I came across this photo and was shocked and begin to laugh. No wonder AES people laugh at audiophiles.
No common sense....what's the noise floor on any major recording studio? Since the late 1950's,it's been a lot lower then any current audiophile system.
They use microphone cable...so what's the difference? Clue if anybody should know Tripont should....hillarious!
Bob thanks for your posting. The bottleneck is not the power cord as such. It is the the ability to remove the collected EMI from the electronics in general. If you look at the Tripoint sink there is much more to be gained
By using a larger cable interface from the components and the sink. That's the real bottleneck as both power cords and
IC's are limited by the grounding scheme design of the equipment where most is lacking.
That's why pro equipment is rack mounted and strapped to earth ground,problem solved.
I came across this photo and was shocked and begin to laugh. No wonder AES people laugh at audiophiles.
No common sense....what's the noise floor on any major recording studio? Since the late 1950's,it's been a lot lower then any current audiophile system.
They use microphone cable...so what's the difference? Clue if anybody should know Tripont should....hillarious!
Bob thanks for your posting. The bottleneck is not the power cord as such. It is the the ability to remove the collected EMI from the electronics in general. If you look at the Tripoint sink there is much more to be gained
By using a larger cable interface from the components and the sink. That's the real bottleneck as both power cords and
IC's are limited by the grounding scheme design of the equipment where most is lacking.
That's why pro equipment is rack mounted and strapped to earth ground,problem solved.
Integrated circuits are often a source of EMI, but they must usually couple their energy to larger objects such as heatsinks, circuit board planes and cables to radiate significantly.
On integrated circuits, important means of reducing EMI are: the use of bypass or decoupling capacitors on each active device (connected across the power supply, as close to the device as possible), rise time control of high-speed signals using series resistors, and IC power supply pin filtering. Shielding is usually a last resort after other techniques have failed, because of the added expense of shielding components such as conductive gaskets.
The efficiency of the radiation depends on the height above the ground plane or power plane (at RF, one is as good as the other) and the length of the conductor in relation to the wavelength of the signal component (fundamental frequency, harmonic or transient such as overshoot, undershoot or ringing). At lower frequencies, such as 133 MHz, radiation is almost exclusively via I/O cables; RF noise gets onto the power planes and is coupled to the line drivers via the VCC and GND pins. The RF is then coupled to the cable through the line driver as common-mode noise. Since the noise is common-mode, shielding has very little effect, even with differential pairs. The RF energy is capacitively coupled from the signal pair to the shield and the shield itself does the radiating. One cure for this is to use a braid-breaker or choke to reduce the common-mode signal.
At higher frequencies, usually above 500 MHz, traces get electrically longer and higher above the plane. Two techniques are used at these frequencies: wave shaping with series resistors and embedding the traces between the two planes. If all these measures still leave too much EMI, shielding such as RF gaskets and copper tape can be used. Most digital equipment is designed with metal or conductive-coated plastic cases.
______
I came across this photo and was shocked and begin to laugh. No wonder AES people laugh at audiophiles.
No common sense....what's the noise floor on any major recording studio? Since the late 1950's,it's been a lot lower then any current audiophile system.
They use microphone cable...so what's the difference? Clue if anybody should know Tripont should....hillarious!
the only advantage a major recording studio has over top level audiophile systems with noise is that it starts with a stronger signal....+10db. then moving that signal around and manipulating it at the end there is more left above the noise.
but system noise itself is not better than 'any audiophile system'. what advantage in noise would it have? audiophiles can have equal power grid enhancements, equal noise isolation, audiophiles can have equal or lower noise amps and preamps, and 'mostly' better (and shorter) cables and resonance control......and system tuning and grounding and such can be just as worked out.
audiophiles simply deal with the crummy low gain output post-mix-down media from the pro studios. don't the studio's own that part? sometimes audiophiles do get raw native digital master files or low gen tape dubs where we enjoy those pro studio advantages. it's about the media, not the gear.....we got the gear.
certainly the better (best) pro audio installations use high quality (sometimes expensive) power cords. we know that. so trying to make fun of an expensive power cord would also include many very esteemed AES members. only an ignorant pro audio guy would do that.....and some certainly do.
and really, you should actually listen to Tripont gear compared to something you know before you make fun of it. it's quite awesome. maybe you could build your own to be equal, but maybe you couldn't.
and lastly, not all pro studios are equal, just like not all audiophile systems are equal.
Bottom line is this can't be measured,so the only way is by ear,to judge. The goal is to reach a level that is equal to the noise level of the recording studios. The grounding sinks are a good idea,except I think that that the pathway is still to small. Someone needs to make a larger interface cable and copper is more then acceptable. A example is a Living stereo recording like Morton Gould....you can hear the conductor and he's standing life size in the room making movements. It took me a few moments to figure what the sounds were as I kept looking around in my room wondering where they were coming from. It is different when you have that kind of clarity. When you think about it it's not that unlikely that the microphone would not pick up sound the the players make. Although what is special was the recording was made in the late 1950's. I think on one of the Stereophile recordings they said that a ticking clock across the hall was picked up on one take. Great stuff.
the only advantage a major recording studio has over top level audiophile systems with noise is that it starts with a stronger signal....+10db. then moving that signal around and manipulating it at the end there is more left above the noise.
but system noise itself is not better than 'any audiophile system'. what advantage in noise would it have? audiophiles can have equal power grid enhancements, equal noise isolation, audiophiles can have equal or lower noise amps and preamps, and 'mostly' better (and shorter) cables and resonance control......and system tuning and grounding and such can be just as worked out.
audiophiles simply deal with the crummy low gain output post-mix-down media from the pro studios. don't the studio's own that part? sometimes audiophiles do get raw native digital master files or low gen tape dubs where we enjoy those pro studio advantages. it's about the media, not the gear.....we got the gear.
certainly the better (best) pro audio installations use high quality (sometimes expensive) power cords. we know that. so trying to make fun of an expensive power cord would also include many very esteemed AES members. only an ignorant pro audio guy would do that.....and some certainly do.
and really, you should actually listen to Tripont gear compared to something you know before you make fun of it. it's quite awesome. maybe you could build your own to be equal, but maybe you couldn't.
and lastly, not all pro studios are equal, just like not all audiophile systems are equal.
how does this 'above' claim about your system validate calling expensive power cords a joke, and prove your claim about pro studios having a universally lower noise floor than 'any audiophile system'???
I respect you and your well thought out approach and rarely am at odds with you.
I just think the points you made in the original post are wrong, and the example you used is particularly poorly chosen. I have no issue with the claim above and would likely agree if I listened.
the only advantage a major recording studio has over top level audiophile systems with noise is that it starts with a stronger signal....+10db. then moving that signal around and manipulating it at the end there is more left above the noise.
but system noise itself is not better than 'any audiophile system'. what advantage in noise would it have? audiophiles can have equal power grid enhancements, equal noise isolation, audiophiles can have equal or lower noise amps and preamps, and 'mostly' better (and shorter) cables and resonance control......and system tuning and grounding and such can be just as worked out.
audiophiles simply deal with the crummy low gain output post-mix-down media from the pro studios. don't the studio's own that part? sometimes audiophiles do get raw native digital master files or low gen tape dubs where we enjoy those pro studio advantages. it's about the media, not the gear.....we got the gear.
certainly the better (best) pro audio installations use high quality (sometimes expensive) power cords. we know that. so trying to make fun of an expensive power cord would also include many very esteemed AES members. only an ignorant pro audio guy would do that.....and some certainly do.
and really, you should actually listen to Tripont gear compared to something you know before you make fun of it. it's quite awesome. maybe you could build your own to be equal, but maybe you couldn't.
and lastly, not all pro studios are equal, just like not all audiophile systems are equal.
how does this 'above' claim about your system validate calling expensive power cords a joke, and prove your claim about pro studios having a universally lower noise floor than 'any audiophile system'???
I respect you and your well thought out approach and rarely am at odds with you.
I just think the points you made in the original post are wrong, and the example you used is particularly poorly chosen. I have no issue with the claim above and would likely agree if I listened.
I think we have much to agree on. We agree that noise is what keeps us from a very high level of reproduction. I'm just saying that that the emphasis should be on the pathway to ground by star grounding,such as Tripoint. There is a lot more to be gained there than a 20 pound cord and they should know that.
making fun of the Tripoint cable (in your original post) never having heard a Tripoint product, and then inferring/assuming that any heavy gauge cable might somehow yield the same result.......that is weak.
understand that the Tripoint Emperor cable in the picture was a power cable.....and not a grounding cable as you are now suggesting. I have tried lots of cables as grounding cables, some very heavy gauge. none come close to the Tripoint Thor Reference that I use in my system. and the Thor is a few steps below the Emperor in the picture.
I think we have much to agree on. We agree that noise is what keeps us from a very high level of reproduction. I'm just saying that that the emphasis should be on the pathway to ground by star grounding,such as Tripoint. There is a lot more to be gained there than a 20 pound cord and they should know that.
the only advantage a major recording studio has over top level audiophile systems with noise is that it starts with a stronger signal....+10db. then moving that signal around and manipulating it at the end there is more left above the noise.
but system noise itself is not better than 'any audiophile system'. what advantage in noise would it have? audiophiles can have equal power grid enhancements, equal noise isolation, audiophiles can have equal or lower noise amps and preamps, and 'mostly' better (and shorter) cables and resonance control......and system tuning and grounding and such can be just as worked out.
audiophiles simply deal with the crummy low gain output post-mix-down media from the pro studios. don't the studio's own that part? sometimes audiophiles do get raw native digital master files or low gen tape dubs where we enjoy those pro studio advantages. it's about the media, not the gear.....we got the gear.
certainly the better (best) pro audio installations use high quality (sometimes expensive) power cords. we know that. so trying to make fun of an expensive power cord would also include many very esteemed AES members. only an ignorant pro audio guy would do that.....and some certainly do.
and really, you should actually listen to Tripont gear compared to something you know before you make fun of it. it's quite awesome. maybe you could build your own to be equal, but maybe you couldn't.
and lastly, not all pro studios are equal, just like not all audiophile systems are equal.
making fun of the Tripoint cable (in your original post) never having heard a Tripoint product, and then inferring/assuming that any heavy gauge cable might somehow yield the same result.......that is weak.
understand that the Tripoint Emperor cable in the picture was a power cable.....and not a grounding cable as you are now suggesting. I have tried lots of cables as grounding cables, some very heavy gauge. none come close to the Tripoint Thor Reference that I use in my system. and the Thor is a few steps below the Emperor in the picture.
I came across this photo and was shocked and begin to laugh. No wonder AES people laugh at audiophiles.
No common sense....what's the noise floor on any major recording studio? Since the late 1950's,it's been a lot lower then any current audiophile system.
They use microphone cable...so what's the difference? Clue if anybody should know Tripont should....hillarious!
