Modified EQ vs Cables($$$$$) Anyone try it??

[Robh3606]

Hello Tom

Well your post has my interest up on this subject. You are talking audible frequency response differences. This should be quite easy to measure. Just for fun I have measured the frequency and phase response of cables using my CLIO meassurement system. Of the ones I have measured they were all benign and didn't have any significant changes over the measurement window except for some phase shift in the last octave. The types of changes you are talking about would require the electrical equivalent of high pass, low pass and notch filters. I don't see anyway to get gain out of a cable so any areas that are acccentuated would really require attenuation in other parts of the spectrum. Very easy to measure. You wouldn't have a measurement system available?? I would like to see measurements to look for differences between them.

Rob

 

[treitz3]

Hello, Rob.

I have no measurement tools to speak of here. I sit clearly on the fence of using my ears to tune a system without the reliance of measurement tools to assist. Having ran pro systems since high school and being very familiar with frequencies and the differences thereof [at times throughout my audio journey, having two EQ's in the same system...currently no EQ], I have full confidence in my observations of the frequency spectrum. I'm quite sure many others here will disagree with my stance of not measuring things but those who have heard my rig often comment how linear and balanced the sound is, no matter the room they observe the rig in. I have tuned by ear for the last decade or so with the only exception of having the Velodyne SMS-1, which pretty much forces you to measure, for a short stint.

I will agree with you in that they would be easily measurable. If I can literally feel the differences of the lower registers at certain volumes [changing nothing but these three aforementioned cables out in my current rig], then one should have no issues measuring the changes between them. The first two cables mentioned have no high pass, low pass and/or notch filters. The Transparent Reference IC's have one of those network boxes and I honestly have no idea what would be inside. The differences between the three frequency-wise are quite apparent to these ears and can be "felt", which would be rather easy to measure.

Another one of the cable sets I should have mentioned would be the Totem Rainmaker IC's. With these compared to the Transparent or most of the other cable sets I have, there is an actual Db difference. Once again, no high pass, low pass and/or notch filters. Just a cable. The difference between these Rainmakers and the Transparent IC's should be very easily measured as the audible frequency response differences are very apparent. So much so, that a change in volume IIRC was required. Not a big fan of the Totem Rainmaker IC's, here. They just sound awful in my system(s). I keep them to show folks who have not heard any changes a cable can make yet. After hearing the demonstration, there is no more "belief" that a cable can make a difference. Only experience.

Tom

 

[Kal Rubinson]

"Palmed off?" Must be a Yankee thing – can’t say I’ve ever heard of it!

"pawned off", like taking it to a pawnshop.

See this: http://www.grammarunderground.com/palm-off-vs-pawn-off.html

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The first part of your statement IMO, is indisputable. Moving onto the last sentence within your statement, given the topic of the thread, it honestly threw me back for a couple of double takes. Especially when you take into consideration your experience in the hobby we all love so dearly. Now I realize that this is your opinion and I can respect that. Everybody is entitled to have their own point of view. With that said, I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with the latter part of your statement if your intent was to say that anyone who uses cables as an EQ [if you will] of sorts, is deluded.

It is a question of degree and context. The original post related cable choice to EQ and I think it is deluded (especially if led to this position by others ) to think that one can use cables in lieu of EQ if the latter is necessary. The consistency, range of adjustment and the precision of control of EQ is simply impossible to achieve, even with a vast library of cables and the time to sample them carefully. Moreover, I find that the consistency you describe is highly dependent on associated equipment (but not the room).

I cannot measure cables directly but I do measure acoustical FR variations (and other things) in typical systems and rooms. I have yet to see any that were affected at all with a cable change although I might believe that the cable swap is perceptible. I can, however, make a correction with EQ that is not only obvious on-screen but obviously audible to all and sundry.

I chose not to say that all cables sound the same and I do keep a sufficient selection on hand to employ if I feel that another can be more satisfying than the one in use. The change can be effective but it is small potatoes compared to what can be accomplished with EQ (and acoustical treatments).

 

[treitz3]

It is a question of degree and context. The original post related cable choice to EQ and I think it is deluded (especially if led to this position by others ) to think that one can use cables in lieu of EQ if the latter is necessary. The consistency, range of adjustment and the precision of control of EQ is simply impossible to achieve, even with a vast library of cables and the time to sample them carefully. Moreover, I find that the consistency you describe is highly dependent on associated equipment (but not the room).

Ah, thank you for taking the time to clarfy. That makes much more sense and I do happen to agree that the consistency I describe is highly dependent on associated equipment. Perhaps you are correct with the room, although, there are or can be some exceptions. At least IME. [Think speaker placement/corner loading]

I chose not to say that all cables sound the same and I do keep a sufficient selection on hand to employ if I feel that another can be more satisfying than the one in use. The change can be effective but it is small potatoes compared to what can be accomplished with EQ (and acoustical treatments).

Same here and I just so happen to agree. Thanks again for taking the time to clarify.

Tom

 

[DonH50]

See this: http://www.grammarunderground.com/palm-off-vs-pawn-off.html

Shoulda' known better than to argue with Kal... Good find, thanks Kal! I be a simple engineer, ain't got no English larnin' - Don

 

[MCLSOUND]

It is a simple question really,and if one decides to buy 10's of thousands in cables trying to find ""the right sound"",then so be it?
I was just curious if a modified EQ would be simpler.

 

[treitz3]

Hello, MCLSOUND. It depends much on what you are looking to achieve. What are you trying to achieve?

Tom

 

[MCLSOUND]

I suppose there comes a point where you are just sick and tired of reading/finding/buying/and being disappointed for the money spent and lost.
True enough is the active system approaching will include alot of cables and preferably most being of the same brand.The cost factor will be just stupid,so I was going to look into a few rolls of some quad cable and speakerwire from Van Damme and DIY my whole system utilizing a nice pair of modded Klark Technik DN27a's EQ's.
Just curious if anyone tried this.....is all?
I am trying to achieve ""Nirvana""?????LOL

 

[JackD201]

Personally I prefer parametric EQs. I've found that aside from graphic EQs being harder to get right (fixed width per band) the faders get dirty and become a source of noise. I'm not that into constantly cleaning and fiddling so PEQs are my preference.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Personally I prefer parametric EQs. I've found that aside from graphic EQs being harder to get right (fixed width per band) the faders get dirty and become a source of noise. I'm not that into constantly cleaning and fiddling so PEQs are my preference.

The problem with GEQs is that the frequencies and Qs are fixed. Whether an EQ has mechanical controls of one sort or another has, imho, no bearing on their function.

 

[JackD201]

That's what I said. To add GEQ's contacts are more exposed to the elements. Not a good thing where I'm from: Humid with lots of airborne particulates.

 

[DonH50]

A lot of pro units I used in the past (do not own one now) had sealed sliders with membranes to keep out dust. Pots are also susceptible to dust and humidity, of course. Personally my choice today would be a DSP, then PEQ, though the old 1/3-octave GEQ is still about the easiest to set up and use, not too mention (so I shall) the easiest to see how it is set with a quick glance at the front. And of course all those knobs and markings impress all who come in with your technical savvy.

 

[JackD201]

I actually had a Klark in the late 80s given to me by my brother before he went to the US. I used it for mobile PA. Take my word for it, it gummed up often.

 

[Robh3606]

Take my word for it, it gummed up often.

Hello Jack

I could see that for mobile work but at home?? I have a JBL Synthesis EQ 1/6 0ctave 16hz-80hz on my L/R subs and Urei 539's 1/3 on the mains. I have the Urei's installed in a rack with a plexiglass cover to help keep the dust off of them. Never had a problem with the EQ sliders.

On the other hand I have JBL 553 and 552 Active crossovers and the rotary pots on them can be a real PITA. Every once in a while a driver will drop out from the pots oxidizing. I ended up recording my settings and running them trough their range as a little PM to keep the whippers clean.


Rob

 

[GaryProtein]

I never had any problems with the sliders on my SAE 2800 parametric EQ. As Don mentioned this one has membranes over the slider to prevent dust from entering.

The dust problem may also be specific to certain models or dusty environments like cities.

 

[JackD201]

Hello Jack

I could see that for mobile work but at home?? I have a JBL Synthesis EQ 1/6 0ctave 16hz-80hz on my L/R subs and Urei 539's 1/3 on the mains. I have the Urei's installed in a rack with a plexiglass cover to help keep the dust off of them. Never had a problem with the EQ sliders.

On the other hand I have JBL 553 and 552 Active crossovers and the rotary pots on them can be a real PITA. Every once in a while a driver will drop out from the pots oxidizing. I ended up recording my settings and running them trough their range as a little PM to keep the whippers clean.


Rob

Hi Rob,

Tropical country, big city pollution. Not a good combination.

 

[untangle]

pwnd

See this: http://www.grammarunderground.com/palm-off-vs-pawn-off.html

I don't think so. More likely this.

Bob

 

[untangle]

I suppose there comes a point where you are just sick and tired of reading/finding/buying/and being disappointed for the money spent and lost.
True enough is the active system approaching will include alot of cables and preferably most being of the same brand.The cost factor will be just stupid,so I was going to look into a few rolls of some quad cable and speakerwire from Van Damme and DIY my whole system utilizing a nice pair of modded Klark Technik DN27a's EQ's.
Just curious if anyone tried this.....is all?
I am trying to achieve ""Nirvana""?????LOL

Yes, I have tried all of this (with different parts), and the results were quite satisfying. Some distortions inevitably crept in along with the pro EQ gear, but these were in most ways preferable to the gross distortions of speaker-room interactions. I often used the "coarse" pro gear as a prototyping tool, and then rendered what I liked in a more minimalist way (usually crossover redesign).

Today, I do all of this work digitally on a Mac Pro feeding a Prism Orpheus multi-channel AD/DA. This achieves far better results and enables digital crossovers as well.

So i for one don't think you're nuts. Worst case, you'll spend little (on an audiophile scale) and learn a lot. And have fun too.

Nirvana? Probably not..

Bob

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I don't think so. More likely this.

Bob

That's just ugly.