. But the same human imagination is engaged in any listening test. A lot of setting up a listening test is ensuring that whatever results you get are actually relevant to what you are changing. When I did subjective listening tests for a living (OK it was telephone transmission equipment, such as low-bit rate codecs, rather than Hi-Fi equipment, but the principle stands) none of our listeners was allowed even to know the purpose of the test. In a "HiFi" analogy might be that in a listening test to compare CD players the listeners would not know that it was a test of CD players rather than amplifiers, cables, or speakers let alone which players were being tested. I've heard about tests like this. It's probably not a bad idea to conceal the nature of the test as it surely leaves even less to doubt. This rule was rigorously enforced. Also there were at least 24 listeners per test (tested individually with no opportunity to compare notes), who all got the various "conditions" in a different order (to eliminate precedence effects). Even though some of these conditions might actually be identical they could still get different scores from some listeners. Volume levels were strictly controlled to ensure that minor level differences didn't skew the results. Sounds like pretty good tests. Unless these sorts of precautions are taken listening tests are valueless. That might be an exagerration. Some of the better tests we did involved about the same number of people. The purpose of the test was known to all. Levels were matched within 0.1 dB. Listeners were not allowed to compare notes. Scores varied because after all, different listeners are different. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote: Bob Latham wrote: In article , Eeyore wrote: Electrical signals (including audio band ones) follow the laws of physics and their behaviour is easily predicted. My belief is that certain 'cable differences' are easily explained by those laws, rather than any audio 'voodoo'. Yes, I can go along with that. A lot better statement than the usual 'all competent cables sound the same'. Much as my electrical and electronic knowledge would love to agree with the 'all sound the same' argument my ears tell me (and easily) that they don't. No amount of bullying from here will convince me otherwise. Trouble is that statement is not true. What would be true is that to your ears in YOUR SYSTEM, different cables sound different. The generalisation you made is certainly not proven. One's ears however may behave differently from day to day if not hour to hour. Graham |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Arny Krueger wrote: Scores varied because after all, different listeners are different. Because they have different ears of course ! Graham |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"Eeyore" wrote in
message Arny Krueger wrote: Scores varied because after all, different listeners are different. Because they have different ears of course ! Well yes, but the differences in the brains are at least as large. Listener training has a huge effect on listener sensitivity. I have worked with people who initially could not sense a difference at all, but rather quickly learned how to achieve at least typical levels of sensitivity. BTW, ABX tests are very helpful for conducting this kind of training. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Eeyore wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote: Bob Latham wrote: In article , Eeyore wrote: Electrical signals (including audio band ones) follow the laws of physics and their behaviour is easily predicted. My belief is that certain 'cable differences' are easily explained by those laws, rather than any audio 'voodoo'. Yes, I can go along with that. A lot better statement than the usual 'all competent cables sound the same'. Much as my electrical and electronic knowledge would love to agree with the 'all sound the same' argument my ears tell me (and easily) that they don't. No amount of bullying from here will convince me otherwise. Trouble is that statement is not true. What would be true is that to your ears in YOUR SYSTEM, different cables sound different. The generalisation you made is certainly not proven. One's ears however may behave differently from day to day if not hour to hour. Graham Not to mention that your head won't be in EXACTLY the same position when you do the second test after changing the cables. Cheers Ian |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Glenn Richards wrote:
Something struck me the other day whilst reading this group. All these "do they/don't they" arguments about speaker cables and interconnects... if there is a difference then the likes of Pinkerton, Phil Allison, Krueger etc are so busy trying to out-Tourettes each other that they wouldn't be able to hear it over the swearing anyway. And these people expect us to take one word they say seriously? We are still waiting for you to publish a couple of short wav files to demonstrate the difference between interconnects. Or have you tried the experiment and found that the results don't support your prejudices? It would probably be best to agree a testing method in advance. -- Eiron. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Adrian C wrote:
Nutters, the lot of them :-) Rabid frothings at the mouth! OT:/ Which 'Bit-Perfect' soundcard did you end up with? The USB one that Maplin are doing for £16. At that price I figured it was worth a go... and it does a hell of a lot better than the Creative one I had before. Analogue and SPDIF outputs, non-resampled and bit-perfect. -- Squirrel Solutions Ltd Tel: (01453) 845735 http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/ Fax: (01453) 843773 Registered in England: 05877408 |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
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 |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
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 wonder people can't hear the difference...
Glenn Richards wrote:
Adrian C wrote: Nutters, the lot of them :-) Rabid frothings at the mouth! OT:/ Which 'Bit-Perfect' soundcard did you end up with? The USB one that Maplin are doing for £16. At that price I figured it was worth a go... and it does a hell of a lot better than the Creative one I had before. Analogue and SPDIF outputs, non-resampled and bit-perfect. This one? A56AK http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?...34128&doy=28m7 -- Eiron. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
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. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
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. |
UTTER AUDIOPHOOL BOLLOCKS
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 |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
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 |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
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 |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
wrote in message
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. It appears that power cable changes can correlate with a perceived difference in sound quality according to some but not all listeners. The perceived difference disappears when a proper double blind test is performed, no matter which of many possible DBT procedures are used. In the case of power cables, rarely if ever are there any measurable affects at the output terminals of the UUT. Often the performance of the power cables themselves cannot be distinguished using relevant technical tests. Yet knowledge of them being changed, whether direct or indirect, can change some people's perceptions. 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. This is of course, a single blind test, not a proper double blind test. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"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. |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
|
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
" wrote: Yet in a high resolution system, power cables.......can make a difference. Compared to wet string maybe. Otherwise a properly rated power cord willl have ZERO difference. Have you ANY IDEA how the AC mains gets mangled to produce the DC for an amplifier ? The possibility of some ultra-linear power cord affecting it is beyond laughable. And I DESIGN this stuff btw, so I DO know what I'm talking about. In great detail. Graham |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Jim Lesurf wrote: wrote: 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. Not to memntion that changing the lead would 'clean' the contacts in the process which could easily have an effect. Hence my suggestion for the use of the now quite inexpensive XLR connector (preferably also with balanced interconnects - also now not expensive) in hi-fi in place of that absrurd piece of crao - the RCA connector. You can pay MORE for a POS RCA unbalanced connector than the now industry standard Swiss made Neutrik XLR. Graham |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Jim Lesurf wrote: 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. LMFAO ! I had considered googling the schematic but you have revealed all. Graham |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
|
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"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 |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
Eeyore wrote:
" wrote: Yet in a high resolution system, power cables.......can make a difference. Compared to wet string maybe. Otherwise a properly rated power cord willl have ZERO difference. Have you ANY IDEA how the AC mains gets mangled to produce the DC for an amplifier ? The possibility of some ultra-linear power cord affecting it is beyond laughable. And I DESIGN this stuff btw, so I DO know what I'm talking about. In great detail. Graham How do you reconcile this 'no difference' claim with your notion that a clean plug can affect sound? What would cleaning a dirty plug do to the sound? Rob |
No wonder people can't hear the difference...
"Rob" Eeyore wrote: Not to memntion that changing the lead would 'clean' the contacts in the process which could easily have an effect. How do you reconcile this 'no difference' claim with your notion that a clean plug can affect sound? ** How about you make sure to post UNDER any words you are referring o - instead of creating a false para- phrased version of your own. What would cleaning a dirty plug do to the sound? ** Not what was previously written - is it ? Dickhead. ....... Phil |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:00 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk