Not nearly as embarrassing having people know you spent $628 each for power wires.
http://www.audiolab.com/Cardas_Golden_Reference_Power_Cord_Each_1_5m_4_p/cargrpc.htm
--Ethan
Spending money on quality PC's should never be considered "embarrassing."
Not nearly as embarrassing having people know you spent $628 each for power wires.
http://www.audiolab.com/Cardas_Golden_Reference_Power_Cord_Each_1_5m_4_p/cargrpc.htm
--Ethan
Not nearly as embarrassing having people know you spent $628 each for power wires.
http://www.audiolab.com/Cardas_Golden_Reference_Power_Cord_Each_1_5m_4_p/cargrpc.htm
Okay, now I'm done.
--Ethan
Comments like that are frowned upon here at the WBF and might result in administrative action if continued. Other forums might tolerate these kind of comments but the WBF does not.
How embarrassing. Another example of shooting first and asking questions later.
Ethan, to be frank and based on the consumer level of equipment (AV receiver, cd player ect) you choose to own, I don't think isolation would be helpful for your system. The resolution and transparency is just not there, thus I understand why you wouldn't get an improvement. For the rest of us who choose to assemble a much more resolving and transparent to the source system, isolation matters a lot.
Ethan said that vibration isolation could help in three areas: turntables, speakers, and tube amps. Your example coincides with his statement. Why the ridicule?
Tom,
While I agree with your intention to "moderate" this discussion, Ethan's point is well taken. If you choose to rebuke one party, it seems only right and fair that you would treat all participants in the same manner. We do not all have to agree with each other, but it should be possible to disagree agreeably. Frankly, the exchange of views expressed in this thread has been an eye-opener for me and I would hate to see discussion quashed for the wrong reasons.
Bill
Ho Hum.
I usually find myself more open-minded than most other folks about what can affect SQ and what can't affect it. Most audio manufacturers will tell us about the importance of microphony, and the things they do to avoid it. Things like turntables and tubes are obviously microphonic (many years ago I used to put my turntable in a separate room), but I do keep reading about how some solid state components like clocks are microphonic as well - vibration increases jitter and phase noise apparently.
Well, last year I was messing around with an integrated amplifier, and I tried a few acoustic damping measures The box sounded pretty dead when I was finished. Even with a sighted test though, I could hardly hear any difference at all - nothing that I couldn't put down to listening uncertainty (even though the law of listener bias decreed that I should have heard an improvement).
Out of desperation, I tried sitting the amp on a bunch of valve springs that I happened to have lying around the garage. The amp bounced up and down at around 3-4 Hz, meaning that the acoustic coupling was pretty good, and filtered out vibration above this frequency. Once again, I could hardly hear any difference. I then went on to find some much more effective tweaks, but that's another story.
Nick
As for Rockitman's comment about your system, I believe that you may have read into it incorrectly. It wasn't meant to be an insult, nor was it meant to be an attack on you. He was simply stating his observations. I personally just so happen to agree with him. Some systems simply aren't as resolving as others. If you consider yourself an audio expert ...
Not an insult? Of course it was! How could either of you know how "resolving" my system is? The truth is you have no idea. You've never been to my home, and you've never heard my system. Further, "resolving" by itself is a meaningless term. Audio clarity is defined by a flat frequency response, a lack of distortion, and a lack of echoes and ringing and other noises. In all of those regards my system is arguably about as good as it gets. You and others here are welcome to visit any time in person, so at least you'll have some basis for your opinions.
--Ethan
Hey Ethan, tell us about your system details, then all the speculation could end...failure to do so is very telling.
Further, "resolving" by itself is a meaningless term. Audio clarity...
Wow - just wow.
Nice mid-fi system. Not what I would call hifi by any means.
Ethan, apparently you equate 'resolving' with 'audio clarity'. They are not the same. I had often wondered why you were so adamantly not on the same page as most people with high end systems (as seen on this forum), now with this photo it is abundantly obvious why. The prior post about your system's capabilities was not an insult, it must have been based on having seem this or similar photos before. As such it was simply a statement of fact. Having run a service department for decades, I am very familiar with the abilities of this Pioneer amp and others like it. They do indeed have good specs- no worries there, but as you probably know not a lot different from most car stereos in that regard either (not that there is anything wrong with that...). But good specs often do not translate to good audio performance simply because the specs often don't take into account known human hearing perceptual rules. IOW the specs are arbitrary and not actually related to audio.
The shame of it is, even if you are adamantly anti-vacuum tube and anti-analog, you can still hear noticeable differences (and by that I mean improvements) in high end transistor gear. If you think they are built the same because the specs say so you are wrong. Open up a high end solid state amp and you will see larger power transformers, more filter capacitance (both of which contribute to lower IM, especially on transients which is an issue not measured in the specs), larger heatsinks, superior grounding paths (lower noise, lower IM) and so on. Your amp by contrast employs inexpensive electrolytics and various shortcuts throughout the circuit, and if you want to look for something that is microphonic, there it sits (just an example). Electrolytics are often used without proper biasing in Japanese audio circuits, causing audible distortion (this is just an example, there are numerous compromises built into this amp for the sake of cost vs performance).
If you were to list your system strengths (the 'pros'), take whatever they are and multiply by about 10 and you get where a true high end system (tube or transistor) typically operates. List the weaknesses ('cons' of your system) and divide by 10, once again you have where many high end systems are operating. This is not an insult so much as it is information- I am sure you have dealt with many room problems, which is always good, but in selecting the electronics and the speakers you are not doing all the room work the justice it deserves. Of course, budget is always a concern, and if that is the case for you then I would say you have done an excellent job getting the most you can out of mid-fi gear. But it would be incorrect and a bit insulting to assume that because you have done this work and also due to the specs that this system is able to operate in the same arena as a true high end system can. Its apples and oranges. You don't have the resolving power, and from your prior posting history, don't know that you don't know it. Put another way, if you did have the resolution, you would be aware of more details in your recorded library- more aware of vocals, more aware of backing tracks and mic technique. Equipment as we see here is only good on a professional basis for testing to see how a recording works on mass market equipment (because that is what it is) but it is by no means reference quality.
If you are insulted by this its not the intention. Instead its to get you to consider that there there is more to audio than you have assumed.
| Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |