What annoys me today in marketing and media that too often today then talking on hi-fi, science is replaced by bizarre belief structures and marketing fluff, leading to a decades-long stagnation of the audiophile domain. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Hi-fi world is filled by pseudoscience, dogma and fruitloopery to the extent that it resembles a fundamentalist religion. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
Business for Engineers: Marketers Lie article points tout that marketing tells lies — falsehoods — things that serve to convey a false impression. Marketing’s purpose is to determining how the product will be branded, positioned, and sold. It seems that there too many snake oil rubbish products marketed in the name of hifi. It is irritating to watch the stupid people in the world be fooled.
In EEVblog #29 – Audiophile Audiophoolery video David L. Jones (from EEVBlog) cuts loose on the Golden Ear Audiophiles and all their Audiophoolery snake oil rubbish. The information presented in Dave’s unique non-scripted overly enthusiastic style! He’s an enthusiastic chap, but couldn’t agree more with many of the opinions he expressed: Directional cables, thousand dollar IEC power cables, and all that rubbish. Monster Cable gets mostered. Note what he says right at the end: “If you pay ridiculous money for these cable you will hear a difference, but don’t expect your friends to”. If you want to believe, you will.
My points on hifi-nonsense:
One of the tenets of audiophile systems is that they are assembled from components, allegedly so that the user can “choose” the best combination. This is pretty largely a myth. The main advantage of component systems is that the dealer can sell ridiculously expensive cables, hand-knitted by Peruvian virgins and soaked in snake oil, to connect it all up. Say goodbye to the noughties: Yesterday’s hi-fi biz is BUSTED, bro article asks are the days of floorstanders and separates numbered? If traditional two-channel audio does have a future, then it could be as the preserve of high resolution audio. Sony has taken the industry lead in High-Res Audio.
HIFI Cable Humbug and Snake oil etc. blog posting rightly points out that there is too much emphasis placed on spending huge sums of money on HIFI cables. Most of what is written about this subject is complete tripe. HIFI magazines promote myths about the benefits of all sorts of equipment. I am as amazed as the writer that that so called audiophiles and HIFI journalists can be fooled into thinking that very expensive speaker cables etc. improve performance. I generally agree – most of this expensive interconnect cable stuff is just plain overpriced.
I can agree that in analogue interconnect cables there are few cases where better cables can really result in cleaner sound, but usually getting any noticeable difference needs that the one you compare with was very bad yo start with (clearly too thin speaker wires with resistance, interconnect that picks interference etc..) or the equipment in the systems are so that they are overly-sensitive to cable characteristics (generally bad equipment designs can make for example cable capacitance affect 100 times or more than it should). Definitely too much snake oil. Good solid engineering is all that is required (like keep LCR low, Teflon or other good insulation, shielding if required, proper gauge for application and the distance traveled). Geometry is a factor but not in the same sense these yahoos preach and deceive.
In digital interconnect cables story is different than on those analogue interconnect cables. Generally in digital interconnect cables the communication either works, does not work or sometimes work unreliably. The digital cable either gets the bits to the other end or not, it does not magically alter the sound that goes through the cable. You need to have active electronics like digital signal processor to change the tone of the audio signal traveling on the digital cable, cable will just not do that.
But this digital interconnect cables characteristics has not stopped hifi marketers to make very expensive cable products that are marketed with unbelievable claims. Ethernet has come to audio world, so there are hifi Ethernet cables. How about 500 dollar Ethernet cable? That’s ridiculous. And it’s only 1.5 meters. Then how about $10,000 audiophile ethernet cable? Bias your dielectrics with the Dielectric-Bias ethernet cable from AudioQuest: “When insulation is unbiased, it slows down parts of the signal differently, a big problem for very time-sensitive multi-octave audio.” I see this as complete marketing crap speak. It seems that they’re made for gullible idiots. No professional would EVER waste money on those cables. Audioquest even produces iPhone sync cables in similar price ranges.
HIFI Cable insulators/supports (expensive blocks that keep cables few centimeters off the floor) are a product category I don’t get. They typically claim to offer incredible performance as well as appealing appearance. Conventional cable isolation theory holds that optimal cable performance can be achieved by elevating cables from the floor in an attempt to control vibrations and manage static fields. Typical cable elevators are made from electrically insulating materials such as wood, glass, plastic or ceramics. Most of these products claim superior performance based upon the materials or methods of elevation. I don’t get those claims.
Along with green magic markers on CDs and audio bricks is another item called the wire conditioner. The claim is that unused wires do not sound the same as wires that have been used for a period of time. I don’t get this product category. And I don’t believe claims in the line like “Natural Quartz crystals along with proprietary materials cause a molecular restructuring of the media, which reduces stress, and significantly improves its mechanical, acoustic, electric, and optical characteristics.” All sounds like just pure marketing with no real benefits.
CD no evil, hear no evil. But the key thing about the CD was that it represented an obvious leap from earlier recording media that simply weren’t good enough for delivery of post-produced material to the consumer to one that was. Once you have made that leap, there is no requirement to go further. The 16 bits of CD were effectively extended to 18 bits by the development of noise shaping, which allows over 100dB signal to noise ratio. That falls a bit short of the 140dB maximum range of human hearing, but that has never been a real goal. If you improve the digital media, the sound quality limiting problem became the transducers; the headphones and the speakers.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article says that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. I can agree with this. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article makes good points on design, DSPs and the debunking of traditional hi-fi. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Legacy loudspeakers are omni-directional at low frequencies, but as frequency rises, the radiation becomes more directional until at the highest frequencies the sound only emerges directly forwards. Thus to enjoy the full frequency range, the listener has to sit in the so-called sweet spot. As a result legacy loudspeakers with sweet spots need extensive room treatment to soak up the deficient off-axis sound. New tools that can change speaker system designs in the future are omni-directional speakers and DSP-based room correction. It’s a scenario ripe for “disruption”.
Computers have become an integrated part of many audio setups. Back in the day integrated audio solutions in PCs had trouble earning respect. Ode To Sound Blaster: Are Discrete Audio Cards Still Worth the Investment? posting tells that it’s been 25 years since the first Sound Blaster card was introduced (a pretty remarkable feat considering the diminished reliance on discrete audio in PCs) and many enthusiasts still consider a sound card an essential piece to the PC building puzzle. It seems that in general onboard sound is finally “Good Enough”, and has been “Good Enough” for a long time now. For most users it is hard to justify the high price of special sound card on PC anymore. There are still some PCs with bad sound hardware on motherboard and buttload of cheap USB adapters with very poor performance. However, what if you want the best sound possible, the lowest noise possible, and don’t really game or use the various audio enhancements? You just want a plain-vanilla sound card, but with the highest quality audio (products typically made for music makers). You can find some really good USB solutions that will blow on-board audio out of the water for about $100 or so.
Although solid-state technology overwhelmingly dominates today’s world of electronics, vacuum tubes are holding out in two small but vibrant areas. Some people like the sound of tubes. The Cool Sound of Tubes article says that a commercially viable number of people find that they prefer the sound produced by tubed equipment in three areas: musical-instrument (MI) amplifiers (mainly guitar amps), some processing devices used in recording studios, and a small but growing percentage of high-fidelity equipment at the high end of the audiophile market. Keep those filaments lit, Design your own Vacuum Tube Audio Equipment article claims that vacuum tubes do sound better than transistors (before you hate in the comments check out this scholarly article on the topic). The difficulty is cost; tube gear is very expensive because it uses lots of copper, iron, often point-to-point wired by hand, and requires a heavy metal chassis to support all of these parts. With this high cost and relative simplicity of circuitry (compared to modern electronics) comes good justification for building your own gear. Maybe this is one of the last frontiers of do-it-yourself that is actually worth doing.
1,576 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Room tour: AudioQuest cables for consistency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kwXUyqnJNg
use the same audio cables today that I used last year, the year before and the year before that. This video goes a little deeper on the what. The why is obvious: consistency.
https://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/data-cables/index.htm
Tomi Engdahl says:
as what you hear is influenced by emotions it does not matter at all. Cruel? Yes
Tomi Engdahl says:
Priorities in stereo equipment upgrades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zngD9or1XEE
What’s more important when upgrading a stereo system? Speakers? Amps? Paul helps guide us through the process.
Viewer comments:
The reason why a low-end CD player, feeding a digital signal to a high-end DAC, will sound very good, is because it is the DAC that is producing sound from silence.
It is the DAC that takes the digital zeros and ones and creates sound from nothing, that then gets fed to the rest of your stereo.
The low-end CD player that is feeding your DAC is not ideal, because it will not be feeding your DAC a bit-perfect data stream, resulting in jitter (jitter is one of those things that nearly no one recognizes, until you use a quality transport to minimize jitter — and it is like a veil gets lifted and your music suddenly sounds so more real).
But if you have a low-end DAC feeding your stereo music, then that low-end DAC will not create the initial, quality sound that is so important.
Although the timing of the delivery of the data bits to your DAC is very important, the creation of sound by your DAC is even more important.
Cheers!
Upgrade your attitude. Be happy with what you have. Make sure your room is optimized. If something is bugging you, replace that component. That may reveal another weak component, but take some time to acclimate. Back in the day, I upgraded my turntable and cartridge at the same time. It made a huge difference, but over time, it revealed that my preamp wasn’t as good as I thought it was. I replaced the preamp and everything opened up. I still have some of that equipment, and am re-capping and refurbishing.
i’m a novice and i have noticed the most dramatic effect by switching to a more capable standalone dac. i look forward to my analog adventure.
PMFs:
- Interconnect, speaker and power cables sound different.
- DSD sounds better than high-res PCM.
#1 enjoy what you do have. #2 the best system you will ever want is the one you’ll never own. #3 Don’t listen to me or anyone and listen to you and your heart. #4 I am correct and I am wrong Depending on who you are! #5 Don’t go insane and end up in a Mental Facility…….
I’m more familiar with the analog side and totally agree about the phono stage being first priority; on the digital side I have ‘invested’ in a relatively high end DAC, and it does sound better, but the old Phillips DVD/VCR combo unit didn’t sound but so bad. As Paul advises, it is digital out over coax to the DAC. The sound stage and details were especially improved by the better DAC. Good job, Paul.
if starting with everything being bottom tier.
1. speakers.
2. amp.
3. your line level source system whatever that is, but if 1 and 2 are bottom tier then do those first
I am an audiophile too. BUT why the heck there are cd trasports that cost more like my whole setup??? Since you have a specacular dac and plug a 30 dollar cd player it sounds amazing as you say. I ve been watching you for ages and seen probably the 70% of all the channel videos but the times we livin in and the economy and blablabla i realize its all for the money… its all marketing! You can probably be right about the loudspeakers.. A decent pair of speakers at start and 2000-1500 dollars for a dac and amplification you can make a superb sounding system that has nothing to be jealous from super expensive systems.. And what i ve seen on the internet, most high end system owners have no idea about room acoustis.. I ve seen 200k systems with a speaker in the corner a speaker in the middle of the room bare walls windows and now carpets..
Upgrading piece by piece also brings the joy of better sound multiple times
And when one component has been upgraded you know what it does in your room, making it easier to determine exactly what you want from the next component to upgrade.
I went the other way, I bought a killer amp knowing it had the drive to power literally anything, and now I’m having great fun working my way through different types of speakers.
I think one should never underestimate the importance of a good amp in a digital system. Critical is having an amp that performs well on all styles of music and types of recordings, which is not to say that you do not want a clean, distortion free sound on a quality amp. You can have an amazing DAC, but if your amp does not make poorly, flat sounding recordings sound their best (and there are many of these particularly from the 80′s and 90′s), then an amp change may be necessary. I’ve discovered this having a good DAC in a very transparent system. Good recordings sound magical, but poorer recordings sound bland and flat to the point that you just don’t want to listen anymore. I fully appreciate that the higher up you go with an amp, the more transparent your system becomes. But a high-end amp should also be able to make poor recordings sound their best, instead of just having an overly analytical and dry sounding amp. Anyway, this is merely my two-cents worth.
A better DAC may sound wonderful but it depreciates like an ahhh, well….. “Lead Zeppelin” to give a music example.
Tomi Engdahl says:
“When it can’t be measured it can’t be heard”
There needs to be a way to measure what is happening.
There are electrical measurements anf there are measurements that are done with proper listening experiments (A/B, ABX etc..).
If proper listening test reveals difference, but electrical measurements show difference, we need better electrical testing equipment/methods to understand that.
If there is electrically measurable difference but no difference in perceided sound quality, should we care of it or not?
If some person feels that there is sound quality difference when he/she sees the equipment, but on controlled “blind” testing does not notice differences, is there a real sound quality difference or just differend sound feeling due other things than actual sound quality?
as what you hear is influenced by emotions it does not matter at all. Cruel? Yes
what is your emotional state does not affect the sound quality your system produces but it is true that can greatly affect how you interpret the sound quality personally. That sound and music you hear should aldo affect your emotions.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audiophile System Under $250! Even One Under $150!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XHQk1RxyM
Viewer comments:
This is truly a Golden Age of entry level audio. The world as a whole might be going to hell but now more people than ever can console themselves with great sound. And that’s not sarcasm. When life is repeatedly punching me in the face, the thing I always go back to to make me feel better is hifi.
Like you, Randy, I wish all this choice had been available back in the day.
Tomi Engdahl says:
PCB vs. point to point wiring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBKTj6EMZPM
Nearly everything these days is built on printed circuit boards, but is that high end? Isn’t it better to go point to point in the wiring of components?
Viewer comments:
My guitar tube amp designer friends have come to believe that while point to point does remains superior if one uses a PCB with sufficiently heavy/thick traces the difference can be minimized with significant production cost savings. ANd that difference can be further reduced with small and careful design changes. Cheap mass produced PCBs still suck for audio.
Speaking as someone that has built and repaired many point to point audio, video and RF electronics, I can say that without printed circuit wiring there would be no such thing as personal computers, cellphones, flat screen televisions, and most everything else that we use today. It is superior in many respects to point to point wiring except for truly high voltage circuitry.
The only time you would benefit from the extra copper in a wire as opposed to a PCB circuit trace would be when you were transferring power, as opposed to massaging a signal. And all those point to point wires act as both receiving and transmitting antennas, providing the potential for signal degradation. Modern PCBs are often so complex that they involve 4 layers, and all of this is done to shrink the package, get the components as close as possible to each other and minimize the connecting distance. This results in superior performance. I think I would challenge the concept that point to point wiring is superior. Printed circuit boards were a giant leap forward in the electronics industry, and one of the key technologies used to provide a high standard of quality while minimizing cost. >Charlie
P2P wiring is great if you have 1 circuit to build but if you have 10, it will take forever. Better to route the design on PCB and have the board house build them for you. I’ve been a tech for 25 years and it’s great for a young person with young hands and excellent motor skills to do this if you’re bored and have much time to kill. At my age I can design the board and have it sent out.
Paul…it’s extremely important you keep making these videos. Keep’em coming. Please
In all due respect Paul’s a little out of his lane on this one. The transition to PCB occurred decades and decades ago. So you gotta believe that any shortcomings that PCBs had have long since been identified and fixed. If that makes sense. It really becomes how much are you willing to pay for your PCB and the components on it. PS Audio supplies a Consumer Grade product and has to be sensitive to parts costs.
Does anyone remember the Zenith TV Commercials with the “Hand Crafted Quality” tag line? Zenith had a production line in Chicago building those Point-to-Point “Hand Crafted Quality” TV sets.
Except in very special Point-to-Point construction those types of consumer grade circuits would never ever pass a vibration test. An interesting research is to find a aviation grade radio from WW2. It’ll show you how to build a very tough Point-to-Point circuit.
Technically, an integrated circuit’s internal connections are all point-to-point.
You could say that about a PCB too.
Point to point is in the definition Paul is talking about is single wires for each connection between components.
Technically according to this logic, all electrical connections are point to point.
IC’s are made by depositing and etching metals on a substrate. This is more analogous to a PC board fabrication in that the component interconnections are a process of etching. Now the wires that sometimes come off the substrate and out to the pins are more like point to point but actually that is an obsolete process in modern chip designs due to cost and speed. Even those tiny wires have significant inductance at today’s chip speeds. Most large BGA chips have the connections as part of the etched substrate.
My Audio Research stuff has some pretty big traces on their circuit boards. I think point to point would be best but most of the best components I heard had circuit boards. But no small traces or surface mount devices. I personally don’t like the idea of a micro in a stereo component as they can be noisy.
There are oscilloscopes that operate deep into the gigahertz range that use circuit boards for all of the analog side of the signal processing. They try to keep the analog signal path as short as possible. Circuit boards are excellent for that. They also isolate the analog from digital portions of the board with gaps cut in the boards to keep electron migration down. There is nothing inherently wrong with circuit boards. In fact, good analog design on a board will perform more reliably than a bunch of wires that are loomed by hand.
Watching a video series of a guy restoring one of the Apollo mission computers. All point to point. Millions of wires. One wire is broken and the computer don’t work. Took him weeks to find it.
A well designed multilayer PCB has both better noise rejection because of small traces and better shielding, because of the ground planes.
Good PCB designs also emit less EMI, because of those ground planes and trace patterns; they function similar to distributed element filters.
Wired amps are better for musicians who travel and use there amps in open air scenarios and store them in garages and warehouses. The high voltage (anode) circuits can be compromised when subjected to condensation. When I was a roadie for a band many years ago, our keyboard player loved the sound using a Radford Hi Fi valve/tube amp. This had PCB mounted tubes/valves. We had quite a spectacular fire on stage one night due to the anode voltage tracking due to condensation. I don’t know if conformal coating would have helped to stop this.
Audio has moved from point to point wiring to single sided PCBs to multi layered PCBs to simple analog ICs to complex DSPs, DACs and SOCs. The future is digital with most happening on highly integrated circuits for everything except the power amp output. We still need an analog signal to move that voice coil.
Enough tube amplifiers on the market which are point-to-point wired . Line Magnetic , Melody , Shanling , Glow Audio and so many more . Even power supplies or amplifiers for guitars.
True but how many solid state are point to point? Tube stuff is generally a lot simpler.
Many preamps in the marketplace are point to point.
Clear reality Paul hahaha… Point to point wiring in electronics should be buried hahaha… I want to challenge that guy to wire the IC that has 52 pins… Lol
Ah, good old “Point Ot Point” wiring! You can’t beat it! It’s tried and tested! It’s old fashioned! A bit like proper spelling, and being able to spot a GLARING TYPO??? PMSL
As I said above try to find a piece of aviation electronics from the WW2 era. Now there’s some kinda Point-to-Point wiring. Like a radio out of a B-17.
Depends on what the trace is actually carrying…. digital signals don’t care. High impedance analog signals (like the input to an op-amp) also doesn’t care all that much about the amount of copper; but capacitance does matter. Power – be it from a power supply or the current drive stage of an amplifier – cares a lot about the amount of copper: more is better; but there is a point of diminishing returns.
The other thing about PCBs is that they can be made essentially identical from one unit to the next; but trying to actually manufacture that with point to point wiring would be… challenging.
>Depends on what the trace is actually carrying….
There’s a lot to that. It ends up being a cost factor. No one anymore lays out PCBs manually. It’s all done by computer. The programs laying out the traces can be programmed in such a way as to isolate one trace from another. The biggest factor, IMO, would be how many layers a PCB is allowed to have, the separation of one trace from another and the size of the PCB. PCBs are better then Point-to-Point. All Stop. But at what cost?
Bill Kenney – well… sorta. Sometimes the autorouter is used; sometimes it’s not. I don’t use an autorouter, myself, just because I like having more control over where the traces go; and there are plenty of other engineers who feel the same way… but; there’s also plenty of others who use their autorouter all the time. Cost is definitely a factor; but so is signal integrity; and sometimes you really need the density, repeatability, and impedance control that a PCB provides… I definitely would not want to try and do a DDR4 SDRAM connection with point-to-point wiring!
Lost skill…I used to work with a nice lady whos job it was to lay out the traces of a PCB board. I’d give her my circuit schematic and she’d sit at a light table and using black tape on a plastic sheet she’d create the photo sheet master. And she could do that for multilayered boards. Many of the packages were the TI 7400 Series 14-pin packages. Sorry, I’m showing my age.
Like anything in technology there are no absolutes. Yes in general a PC board can provide much better shielding and impedance control over hand wiring. But you can also have a superb clean and quite point to point wiring job and a poorly design PC board that performs far worse. Also PC boards can cause issues with RF circuits (very rarely in audio) due to the substrate capacitance. Common FR4 and G10 (the classic olive green stuff) for example are not suitable for microwave circuits. Here they often use expensive Teflon PC board stock. And I never liked the bakelite material still used in commodity consumer electronics, that light brown stuff. It’s OK electrically but I just don’t like it.
I worked for a company who made mixed mode circuitry and we used ceramic plates from Coors (the beer company) for the substrate for microwave circuits
Point to point cost more to do. = Less profit. That’s why they don’t do it.
Depends on design and scale of production.
Hand wiring is better fr guitars amps, particulerly with tubus becuase the voltage is far away from other conductrs from the lines ona circits broads. Marshell JCM 900 has a clipping diode in to to make it distort. My frends saie he gaves up on thems and nows useings a gutars processers with transisters. THENk yours Mistre Paul, you are honets and a smart mans. THUMBBES USPS.
Point to point wiring works superbly in relatively simple circuits like Tube Pre Amps and for that matter Power Amps ( I know Paul is not a fan of Tube based power amps but I have heard around a dozen now and only one failed to impress sonically) I totally agree on the miniaturized surface mount components its just not possible. Just take a look inside say the Denafrips Terminator R2R DAC even if it were possible, point to point would make it the size of a small house and an impossible mess. I’m no expert but it does be the question though, why are solid stste Amplifiers so chock full of components. Is it poor design or is it to overcome inherent technical issues???
Tons of tube gear still uses point to point.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Vinyl vs digital sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83fvw3YiIos
Most modern vinyl records started out life as digital recordings. Do they sound different? Does vinyl add something to the sound when mastered from a digital source?
Viewer comments:
I sometimes get really confused by the discussion. The only thing that matters, in the end, is whether it was enjoyable to listen, as in emotionally rewarding, intellectually stimulating, fun, culturally enriching, etc. Personally I don’t even care what the source is, if I get the goosebumps when I listen to Iggy Pop, Mahler, Coltrane, or Kraftwerk. Either it sounds good or it doesn’t. Lots of garbage analog Masters out there, and lots of digital brilliance. And vice versa. The end.
“the only thing that matters” and you put out a list of personal experiences? why whine? to each their own. sound matters too.
You either have sound that is adjusted to taste or it is aimed technically at high fidelity. The bullshit that audiophiles claim is endless. Most clearly deficient of electronics and/or physics theory but still push ridiculous narratives. When confronted they resort to it’s about my personal taste. So be it. That means it’s not about hifi then.
Yes each to their own but when you want to make bullshit claims about gear you should be prepared to back it up. “Choclety mids” or “running in a cable” are a few of my favorite audiophile brain farts.
It will sound different since the master is digital and the digital format is technically more capable. The drawbacks of the vinyl might affect the sound, depending on the recording, and vinyl is also a noisier medium. If you prefer the vinyl in a case like this you are likely responding well to something that causes loss in fidelity.
The question is, at the mixing desk playing back the master tape on those speakers, which comes closer to the master tape – analogue or digital ?
I would wager the digital does, but the analogue sounds better ? If analogue sounds different but “better” it can only be adding euphonic colouration.
I’ve not heard a DSD record and playback of music , but “normal” digital vs vinyl what I notice is a greater sense of openness ,micro-dynamics and sound-staging from vinyl , if it’s well done .
Much of the pleasure I get from listening to vinyl recordings comes from the complete experience of getting the album off the shelf, opening it up and carefully placing the disc on the turntable, setting the stylus in the grove, then settling back to become involved in the music, often while enjoying the large format artwork of the packaging. For some reason, the easier a playback method is, the less engaging it is. Perhaps it is similar to the way that I find all of the difficulties of using my 8×10 view camera somehow more satisfying than my excellent digital camera, even though the digital camera is demonstrably superior in many ways. That said, I am very much looking forward to listening to the recording of the Bach cello suites I just ordered from Octave Records on my SACD player.
Vinyl and a needle in contact to reproduce analog sound is always going to sound differently to a direct digital (non lossy) source because of the storage medium. The characteristics of vinyl are “limiting” as far as the frequency response, maximum possible dynamic range, and left-right pan and depth spectrums. Both formats can sound fantastic but vinyl should always be specifically mixed and mastered for that medium to get the best results. Generally in vinyl for best results the bass and kick drum should be centered in the mix, whereas in digital you can have the bass guitar hard left (or right) and the drum kit can be panned virtually anywhere and it won’t matter to the digital medium. If you did that in vinyl the needle could be skipping all over the platter and the wear on the vinyl would shorten the life of the record. Plus hard left and hard right pans don’t work in vinyl as well as they do in digital format. But many people prefer the sound of vinyl to digital often citing a warmer sound or more natural sound (???) which is more an issue of personal preference than actual sound quality. There are “natural” distortions that occur in vinyl reproduction that don’t (or shouldn’t) exist with digital reproduction. As someone who has used and worked in both analog and digital recording genres I like both and if a vinyl record could be manufactured that would never click-pop-or wear out with repeated playing I’d be happy with the vinyl format but there are sound manipulations that are possible in digital that analog vinyl will never be able to touch. Just as analog tape recording and playback “blow” vinyl away, so to does digital potentially “blow away” vinyl (and analog tape) if recorded and mastered properly without the use of “over compression” and with proper dynamic range considerations (per Bob Katz recommendations). And by digital I’m talking about non-Lossy formulations not less than 16-44.1 with my preference being 24-48 or above for best results.
It’s all about the recording. Folks like albums because the parameters of the recording have to be pulled back to accommodate to the limitations of the album’s ability to store the recording. The recording then sounds less cluttered and with more range because there is less there. The reality is if you take a recording made for a album (say prior to CD’s) and put it on a CD it is superior to todays music recorded for CD and all albums. I still have CD’s from when they first came out and bands just took what they recorded for an album and stuck it on CD. Total different world.
The Octave DSD files will sound different when they are played on PS Audio, dCs or MSB dad’s. The vinyl versions will sound different when played by Koetsu, Lyra or Ortofon cartridges (among many others). So which is ‘right’?
The truth … none of them are.
But then, none of them are entirely wrong either.
It’s all in the mastering. CDs and LPs of the same album are often mastered different.
Analog reel to reel tape recordings have their own sound as well. I remember being totally confused by the fact that copies I made with a reel to reel recorder from LPs sounded better to my ears than the LPs they where copied from using the same turntable.
that only means you like distortion, as the guitar players, but doesn’tt mean that the distorted copies of music sounds beter for the entire earth population. i prefer unaltered digital version.
Of course it does, vinyl adds those beautiful clicks and pops that we sorely miss on digital playback.
LOL, I’m so over with vinyl. I’m in my 60′s now, been through that era. Try to listen to an old RCA Red Seal record of a symphony orchestra, and right in the middle of a violin solo…POW! Big nasty pop! Ya, I really miss those days. I cried tears of joy when CD’s came out. I had one of the first players released to the public too. In respect to vinyl, I hear the latest pressings of limited production recordings ARE much better than all the “run of the mill” junk from the 70′s.
But but but, if Vinyl sounds different then it’s not giving the actual representation of how the recording is “supposed” to sound. What about the shift in soundstage. What about the fact they the needle due to its mass cannot surpass 18k without creating “aliasing” effects. What about the Snap Crackle Pop of the vinyl itself?
If a digital recording is pressed to vinyl whilst adding colour or one could even argue distortion, it’s moving in the opposite direction to hifi. Not to mention the potential loss due to lack of dynamic range.
Surely a vinyl copy of a digital recording will have losses of fidelity compared to a direct master bit-perfect playback of the same track…like it or not. The reason vinyl often sounds better is when the digital version is more compressed possibly to please earbud and Bluetooth speaker listeners.
Exactly! During the analog days when you couldn’t compress the crap out of an analog recording on tape because tape produces a natural hiss and it gets amplified when compressed.
Digital was never fully appreciated nor was it’s rarely recording using it full dynamic range because of the loudness wars. Even good recordings only use about 10 bits of dynamic range!
Most people don’t appreciate DR even in photography or video especially when they view content on social media which is overly compressed but professionals do know there’s a difference. It’s the same thing with the loudness wars and why people think it sounds better louder. Sadly this will not change since music is a young persons game. It’s not until later in life they appreciate quality of the recordings
Digital is overwhelmingly more often compressed as you described. Octave records (I assume, due to their mission stated here on this channel) is one of the few, niche exceptions.
Also D/A converters , even crazy $10k ones, are not perfect either. Intuitively though it seems reasonable that the analog chain is less perfect in this case , as you are saying as well.
But even to this date, you still can’t compress analog recordings too much – you gain nothing by it, you can’t make it louder. On vinyl , loudness costs you physical space and hence one would use it carefuly.
So this is ironical in that a limitation of the medium makes it , often, sound better
We only hear in analog. A digital recording on vinyl is recorded in analog onto vinyl. We don’t neccesarily have studio quality monitors set to the best listening position, earbuds and bluetooth speakers vary widely in quality introducing their own colouration of sound even though theyre digital devices, DACs are different and the analog reproduced can vary. Its the vinyl thats more likely compressed though the trick to mastering vinyl is to get the grooves made without obvious audible compression. One of the main problems with vinyl to a collector is it’s extremely fragile and once a groove has a scratch, it’ll be there forever more, plus you need to keep the grooves clean to prevent pops and clicks from finger prints, airborne dust and grit attracted from sufaces by the static produced in the vinyl when you take a record out of its sleeve ( that means an expensive record cleaning system). Vinyl is an incredibly flawed product that can be messed up at multiple stages in its manufacture. Even with high end equipment, turntable, cartridge and stylus combinations, and amplifiers, speakers ALL affect the resultant audio That said, I still love to play vinyl and you dont get an album cover with a digital download.
There was a brief experiment with DBX compression on vinyl to expand the dynamic range achievable. It wasn’t successful, not even with tape decks.
You may be surprised. Yes the record will wear over time, but not as much as you might think. Most phono carts sound terrible out of the box. They have to be broken in. But this isn’t the typical break in argument going around with other types of audio components. For the first few hours, a LOMC can literally sound broken.
One big trouble with vinyl is there are multiple stages where if someone does their job wrong, it will adversely affect the sound. The cutting engineer who cut the master that’s used to make the stampers will tweak the EQ to get the best sound quality possible onto the vinyl,( I guess this process is computerised these days?) People like recording engineer George Peckham were sought after in the 70′s to get the best cut (Porky prime cut). There is an art to cutting that introduces its own sound onto the studio recorded tracks because of the cutting engineer. Also mass production takes its toll on stampers that have to be replaced as they wear out. The quality from early pressings in the run will be better than those pressings made at the end of the life of the stampers. So vinyl is a bit of a minefield and there can be problems introduced whilst making copies of stampers. Direct digital audio files have none of these issues but I still love vinyl. You don’t get an album sleeve for a digital download.
Thank you for this fine video Paul. In the late 90′s I was privaliged to attend a small gathering in LA of technical Professionals in the music industry. The reason was to share where the status was of the vinyl record industry. There are two critical components to making a vinyl record. The cutter to make the Master and the chemistry of the vinyl.
10-years prior one of the presenting companies had purchased the remains of 5 cutters produced in the 70′s. Those were engineered by RCA, unmistakably the best cutters ever made. Only two fully worked and the remains of the non-functional cutters were used until the late 90′s to keep the remaining two operational.
The chemistry of the quality vinyl was black art chemistry. Crappy vinyl is easily produced, state of the art vinyl is really freaking hard to produce.
Getting to the conclusion. The owner of the one remaining operational cutter announced that the size of the vinyl market did not justify keeping the one machine going so they ceased production of vinyl products and “cut up” the remaining cutter.
The consensus of those gathered concluded that there was just no more sources for quality “virgin vinyl”.
So in short, the hi end vinyl industry was technically dead. And still is today.
Kudos to PS Audio for carrying on the tradition as best they can but quality vinyl is just not coming back.
All my Japanese imports of Yes, ELP, Genesis, etc. have been stored in plastic sleeves on my closet for more than 40 years. Static and noise were always problems with vinal no matter how carefully you handled it. I’d like to hear them through my Focal Kanta 3s now but can’t spend $20000 on a turntable, phono amp and cartridge to find out.
Both digital and analog from disc have intervening corrective modifiers. Digital Original/DAC input, Master/DAC output.
Disc Original/RIAA to master Mechanical Storage and RIAA/Output. Discs from Digital Original/DAC, DAC/ Output to Master/RIAA on disc to RIAA/Output. Basically the Digital mastered vinyl Disc includes all of the signal modifiers. Can you hear a difference?
Original end to end analogue can be amazing. But depends on the production and engineering.
Vinyl is great but you have to spend a lot more on a turntable to get a good sound. A €400 turntable doesn’t sound as good as a modern €400 CD player.
Has anyone done digital vinyl emulator? Just model the chatacteristics of a vinyl record + needle and put music through it. Even the digital modelling guitar amps produce decent tones nowadays. So why not this vinyl emulator?
It can’t be directly off the master … Vinyl requires the RIAA compensation curve, unless they want to produce records that skip. The application of the curve which is rather steep is bound to change the sound somewhat. Also, phone cartridges tend to be less dynamic and have less frequency range than even 44,100 PCM.
So in reality it’s not an exact copy. (Sorry Paul)
Perhaps the better question is: Does vinyl sound more realistic than digital? I don’t think so. Paul’s previous tube where he tells about DAC’s is very true to me, they are so important. Do people like vinyl more than digital? That question is more subjective but I think the vinyl sound is very like-able. What is better? If I like a very realistic sound, digital beats vinyl (be awere, digital starts to sound good only with really good gear). People who like vinyl enjoy it and that is the point to it all at the end of the day. Personally I like a realistic experience (and I love tape)
Lest we not forget, vinyl masters are also mixed differently compared to digital. Even when ripped back to a lossless format once can hear the difference. It even comes through compression, plenty of vinyl rips right here on YT, you can check for yourself. Neil Youngs “On The Beach” is an excellent example and on YT.
Yes, the vinyl will sound different than the digital master. And not only that, but the same vinyl pressing will sound different on every turntable, and with every different tonearm, and with every different cartridge, and with every different phono amp, and every different power conditioner, and every different set of interconnects.
And who set-up Paul’s turntable?
Did they dial in every vector of where the stylus meets the grooves, and did they do so with precision?
Few people have the skill to get this right.
All of this matters.
All of this translates to significant sound differences.
And it does not stop there.
What is the formulation of the vinyl that Paul is using for his records?
The make-up of the vinyl varies wildly, from decade to decade, and from pressing plant to pressing plant.
This makes a huge difference in sound quality.
And even the same stamper codes, from records stamped on the same machine, all sound different.
And then there is Paul’s transport and his DAC, that he uses to play his digital DSD master.
Did Paul use that same transport and DAC to produce the plate that would stamp out the vinyl pressings? Or was completely different gear used for that?
I do not understand why Paul acts stunned at how different the pressing sounds vs the digital master, when so many new and different pieces of gear are involved.
If this was Paul’s first video, I would conclude that he believes that:
– all turntables sound the same.
– all tonearms sound the same.
– all cartridges sound the same.
– all phono amps sound the same.
– turntable set-up is low priority.
– all DACs sound the same.
– all transports sound the same.
– all power conditioners are equal.
– all interconnects sound the same.
– all vinyl pressings sound the same.
But this is not Paul’s first video. And I know that he does not believe any of the above items. And yet he seems perplexed at the differences in sound quality. I am perplexed as to why Paul is perplexed.
Paul, Stereophile and The Absolute Sound, and other reputable reviewers always list all of the gear associated with their listening session.
I request that when you convey the sound quality of what you heard, that you do the same.
Thank you.
Sory Paul, you cannot use the same master for vinyl. Vinyl requires dynamic compression, RIAA equalisation and low frequencies must be mixed from stereo to mono because a stylus cannot track stereo bass. I am very old and started in hi-fi when stereo was becoming popular and vinyl was the only practical sourse. It is a fact that vinyl is technically vastly inferior to digital and I have no desire to return to those days. If you like or prefer the sound of vinyl thats fine, whatever floats your boat.
I am extremely surprised that no company is making the additions and substractions between the digital master and the vinyl copy, put that sugary ingredient into a digital device and sell it to vinyl lovers.
A really amazing DAC does the trick. I was absolutely blown away by the difference of a okay DAC and a great DAC (Audionote with tubes).
Yep, vinyl adds dirt to the pristine digital master. Nice dirt, but dirt nonetheless
Funny, but I always thought of digital as being a perfect reproduction, burials it turns out that analog is actually more detailed in that nothing is “lost” in translation. To me, both can be amazing or horrible. One should pick the best sounding DAC (some are warm, some are detailed) or cartridge/phono stage to get the best results.
Take a digital audio file and run it through any two DACs and just like then compared to vinyl and everyone one of them will sound different. From a strictly digital file to speakers standpoint, running the file through vinyl provides a physical filtering of the stepped sample without any of the inherent phase shifts electronic circuitry would have. It forces compliance with physical analog waveshape.
Remember our ears are analog. Most sources 0f music are analog (physical). We are talking storage/ recall and possibly DSP. All/ either of which, passing the analog signal through the digital system, is quite audibly noticeable. e.g. my original from the 60′s copy of Sgt Pepper sounds better than the digitally remaster 50th release. The new releases’ pressing is quieter. But the music is flatter, less 3 dimensional. The analog is much richer and fuller. I have found this on every remaster that was digitally touched. I now ask the source if it is analog to lather. If I don’t get an answer or find out it is not, I pass. But there are a lot of remasters coming out that are analog to lathe and sound incredible. Yard Bird’s ’67. Hendrix Electric Ladyland box set. Just got a Herbie Hancock Maiden Voyage Blue Note remaster I am dying to put on the ttble! I was assured via e-mail that it was analog to lathe.
Perhaps the best comparison would be an original Direct to Disc of “The King James Version” by Harry James compared to the CD later released. The CD does not get close to competing.
What if you recorded the vynil back to digital? Would it still sound like the vynil? I’m a digital guy who likes R2R DACs, class A, tubes and appreciates the quality of old but well made recordings. I’ve heard high quality vynil and I’m not sold on it.. I’m curious to hear more though.
As I mentioned in another comment … I transferred a bunch LPs to MP3 files and they sound exactly the same.
“I can tell you it sounds different” and “some people prefer it” [vinyl]! Some people like their amplifiers on spikes too and a whole bunch of other silly preferences. Just use some AI to digitally add the pop crackle and whatever other artifacts vinyl adds. Those people will not be able to tell the difference between that and vinyl.
Vinyl sound seems warmer to me than CD or any other digital form.
Years ago, when moving from a house with a basement full of gear to an apartment that barely accommodates a stereo in the living room I transferred about 100 of my favourite albums from Vinyl to MP3/256 … Funny thing is the resulting digital files sound exactly like the vinyl, pops, clicks and all.
Never buy vinyl unless it comes from an original analog master, otherwise you’re wasting your time. SACD is for digital, closest to analog digital gets
Vinyl essentially works as an EQ, and you can either like it or dislike it. The company or person preparing the master for the cutting process applies a curve (in addition to the basic RIAA EQ) to make it producible in the first place. The medium has it’s limitations which gives it its sound, and people got used to that and thus they like it.
Tomi Engdahl says:
IS ANALOG SUMMING REALLY BETTER?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg-6mcmyvKQ
Tomi Engdahl says:
Top 5 Audiophile Recordings! Best of the BEST!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8omBalTE1Do
Tomi Engdahl says:
Vacuum Tube Myths and Snake Oil Bull**** Debunking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyqJp_anLeg
BG214 – In this episode of Soapbox Sunday we debunk or at least give our opinion on several common tube snake oil myths. We debunk the fact that you have to buy vintage tubes to get good sound, that tubes require burn in, that cryo treatment of your tubes works, and that tube dampers help.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Solid State amps verses Valve amps
http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/12_amps_8.html
This page consists of an explanation of Voltage-drive and Current-drive, which enables us understand why Solid-state and Valve amps sound different. When solid-state amps were introduced there was little interest taken in how amplifiers and speakers interact. Manufacturers of amplifiers and speakers have little in common. It serves the interest of marketing to separate speaker systems and amplifiers into different categories and brand names enabling retailers to have greater control in how customers are influenced and profits made. This imposed marketing separation also suits those who attain notoriety as Thiel Small loudspeaker design experts. Academic mis-application of Thiel Small parameters has resulted in a bewildering convolution of speakers designs many of which perform pooly. This is also the reason for the traditional marketing hostility against integrated active sound systems, but this is starting to change.
The complimentary page (Valve / Solid-state) in the Valve amps chapter, approaches the difference between these amps from the perspective of the physics of a valve amp, whereas this page describes the difference from a technical perspective of a solid-state amp.
Tomi Engdahl says:
amplifiers turn your current into DC for the amplifier circuit, so the mains phase is irrelevant. I wouldn’t get het up about power cables, voltages and frequencies are a bit approximate depending on where you live and how much power is being put into the grid. If you saw how your house is wired, the mains plug and lead is likely the least of your problems.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Leakage currents between unbalanced connected (RCA cable) units is resolved as low level audio signal. The leakage current of most items differs according to AC connection polarity and lowest leakage to chassis for all connected units is optimal and will provide best system SNR. Another factor is that the winding wire of transformers is directional and this causes another layer of low level noise. This can be heard by auditioning a stand alone item (Radio, Radio Cassette player etc) with alternate AC supply connection polarity, two different sounds are produced. I will leave it to you all to doof it out on the hows and whys of wire directionality.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Loudspeaker cable length
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzoQF0T2tL8
One of audio’s age old questions is short loudspeaker cables and long interconnects or the opposite. Paul walks us through the possibilities for best sound.
Viewer comments:
I’ve always though the cable should be long enough to reach the speaker. Any shorter and the sound lacks impact.
It falls short of sounding.
Like having legs that don’t reach the ground.
There’s a reason why higher-amperage loads need to be paid attention to over long runs wrt wire gauge, while smaller amperage loads are far more agreeable over those distances. That reason amounts to simple physics, wire surface area to transmit electrons in conjunction with impedance per unit traveled. Paul’s conclusion (sorry you had to learn it the same way I did
) is electrically correct. Of course, you could use – not that I’ve experimented – #2 copper for speaker wire, which probably wouldn’t care about the amp you were using or the length of run, but it’d be difficult to fasten to a speaker terminal.
In recording sessions in say large stadiums or cathedrals, it’s not uncommon to have microphone cable that runs over 100 yards. But that’s balanced of course.
Wow, answers my question! I have been using longer balanced interconnects along with shorter speaker cables and all is well.
In the listening test you cite were the cable types (make, model and connecter types) kept constant and only the lengths varied? If not, other changes could have confounded the results.
I did as Paul suggested. Absolutely true! You must also consider that doing this you move the rack to a side of the listening room and the soundstage gets coniderably larger
Thanks for explaining this factiod in an easy-to-understand manner Paul. From a pro-sound perspective, the new generation of active sound reinforcement loudspeakers are doing exactly that. And yes, it has to be over balanced interconnects as well. Ideally in you would want a monobloc amplifier or more if you you’re bi or tri-amping the speaker to be next to the loudspeaker. Also the higher impedance nature of the signal being driven across balanced interconnects from a preamplifier usually equates to lower loss in detail across the entire frequency spectrum. Big thanks and keep your posts coming. Much appreciated.
Going by the same logic, shouldn’t we design powered/active speakers all around with XLR inputs (used with a good DAC, a great preamplifier and balanced interconnects – thus doing away completely with speaker cables), instead of using a whole set of monoblocks and two types of interconnects/cables?
If not, please elaborate why?
Paul I’m shocked! Even back in the ancient 20th century when I was running your Linear Control Center & Phono III preamp pairing we knew long ICs & short speaker cables were the way to go if you had a large span from your preamp to your speakers. Welcome to the future…
That’s pretty dumb given that the interconnect is way off more error and noise prone unless it’s optical than a speaker signal which don’t give a shit
Always remember to use the appropriate Wire Gauge for your speakers. It makes a huge difference.
Unbalanced signal cables should be short in order to avoid picking up radio interference, etc. It’s not really a matter of signal loss. If you have balanced inputs and outputs on your equipment, great. But if you need to travel great distances, you need a transformer balanced connection.
All the engineers I have ever known, including my son, love the country of Denmark. It’s because the Danish are mean just like engineers – with the exception of my son!. As is often the case, Paul is correct about short speaker cables and long interconnects.
No he is not
Long runs were 100% a base goal when XLR was being designed. What about ole RCA’s though? If it aint on a subwoofer, should RCA’s go any longer than 5-6 foot?
Driving a long cable from a tube amp shouldn’t make any difference, since the output of a tube amp is a current source!
Paul, stop trying to sell us audioquest speaker wire . The only thing that matters is less resistance to the speaker so having thicker speaker cable will make a difference but that’s being measured with gear not by ears. If it interconnect is 6 and another one is three feet you aren’t going to hear a difference in the sound. That’s baloney. So rule-of-thumb use thicker speaker cable because there will be less resistance. Maybe if you used 200 feet of speaker wire versus 5 feet of speaker wire you may hear a difference.
audiophiles are audiofools
Those speaker cables are only short when you don’t count the cable in the speakers:p. I used to have short cables but when I wanted to place my speakers further apart they were too short, so now I have ample length.
Ok, I’m sorry, but someone needs to call you out on this Paul. One guess as to why a speaker cable company would be lobbying you to retract your “longer speaker cable is better” philosophy. Any guesses? Hmm. Anyone? Well, I recently changed the placement of my amp, TT, etc. So that it is over on the side wall of my listening room, and no longer in between my speakers. Now, longtime viewers may recall that Paul himself, in a not to long ago video, recommended this kind of set-up. Go check it out for yourself. Now, why would a speaker cable company NOT want you to set your system up this way? Wouldn’t they stand to make even more money selling oodles of feet of speaker cable? Well, no, they would not. Why you ask? Well, firstly, because they don’t really sell speaker cable lengths longer than about 15 ft. Why? Because to make lengths over 15 feet anywhere near affordable would require that they change their current pricing structure, you know, the one that sees them make profit hand over fist for short lengths of speaker cable. So where does that leave the audiophile consumer? Well, it leaves them with no choice but to keep their gear and speakers near to one another, as any distance longer that 10-12 feet is going to be so expensive for speaker cables you’d need to sell your left lung to afford them. In my current configuration, the speaker furthest from my rack would need a 30 ft length of speaker cable! This is why the message has shifted to shorter speaker cable = better. Now excuse me while I go throw up due to what a racket this industry can be….
The reason most manufacturers don’t sell cables longer than 15 feet is because most listening rooms are not 30ft wide. Also simple electrical theory will tell you that when low impedance loads are involved the lower the resistance of the cable the less losses there will be. ie….. if you have a 8 ohm speaker and you have long or small cables that say hypothetically have 1ohm resistance you will loose 12.5% of your amplifiers power output in the cable. That means 12.5watts for every 100watts of power goes into heat in the cables and since you can’t “hear” heat it is a waste of your amplifiers power capacity. There is more to it than just this also but maybe Paul can expand on inductance and damping of speaker cables.
- wrong, if you’re room is a rectangular shape of a medium to large size the speakers furthest from your rack is going to need well over 15 feet to reach it. It Otis generally already 6-8 feet from the other speaker alone. Secondly, I moved from a small listening room with my rack between the speakers and medium-priced ($600) eight foot speaker cables. In my new set-up I am using speaker cable purchased from Home Depot. The result, both cables sound great, meaning no discernible difference, even with the cheaper cable running at 25 ft. Sorry, but the ears don’t lie…
I was assuming this was in relation to a LR setup only not a home cinema setup then yes of course you would need longer cables. I guess every setup is going to be different but a 30ft wall in the standard house I think would be classed as a very large room. Secondly cheap vs expensive is not a fair and objective comparison when it comes to anything. As someone who has 25+ years in the electrical industry I would say the guy who sold you the $600 cables was laughing all the way to the bank but maybe your setup isn’t noticeably affected by long cables? With speaker cables it simply comes down to the lowest resistance possible will give the best results. I know there is going to be those out there who will slag me off for that but you simply can’t ignore the laws of physics and that is what makes your amp and speakers work in the first place..
Why not short speaker and interconnect cables ?
Hi Paul, but there loads of people that think cables are snake oil, I’m batting them away everyday, I think these people are either jealous or have very poor hearing, they prefer to Hook their equipment up with Bell wire because they don’t think there’s anything better, what do you think.
A good quality 50ohms interconnect cable doesn’t need to be balanced as long as it’s triple shielded low capacitance, I would say use balance if you’re going above 25 ft.
Speaker cable use what the manufacturer recommends and keep it low capacitance solid core is generally better
Unless your preamp and monoblocks are more than 20′ apart, the comment about the need to use balanced interconnects is BS.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Comment from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFbJD6RE4EY
I’d be interested in the expensive audiophile cable tests. I have a few Audioquest USB C to B cables to go between PC’s and audio interfaces. As an audio engineer I often run big projects and record new parts in those projects with live monitoring on. I need low latency playback and recording in a large project in a DAW. I used standard printer cables (that you get with the audio interfaces) and those frequently had cracks and pops at playback (sometimes even distortion. The type you hear when the sample rate isn’t properly matching with the clock of the outboard gear). I ordered the AudioQuest Forest cable and I could drop my buffersize in my DAW from 512 samples all the way down to 64 without any crackling or popping. It helped with getting the total round trip latency from 15ms to about 3.9ms. I would be very interested to see what your test machine can reveal about these cables.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Blind test 16 times, audiophile USB Cable vs USB cable
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/blind-test-16-times-audiophile-usb-cable-vs-usb-cable.5714/
Anyone seen this video?
He claims there is a sound difference between USB cables and he did a blind test 16 times, and can tell them apart every time.
Another person claim USB cable make difference (PS Audio): Snake Oil Salesman?
Of course they are worth it, as long as I am the one selling them!
PS Audio makes low quality products while being marketed as a science-based company. Paul McGowan is a charlatan who pretends to be “a good guy who tells you the truth” in his videos which are misleading.
Their DACs are bad.
Their amplifiers are bad.
They claim their power cords add a “significant improvement in sound quality over any stock power cable”.
Also this charlatan sells a wall wart plug with a LED that “really makes a dramatic audible improvement”.
“and the effect is cumulative: the more Noise Harvesters the better” – No, I’m not making this up.
https://www.psaudio.com/products/noise-harvester/
Here are measurements if you are interested.
So, yes, Paul McGowan is a snake oil salesman.
Switching cables will cause windows to go through plug-and-play and will absolutely stop the media player from continuing. Likely it will take a minute or so for music to restart playing. Conclusive tests show that even if there is an audible difference, it will be lost in high switching time like this.
Instead of posting so much stuff that doesn’t matter, he should have simply shot the video showing the other person switching cables and keeping notes. If that showed 16 out of 16 correct outcomes, I would eat my shorts.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Do USB Audio Cables Make A Difference?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-usb-audio-cables-make-a-difference.1887/
Aftermarket USB cables seem to be all the rage with people paying as much as $15,000 for a short run of it!!! Lots of subjective performance reports are out there but none back with any objective measurements that demonstrates any difference. On the other side of the fence many believe there isn’t or can’t be any difference in USB cables (“they are all digital”). I thought it would be good to add some data to the conversation.
For my testing, I used the Sonore microRendu as my source host. This is a networked audio renderer and comes with improved USB implementation.
The first test was with a 28 gauge decent but generic quality 6-foot or so USB cable between the Sonore microRendu and the DAC in question. I then compared that to a very short, 6 inch or so generic USB cable:
What do you know! We have the world exclusive, first and only objective “proof” that USB cables make a difference in the analog output of the DAC!!!
With long cable (in yellow) we have all of those jitter/distortion spikes around our main and only tone at 12 Khz. None should be there.
With much shorter USB cable, their levels is much diminished leaving just a couple of notable spikes.
Here is how it did compared to similar length generic cable:
As I noted, it seems to actually do worse than my generic cable. I ran the test again and the output was different so not conclusive. But I say don’t waste your money on this cable. The mere fact that the cable is short is bringing the benefit, not any magic inside it.
Figuring shorter was the key to better performance, I used a generic “stub” USB gender converter. The one I tested came with one of my many audio tweaks/boxes and looks kind of like this:
Conclusion So Far:
So it seems that USB cables do make measurable differences in the output of DACs with the shortest being the best. And carefully made one from Uptone being even better.
Should you run and buy these short cables/adapters? No, you shouldn’t
Let’s continue our testing, this time using another cheap DAC: the Behringer UMC204 HD which at $79 is even cheaper than the Schiit Modi2. Here I compare the long cable to generic USB stub converter:
As we see, there is no difference between the worst performing USB cable (long and generic) and the shortest one (USB stub).
High performance DACs are liable to be even more immune to such vagaries, completely neutering any electrical advantage to shorter, better USB connections.
Graphs Can Lie
Note the vertical scale in my graph. You see that the top of the graph is at negative -120 dbV. This means I have highly exaggerated the differences. If we show that full scale and compare the worst (long USB cable) to best (UpTone adapter), we get this
While differences still show, they are so, so down in level as to not ever be an audible concern. BTW, the Schiit normally does much better if fed with clean USB power. Here I am powering the Sonore microRendu with my high quality lab supply which helps a ton in cleaning its output.
So as usual, we can show measurements that bother the eye but not the ear.
Summary
For the first time anywhere, we have shown that we can change the analog output of a DAC by changing how we feed it in digital domain in USB. Shorter cables provided improvements that were visible. Alas, two other factors conspire to make this non-news:
1. Schiit Modi 2 that I have tested is horribly designed. It is sensitive to both USB power and data noise. Even a cheaper DAC like Behringer shows that such sensitivity is due to poor DAC design than anything to do with USB cables. The Behringer performance is better than Schiit with any cable and shows no need for tweaking the USB cable.
2. I have hugely magnified these differences. Without this magnification, the differences even with lousy DACs like Schiit are literally in the noise.
So nothing here explains the fantastical subjective differences people report between USB cables. I suggest those people conduct some blind test to get to the truth of whether they are hearing any differences especially if they are using better DACs than Schiit Modi 2.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Did you know that there is a certification scheme for USB cables?
http://www.usb.org/developers/compliance/
Certified producers are allowed to use the official logos.
Very few “hifi” cable producers sell certified cables.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/olimex-usb-iso-isolator-mixed-experience.21119/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://hifireference.com/hifi-reviews/audiophile-usb-cables-comparison/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Op amps vs discretes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7CBoqX8SSI
We hear op amps getting a bad rap in high-performance audio, yet they are completely misunderstood. Learn what an op amp is and the difference between IC chips and discrete components.
Viewer comments:
i was an engineering technician for Analog Devices when they were in Cambridge, MA (1970). The high end op amps were in a 1-1/2 sq epoxy package that had pins coming out of it that would plug into a socket. The opamp itself was built of di epoxied into a potting shellscrete transistors and FETs with the supporting resistors and diodes on a printed circuit card and that assembly was put into a potting shell with black epoxy. Once that epoxy cured the thing was a monolithic brick.
My job was to build prototypes that we could tweak for optimum performance. Some TO-5 ic’s like 709′s were just starting to be used ubt these were lower end op amps. if you needed real performance you got the discreet op amp..
Actually a very good question, and a good answer. However that question could springboard into a much larger discussion on modern amplifier design, hybrid circuits, FPGAs, etc.
I.C Op amps have come a LONG way, allowing for the design of high end audio devices in a much easier manner. However, some of the BEST recorded material I’ve EVER heard was all recorded using devices that had audio circuitry that exclusively used discrete op amp circuitry. API consoles have nearly always used discrete op amp circuitry… the old Stephens multitracks used class A discrete circuitry… something you could EASILY hear. A gifted designer can often make you believe that you are listening to a circuit that is discrete, when many times it may perhaps not be so. I.C. op amps cost less, but perform nearly as well as most discrete op amps. Great question, Paul… and great answer as well.
Whats important is discrete front end on a chip based mic preamp. Chip based mic preamps can sound very good and have vintage character especially If TLO 072 /074 is used in the circuit. There is alot of difference between the old chips that have more Harmonic distortion than the never ones that is superclean and silent. API, Trident and Focusrite also use a Audio Transformer Balanced input to there chip based Mic Preamps. Never Mic preamps from Neve also use transformer balanced front end and chip based design. The first chip based design from Neve was the Focusrite Forte console whit the ISA 110 mic preamp module. All new mic preamps designs from Neve after the 1985 Focusrite forte console has been transformer front end and chip based. The new Rupert Neve Design shelford series also use transformer balanced Input with a chip based Mic preamp module.
Of course Neve still sells the Classic all discrete Class A 1073 1081 modules but all newer design series are chip based designs. If you want Discrete Mic Preamps there is alot of Neve 1073 clones like Golden age Pre 73 Warm Audio WA-73.
What do you call an IC with only 1 transistor on it – a discrete. Designing an op amp on an IC comes with benefits and limitations over a handful of discretes but fundamentality the resulting sound quality is the result of the silicon process or processes used and good design, one is not necessarily better than the other.
We should all take a second to thank the designers and manufacturers of the NE5532 opamp for giving the world an affordable way to amplify voltage signals in the audio band with next to zero distortion.
The joy of op-amps is their exceptionally high gain and bandwidth, which can be controlled easily by feedback to make amplifiers, filters, drivers, sensors… you name it. Any place you need gain an op-amp is likely to be your best choice.
Most class AB power amps are actually operational amplifiers.
Discrete op-amps for special purposes have their place but with high gains, exceptional care has to be taken to make them stable.
For small signal applications there is an advantage to using chips … with all the circuitry on a single die inside the chip they can be extremely stable in the face of temperature changes. That is they don’t drift or change behaviour as a device warms up.
Think of them as “electronic lego”, building blocks that can do almost anything.
opamps, the chip kind used in audio for voltage gain, like the NE5532, are excellent at what they do. What you put in is what you get out, period, no arguments about that. The thing is, they just dont ‘colour’ the audio which can be extremely boring. Marshal has made hundreds of millions of dollars of distortion because it sounds good.
I’m old enough to remember (and having built) Op Amps using tubes and transistors. Oh, God!
Generally, DC-Coupled, very high-gain, low noise, with feedback, so low distortion.
Chip versions are generally absolutely fine (and very cheap) but some discretion may be advised. See what I did there?
A typical example of discrete OP AMP implementation is any power amplifier. While chip op-amps have gone a long long way into high performance, they are still all limited to low rail voltages, in the +/- 15-18V range, and that does indeed introduce some limitations. As for sound quality, I’m “blessed” with no golden ears, so I can relax and enjoy the music.
I was thinking the same thing. You yank the NFB and it slams to its favorite rail or becomes a power comparator . Most power amps I have seen however use the inverting input for NFB only and not for diff input. As we know it’s that odd lone stage in the upper middle just a bit to the left that does all the really interesting stuff.
Once again this is one of those topics can go around in circles ALL day. If ANYONE does a double blind listening test with an op-amp vs. a discrete transistor headphone amp you will be hard pressed to hear a difference. Ultimately it’s the total circuit that “voices” the amp, (or pre-amp) NOT whether or not the circuit uses chip-based op-amps. However most audio op amps have strict output loading and compensation requirements. In addition it’s fairly difficult to find perfectly matched (complimentary paired) discrete transistors. Discrete transistor circuits are really required for Power Amps only. Since just about every modern day recording console is overloaded with op-amps, adding a few more into the playback path isn’t really going to make a difference.
This argument caters for the people who claim they can tell the difference. The difference is nearly always ‘different’ but not necessarily better and, at a stroke, belittling those IC designers that go the extra mile to make a great performing device. The precision gain matching, great repeatability and superb thermal compensation of an IC op amp is difficult to beat where everything is on a single piece of silicon. The Octave Records Studer console probably uses many proprietary A101 discrete thick film linear amp modules in key areas of the audio chain, but this was before really good audio op amps were available, so it’s understandable why they went down that route.
So, It looks like the question should be discrete op amps VS chip op amp?
Not necessarily so, with discrete parts you are not restricted to a ‘traditional’ op-amp design, you can make all sorts of almost, or wannabe ‘op-amps’ as your final product may require.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Balanced vs Unbalanced Audio | Do Balanced Cables Sound Better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgfZb1pEIrU
What’s the difference between balanced and unbalanced audio? Does balanced audio sound better? Which cables do you need? XLR, TRS, TS, RCA? In this video, you’ll learn how balanced audio works and hear a demonstration of balanced vs unbalanced audio quality!
0:00 – Introduction
0:22 – Why Use A Balanced Audio Connection?
1:00 – Balanced vs Unbalanced Audio: Cable Construction
1:38 – What Is A Balanced Circuit?
2:21 – Balanced Audio Explained
4:39 – A Common Myth About Balanced Audio
5:17 – Demonstration – Balanced vs Unbalanced Sound Quality
6:07 – Subscribe To Audio University!
Balanced vs Unbalanced Audio | Does Balanced Audio Sound Better?
https://audiouniversityonline.com/balanced-vs-unbalanced-audio/
In this post, we’ll take a look inside some common audio cables to see how they work. I’ll also explore a widespread misconception about balanced audio and demonstrate how big of a difference balanced connections actually make.
But if this is our first time meeting, my name is Kyle. Welcome to Audio University!
What Is Balanced Audio?
Balanced audio is a method of connecting audio devices that eliminates noise. Any noise picked up by the interconnecting audio cable is equal in both conductors (a common-mode signal), and is therefore cancelled out at the differential input device. To fully cancel noise, both conductors of the interconnecting cable must have equal impedance.
Why Use Balanced Audio?
There are many ways noise can enter an audio signal chain. One of the most common sources of noise is other electronic devices.
The currents flowing through any electronic device will form a magnetic field that could induce currents onto nearby circuits.
We are really very lucky to have the cable technology we have today to help prevent this noise from ruining our recordings.
Balanced vs Unbalanced: Audio Cable Construction (XLR, ¼-Inch TRS, ¼-Inch TS, RCA)
When connecting audio components together, you’ll most likely be using one of these cables: XLR, ¼-inch TRS, ¼-inch TS, and RCA.
The XLR and ¼-inch TRS cables both contain a shield, a positive, and a negative. The ¼-inch TS and RCA cables contain a positive and a shield (or ground).
The cable construction will be important in order to understand why the first two cables can support balanced connections and the second two cables cannot.
What Is A Balanced Circuit?
In the book, Handbook For Sound Engineers, Bill Whitlock shares this definition:
A balanced circuit is a two-conductor circuit in which both conductors and all circuits connected to them have the same impedance with respect to ground and to all other conductors. The purpose of balancing is to make the noise pickup equal in both conductors, in which case it will be a common-mode signal that can be made to cancel out in the load.
Ott, H., cited in Bill Whitlock, Handbook For Sound Engineers, p.1185
Differential-Mode Signal
A balanced receiver uses a differential device, which will only respond to the difference in voltage between the two wires of the interconnecting cable.
Common-Mode Signal
If there is an identical voltage on each wire, they will cancel out in the differential device.
There are two important details about the cable that make this noise cancelation possible.
First, both wires need to have the same impedance – that way the strength of the noise voltage that is created is equal in both wires.
Second, the wires need to be the same distance from the noise source – again, so that the strength of the noise voltage is equal in both wires.
We can clearly see that the wires in the XLR and TRS cables are identical. Given that the impedance of a wire varies based on its size, this suggests that the wires in the XLR and TRS cables have equal impedance.
The wires are twisted in the XLR and TRS cables. This helps ensure that the wires occupy the same average position over the length of the cable so that any noise from nearby electronics will be equal in both wires.
Therefore, only the XLR and TRS cables will provide a complete cancellation of noise when connected to a differential input device.
Sometimes an equal but opposite audio signal will be sent across each wire. While this has some additional advantages, it isn’t at all necessary for a balanced connection.
Take a listen to this recording to hear the difference. You might be surprised at just how effectively a balanced audio connection can cancel noise!
Keep in mind that the box of wire isn’t especially close any electronic devices. The random RF (radio frequency) noise that surrounds us everywhere we go is generating most of the noise that you hear in the unbalanced recording.
Do I Need Balanced Or Unbalanced Cables?
OK, so 1000 ft. cables might be a little extreme… How important are balanced audio connections in more practical situations?
The truth is that a balanced connection is always superior to an unbalanced connection. However, for cable lengths under 25 to 30 feet, unbalanced cables offer acceptable audio quality for most applications.
If you’re only running a signal over a short distance, you can most likely use unbalanced cables without much worry. For longer cable lengths, it’s well worth it to leverage balanced audio with an XLR or TRS cable.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Are tone controls evil?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yjhJutykmU
We have all heard that tone controls on equipment are not very high-end, yet is there a place for them in a modern HiFi system? Find out what Paul thinks.
Viewer comments:
When you’re young, stoned on pot and listening to Jethro Tull at high volume i turning up the tone controls seemed amazing. Like you Paul, with age comes wisdom and it doesn’t take very long in for an audiophile to understand that bass and treble controls were ‘no no’s. There are many ways to tweak your system to adjust slight imperfections in areas of the frequency spectrum.
I have fully embraced my Lyngdorf’s parametric EQ voice shaping to finely tune the sound that suits my ears. I realise it’s better to do that than find some equipment that does it. It is fine-tuned for timbre, not scoops.
And as we grow older, we lose ability to hear the upper treble. Personally I like to boost around 12kHz+ some 4-6dB to make the music sound closer to the intent and especially recover my ability to resolve details in the music. I call that “rejuvenation EQ”.
I use bass, treble, and loudness controls. Yes, I like the thrill factor. But from my experiences, some recordings are much easier to listen to when such controls are available. If that disqualifies me from the audiophile camp, then perhaps I should just stay away.
I keep an EQ device in both of my systems for occasional, judicious use. I keep it out of the signal path because I only use pre-amps with “old fashioned” tape loops. Push a button and the EQ is in the signal path . . . push the button again and it’s gone. Definitely worth it for some recordings that just need help because they were engineered so poorly.
Thanks Paul. While I agree with your general analysis, what about the Fletcher Munson and similar curves the indicate our ears are less sensitive to the frequency extremes at low amplitudes. Doesn’t the option for compensation at low volume provide a meaningful benefit?
Usually simple standard bass and treble controls are poorly matching on center frequency and Q factor to what is needed for calibrating a great system to sound better. If you are playing music from a digital source (CD or streaming), a high resolution DSP with a parametric equalizer can do wonders if carefully used. The company miniDSP offers such option.
Introducing anything in the signal path can cause degradation. A properly designed equalizer can reduce, if not eliminate such degradation if it can be bypassed when not in use. The advantage to equalization, as you have pointed out, is that many recordings are less than optimally produced. Think of all the care that you take at Octave Records to this end and why you felt the need to create your own label in the first place. There are many fine performances out there that can benefit from a little signal tweaking. I don’t see it to be any more detrimental than a poor recording is in the first place.
Generally speaking…I agree. But!! I think that the original intention of the “Loudness” control was valid. Getting a full sound at low volume requires a different EQ than full range for sound at higher volume listening level. Also me being old… is it ok to use EQ to compensate for high frequency hearing loss?
I think that tone controls and eq can be very usefull. There’s a lot of bad recordings (and i mean baaaaad) wich can be improoved and even corrected by using this resources. There’s also hearing diferences between what I hear and other people hears – some people may have hearing losses because of age or other causes. In this case, tone controls and eq can help. Besides everything, to always listen to music in flat you must have a top gear and very very expensive hi end system (amp, source, speakers and cables), a well tuned big room with a nice accoustic treatment and always listen to audiophile recordings…let’s agree it is not what happens, at least for most of us.
Tone controls are necessary, every rooms not the same size/materials etc, and everyones ears arent as sensitive to certain frequencies as others, hearing loss, age or for whatever reason, this allows you to tune to your preference whatever it may be, also some recordings are terrible and certainly need a bass boost or top end adjustments, all recordings are not even close to the same. Tone controls are essential amd a must. Whoever is not putting tone control options on their products are just cutting corners and saving on building costs and will tell you anything to make you believe that its better that way. Stop this nonsense.
The old school “Bandaxall” tone controls were originally designed for table radios from the 1940′s ! But the circuits became cheap to build and eventually became commonplace in “hi-fi” systems and then in home audio. The ideal solution (for me) was a 15-band “constant-q” EQ. It’s analog..but so is the rest of my system. Unfortunately nobody seems to make a 10 band (or even 5 band) “constant-q” Equalizer for home audio even though 31 band versions are still used in professional recording and PA. There are differently sonic differences between “constant-q” EQ’s and the legacy standard “bandpass filter” EQ’s and two-band (legacy) tone control circuits. There are few good articles (online) on the benefits of “constant-Q” EQ’s and even a site that shows you how to build one.
Ah loves me some tone controls … but I also know how to use them.
Dirac, Room Compensation, DSP … all just tone controls, but maybe on steroids.
I found I don’t use bass and treble controls any more. Well I do in my Jeep……..
Tomi Engdahl says:
Binding posts or banana connectors?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAnZkG2gNBE
When connecting a power amplifier or receiver to a pair of loudspeakers, what’s the best connection method to use?
Viewer comments:
As I understood things, I thought the cooper connectors Danny recommends are directly connecting to the internal components inside the speaker (crossover board, etc). Many binding posts in speakers are made from ferrous steel, which according to Danny are best avoided and there may be substandard internal connection points to those binding posts The banana connection that happens to the speaker on the outside may be an improvement over a binding post connection, but the fact Danny’s replace the innards of the binding post fixture inside the speaker is part of the improvement this upgrade is supposed to provide. Whether all audiophiles could hear an improvement is up to the ears (and mind). My ears are on par with an old Labrador Retriever, so it may be a reach for me to hear a difference.
Audiophiles don’t hear – they imagine and believe without any backing
Agreed. I personally cannot hear ANY differences among connectors be they binding post, spring clips, or even the screw terminals that were common on vintage receivers.
Audiophile claims can easily be tested and confirmed or debunked. What’s audible should always be measurable. What’s measurable is not always audible. The last part is just due the fact that our hearing range is a fragment of the total range. There is even a weird logic that looks of a speaker can make consumers believe its output is better. And looks and story is what thrive the most important factor in sales.
The reason I like these vlogs is that Paul is a likeable character and a salesman / storyteller with a heart in what he is telling. It doesn’t mean that I take these opinions as truth because he will never tell a popular opinion is bs. That would mean a believer and potential client might not buy a product. All should be aboard.
They look good and are easy to switch, I prefer banana in the receiver easy to switch and binding posts on the speaker
“He doesn’t say anything that he doesn’t honestly believe himself” sums it up.
Danny’s point is that his tube connectors are pure copper and many if not most binding posts have ferrous metal which he believes negatively affects the sound. And yes, lots of contact area.
This is a good point. Ferromagnetic components in the signal chain should be avoided.
Having said that, not all binding posts are of poor quality or composed of ferro-magnetic material.
In the end it’s about the music.
If you’re spending 90% of your hard earned dollars on your sound system and only 10% on your music library, you’re most likely a gadget lord or audiophile that doesn’t appreciate music. (and that’s okay – each to their own habits and hobbies).
Personally I would keep the cost ratio between Music Library and sound system to more than 3. (preferably around 5 or higher – ie spend 20% on the sound system and 80% on your music library. If you’re Elon Musk you can forget about this ratio and spend $2.5 million on your sound system and buy every CD or vinyl record on the market)
Cheers
I wish the home audio market would just use the speakON connections like the pros do rather than binding posts, banana plugs or shudder bare wire….it’s such a nice connection! Maybe it’s a bit overkill but at least you have peace of mind your connection is always going to be tight.
speakON was to replace 1/4 jacks. Higher resistance than spade or bananas.
Same. The first time i saw speakon connectors, my mind was blown. I was wondering why it’s not more widely adapted.
there is nothing wrong with bare wire as long as you avoid your dirty and sweaty fingers touch copper directly – no rocket science for a task every 10 or 20 years
Yes, Speakons are very reliable and easy with pro audio, like PA systems.
And XLR connectors, which are great with mics. They have a tight space for soldering thick speaker cables, but they were the best pro’s choice in 1970/80.
I do banana plugs as I change out speakers and equipment often. Not ideal but I like the convenience
bananaplugs when you want to remove speakers easily for dusting or swapping. Binding posts if you keep your speakers connected for a long time. Sound wise it doesn’t matter a bit. Just make sure that things are well connected.
Yea, that’s a valid point.
I think it all depends on the quality of the binding posts /plugs
There is a dichotomy in Danny’s world. When it comes to speaker mods and kits he talks the talk and walks the walk. I have big respect for his speaker work. When it comes to wires, interconnects, and the like, he makes dubious claims he cannot support in the same way as with his work on speakers. And when challenged on the discernible difference his cables make, especially for the money, he turns hostile and defensive (at least in his YouTube vids and responses to comments). That tells you all you need to know IMO.
Have you seen the video “Do Audiophile Cables Matter? Here’s PROOF!”, from Danny ?
That certainly seems to substantiate, not just his claims, but a lot of everyone else’s’ claims.
(He also asserts that braiding is better than simple shielding and reasonably explains that rational.)
As for “especially for the money”… What is the value of anything?
One dollar for you may be no more value than one cent for someone else.
“A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!”
yup. Seen it. I contend double blind testing is the only way to validate the benefits of cables and other exotica that doesn’t have an obvious sonic signature like speakers, cartridges, amps, etc. . If the benefits are so obvious he should have nothing to fear and everything to gain by doing blind testing. He can sit back and bask as 8 out of 10 blind panelists not only declare his cables better than a control, but also deem the sonic difference worth hundreds or thousands of dollars. If, however, the perceived benefits are driven even in part by confirmation bias (I just spent $xxx therefore this must sound good), and a clear preference is not shown, then blind testing would be an existential threat to a purveyor of such equipment. . After multiple contentious back and forth exchanges with him (including his assertion blind testing “can’t be done”) he agreed he would do blind testing ( so I guess it can be done). That was over six months ago. Still waiting. Again, he is tops with speakers and has credibility there. The dichotomy is striking.
IMHO it seems to me you position is disingenuous.
Danny show us an experiment that is easily repeatable by everyone and the results were more than obvious. If you cannot accept that some cables add noise and others reduce that noise, based on what he showed AND that you can independently verify, there is no point discussing this any further. You are simply choosing to be ‘pig-headed’.
In regards ‘the money’. You chose to simply brush away everything I said about the value of money being different to different people and for different reasons. Again… you are being ‘pig-headed’ and there’s also no point discussing this any further.
You don’t know me. I am but words on a page to you. But I can assure you that I am neither disingenuous nor pig-headed. These kinds of personal attacks as a form of argument are not convincing, and are typical of the way Danny himself responded. Off-the-charts defensiveness tells one something. You must have spent BIG money on cables. That’s fine. I hope you enjoy them. But ultimately, the only experiment I am interested in for this kind of esoterica is one that determines: do they SOUND BETTER on a BLIND basis, and can the differential “goodness” have a price put on it? We merely disagree, and for my part I’m sure you are both sincere and lucid,, if not a bit bossy (but you seem to be aware of that). Regardless, I’d be happy to continue the dialogue, as my position is perfectly rational.
I ended up liking the hollow Z-type banana plugs over spades or other types of large banana plugs. They have lots of firm contact area and are soldered on the ends of wire without needing large pieces of different types of metal housings and possibly small screws. It seems to benefit from the less is more theory. Love ‘em.
I use twist locking bananas. I can almost lift my GFA555 with them connected! I can assure you it is a very solid contact with good surface area.
I think the theory behind his method of connecting speaker cable to the driver units wire is an advantage because twisting the wires together tightly without using any kind of connectors or binding posts is the lowest form of loss. Paul should do some experiments with
GR products and see what he can hear he also does things like on his crossovers twists wires together and then solders them
I’ve use binding posts and banana plugs. In both cases, oxygen is the enemy. I re-tighten my binding posts and re-seat my banana plugs every six to twelve months. I started using DeoxIT on both types of connections, and they need it less often.
The climate makes a difference. In Finland we have central heated homes and they are very dry, especially during winter. I’ve never noticed any oxidation on cables. But I’ve lubed pots and switches with contact spray on my vintage Pioneer amp.
For the best result, you need to avoid contacts but otherwise use gold plated contacts with large surface areas.
One problem with contacts is that over time, the inevitable (daily) thermal expansion and contraction can result in micro-debris. This will accumulate and tarnish (and chemically modify the resistance), if not gold, and can eventually intrude and deteriorate the contact surface area itself. Obviously this is not a problem over short periods or frequently (re)jacked contacts, but if, for example, a system is installed and thereafter left to its own devices for years, then this can become significant.
Elements of tube connectors;
The incoming/outgoing conductors essentially create a butt joint, encased in maximal contact area, minimal mass, absent ferro-magnetic interactions.
All laudable efforts, worthy of pursuing.
… as opposed to inches between incoming/outgoing conductors, interspersed w/multiple material differences of various types and masses, both ferrous and non-ferrous.
Danny’s speaker designs are pretty sweet and his upgrades are certainly well researched and of high quality. I’m not sure about the tube connectors but they couldn’t hurt. Chances are they are more durable and would ensure a very solid connection that would not degrade as much as other connectors over time. Perhaps sound with connectors is not as important as durability? In any case 60 dollars is too much for me for connectors.
I’ve used binding posts all my life, but at my age, I’d prefer banana plugs. They would make switching loudspeakers and amps much easier. Especially with AVR amps. There is not much space between 5-7 speaker outputs for decent 2,5 mm2 (12-14 gauge) cables. Some fine day…
Hey Paul, you mention using spade connectors with binding posts, I’ve just taken delivery of some Elac debut five point twos and I was wondering if you can recommend spade connectors that I might use with this pair of speakers.
The human ego is tricky little bugger!
It loves to disagree & “win” on some of the most insignificant things.
A good banana plug will provide constant pressure. The metal will creep with binding posts, and so they will require periodic retightening.
I understand that this whole Audiophile thing is big business, but Binding Posts / Connectors having an effect on sound quality? This has gone too far. As long as your connectors are not broken, appropriately sized for power handling and is not made out of Duct Tape, there is absolutely no effect.
A nice courteous and professional response to the question
Giving due difference to somebody whose knowledge and opinion you respect. All too rare in my experience
Tomi Engdahl says:
Know Audio: Get Into The Groove
https://hackaday.com/2021/11/18/know-audio-get-into-the-groove/
the vinyl record player is the spiritual home of my audio listening experience, probably because I’m of the last generation to grow up when vinyl was king. The 12″ album, with its full-size sleeve and copious sleeve notes, used to be an integral part of musical enjoyment that hasn’t been adequately replicated in the age of streaming
And like anyone who became an adult while CD players were still expensive luxury items, I started my journey into Hi-Fi with a turntable set-up that sounded pretty good. Since a new generation have in recent years rediscovered vinyl, it’s once again something that should be part of any review of audio technology.
Can You Say It’s Better Than A CD?
My attention was caught last year by [Terence Eden], who performed a tear-down of a very cheap USB turntable. He made no bones about it being a pretty basic device, and from where I’m sitting, I’m sure that its flexible plastic construction, low quality bearing, motor, and tonearm, and ceramic cartridge will not deliver the best reproduction. One sentence of his did however catch my eye.
“Anyone who says vinyl is better than a CD is a muppet”
It refers to a long-held discussion in audiophile circles as to whether a vinyl player can deliver higher quality than a CD player, or a digital recording of any kind.
There are a variety of digital audio formats at different sample rates with lossy compression, lossless compression, or no compression at all, but the most common is still likely to be the CD-derived standard of a 16-bit 44.1 kHz stereo uncompressed PCM data stream. We’ve all heard music derived from these streams, and it sounds pretty good. It does however have a hard limit as all digitised data does, of its maximum frequency being half that of its sample rate. This is referred to as the Nyquist rate after the engineer who characterised it, and thus for a CD data stream the maximum frequency is 22.05 kHz. If you read the first part of this series you’ll know that the upper frequency limit of human hearing varies by person but is likely to be 16 kHz or below among people old enough to have spare cash to spend on hi-fi. Thus even with the low-pass filter fitted to the DAC there is still enough range in a CD stream to comfortably go beyond that of most people.
Perhaps If You Have The Ears Of A Ten-Year-Old
That’s not quite where the story ends however, because a seasoned audiophile will tell you that while you can’t hear those frequencies above 22 kHz directly you can hear the difference the impart in their contribution to lower frequencies, presumably as mixing products. In other words, so the story goes, you can’t hear them, but you can hear when they’re not there. The trouble with this particular rabbit hole is of course that it become subjective, and thus susceptible to audiophile hyperbole.
Having done extensive listening tests in the past, I know that I can discriminate between a 96 kHz, 24-bit audio sample and a merely CD-quality one with an appropriate DAC and headphones, but here at Hackaday we need numbers. And sadly the likes of Brüel & Kjær don’t sell calibrated reference 10-year-old children to perform audio analysis through ears undimmed by age, so we’re in the realm of speculation rather than fact. We know that frequencies above our hearing range can be reproduced, but the jury’s out on whether they make any difference.
Vinyl doesn’t have a sampling rate. It’s entirely analogue, so what you see if you take a microscope to the disc is a waveform, and in theory it’s the same waveform that emerged from the singer or the guitarist in the studio
What is undoubtedly true though is that a vinyl record doesn’t have the 22.05 kHz Nyquist limit of the CD, and so can record and reproduce frequencies much higher than that. Records are recorded and mastered using a filter that reduces the bass frequencies to stop the needle jumping out of the groove, and the turntable preamplifier will have a so-called “RIAA” filter to boost that lost bass, but in theory that’s it. You might consider it settled then, that vinyl can reproduce higher frequencies than CD, and is automatically better, but unsurprisingly there is a further snag. Even if those frequencies are present in the vinyl recording, their presence in the sound you hear depends on the ability of your record player to pick them up.
Does The Vinyl Version Even Have Those Higher Frequencies In The First Place?
In theory, vinyl is capable of returning higher frequencies than CD, assuming that you as the listener have a decent enough record player.
The last nail in the vinyl coffin, however, is that while a vinyl record may have the capability to hold more information than a CD, the reality is that these days it’s generated from the same master as its digital rivals, so it has probably been cut from the same 44.1 kHz, 16 bit data stream anyway. Maybe vintage recordings can escape this, but then you need to think about the frequency response of whatever magnetic tape was in the studio back when it was recorded. It might be that the reason that you can’t hear the difference between your vinyl and your CDs is that there isn’t a difference to hear in the first place.
What is certainly true is that a good quality cartridge, turntable, and amp will deliver a superlative listening experience that is the equal of an uncompressed digital stream. And that a lousy turntable will sound atrocious. So enjoy your vinyl if you still use it, after all there’s a pleasure to be had in the feel and look of a 12″ album and its cover. But perhaps don’t make any claims about it that can’t be substantiated without a calibrated reference 10-year-old child.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Buzzing = Bad GND somewhere probably line level stuff. or on the input.
Hum = Bad filters somewhere that have shorted or failed in some way not doing their job at all.
Playing loudly also will introduce AC waveform intermodulation into the musical notes.
That will confirm whether its the filters or not.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Analog vs Digital Audio | The Truth About Which Is Better…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YviIsCbT9Q
What’s the difference between analog and digital audio? Is vinyl better than CD or MP3? What makes one better than the other? In this video, you’ll learn about the benefits and drawbacks of analog and digital audio. By the end, you’ll be able to answer these questions for yourself.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Digital or analog out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLl-wmnNtR8
Instead of squeezing the internal data structure down to S/PDIF inside a CD player to output to a DAC, is it better just to use the DAC built in to the player?
Viewer comments:
You have to audition the equipment both ways and see which connection you like better. I’ve had cd players that I’ve used as a transport hooked to a dac, and I’ve had cd players where the internal dac sounded so good that I didn’t bother. I’m currently running an Onkyo single drawer cd player and a Toshiba cd/DVD player, both of which are running analog, through Monster cables.
Sounds like the best options are to either buy a quality CD player with a quality internal dac, or buy a Universal bluray player, use hdmi out to an external dac. I personally own an Onkyo Dx-c390 6 disc CD player which has a great sounding internal 192khz 24bit dac and reviews always sing praise about the sound quality one review even stating the player has the sound quality of players three times the price and this player is $500 Australian dollars new.
CD players run with their own clock and an external DAC has another clock. This means your data coming in is out of synch with your DAC running the conversion. To align the clocks, an external DAC has to sort of guess the clock of the CD player. With an internal DAC in the CD player you avoid this problem as everything is in complete synch. Better is to get rid of the CD player and use a DAC that pulls the data from a solid state storage or stream such that it runs the clock of the data in full control.
Interesting. So in consumer audio there is no real uncompressed (digital compression that is) signal transport between devices. Of course this begs the question is “AES3″ an uncompressed format as it was the pro audio version of S/PDIF? It talks about it being a platform to be able to stream PCM audio directly which of course infers that it is untouched or rather uncompressed data.
I’ve never found a CD/SACD player (even Japanese reference models) that exceed the open full sound as even a modest 1500-2000 stand alone DAC.
Don’t worry about the connection and just enjoy the music. Seriously, you might (hear) a slight gain in quality connecting to an external dac but in all real world situations you won’t care once your used to the CD players output. DACs and hifi is a rabbit hole that’s not worth your sanity or money.
SPDIF is underrated, I think. It doesn’t require drivers to use when I use a PC and output audio to my DAC vs using USB. I use the SPDIF out on my SACD player and my Xbox to my DAC as well. Either my DAC does all the magic or there really is something great about using SPDIF when it’s available. The difference in dynamics is usually night and day.
Why do you all call things like this a “CD Transport”? It literally says on the front of my CD player, Sony Super Audio CD Player. Is a “transport” just a empty box with a laser and a way to spin the disc?
I just watched a video on Nelson Pass and his Ion Cloud speakers. I think he hit audiophiles perfectly.
Nelson Pass’ ‘perfect’ massless, full-range Ion Cloud speaker #audiophile #highendaudio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msE14cWTwKI&t=470s
Tomi Engdahl says:
Op amps vs discretes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7CBoqX8SSI
We hear op amps getting a bad rap in high-performance audio, yet they are completely misunderstood. Learn what an op amp is and the difference between IC chips and discrete components.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Sample rate setup – Windows
Posted 2016-05-22
https://www.henryaudio.com/blog/
Do you want to tune up your DAC for the maximum performance? Then you should have a look at how to set the sample rate of your DAC. This applies to all USB DACs, not just the Henry Audio models.
Confused? No wonder. Digital music is stored at certain time intervals. The sample rate describes how often these time intervals occur. Modern computers are surprisingly prone to changing that rate on your behalf. This used to be a very demanding task on the processor. But with today’s chips it’s a walk in the park. But that still doesn’t mean you should let your computer do it.
All CDs are recorded at 44100 samples per second. Hi-res music recordings can go much higher, typically to 96ksps or 192ksps (kilo samples per second). Here I show you how to force your computer to use the original CD sample rate. Modern music streaming is based on a source which in almost all cases was a CD. So regardless of how you receive that music, playing it back at the CD sample rate will make sense.
When a USB DAC is plugged in, the operating system asks it which sample rates it supports. After that the OS will basically take all music as it arrives from the player software and resample it to the highest rate the DAC manages.
This may not sound like such a bad idea. But there are two fundamentally different families of sample rates. 44.1, 88.2 and 176.4ksps derive from the original CD. 48, 96 and 192ksps are used in other equipment. When the DAT player was introduced, 48ksps was selected so that copying 44.1ksps CD material was going to be hard!
When a DAC is plugged in, it almost always presents one of the 48/96/192 rates as its highest rate. Then Windows will resample your 44.1ksps music to such a rate. The result is that more than 99% of the original samples in the music are slightly altered in order to be played back at a slightly different rate.
Tomi Engdahl says:
TARA Labs Dielectrics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCjAPpZVkzo
Part 2 of 4 in TARA Labs ‘Technology Introduction’ video series.
Video exploring TARA Labs’ dielectrics and proprietary materials that go in to making our high-end audio cables.
TARA Labs Omega Evolution Speaker Cables
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxfKSEsCSn
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Process of Handcrafting TARA Labs Cables
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo0HuDi6IVE
Part 4 of 4 in TARA Labs ‘Technology Introduction’ video series.
Video exploring the main points in manufacturing TARA Labs Omega Evolution SP speaker cables.
Tomi Engdahl says:
TARA Labs Grand Master AC Power Cable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPVDdBfSHDI
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nelson Pass on learning his craft, then starting Threshold, Pass Labs, First Watt #audiophile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvLWqR7QGPM
This is the second in a six part series of Nelson Pass interviews that post every Saturday.
Nelson Pass on learning his craft at ESS, then starting Threshold, Pass Labs, First Watt
Nowadays Nelson Pass is the head honcho for Pass Labs and First Watt.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Take a tour of Nelson Pass’ listening room
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n3ZJnzo1tY
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nelson Pass’ ‘perfect’ massless, full-range Ion Cloud speaker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msE14cWTwKI
I first met Nelson Pass in 1980 (I was mistaken in the video when I said 1981) when he told me about his experimental Ion Cloud speaker. It was a diaphragm-less electrostatic design that used ionized gas instead of a diaphragm. Very high voltages were applied to tungsten filaments to ionize the air. Massively insensitive, the Ion Cloud needed kilowatts of power to get any sound out of it, it was said to be the most sonically transparent loudspeaker ever, but I never heard it. The biggest design hurdle was that it produced ozone gas, so much of it over the course of five days that it put Nelson in the hospital when he demonstrated the Ion Cloud at the 1981 winter Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nelson Pass on his favorite amps, playing with distortion, and his 21 inch subwoofer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Prz6IpHlSg&t=620s
Tomi Engdahl says:
Inside the Mind and History of a Hifi Engineer Genius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgWJuBjKdIo
Nelson pass designed and designs many of the best audiophile speakers, amplifiers, pre-amplifiers and many more. He is also familiar and worked on many vintage JBL speakers ! In my mind, he is a true genius in this industry. Enjoy the video !
Tomi Engdahl says:
Step Up Transformers SUT for Moving Coil Cartridges Explained – SUT Series Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzqq19OfpHM
BG133 – An explanation of how Step-Up Transformers for Moving Coil Phono Cartridges work.
Building a Step Up Transformer for Moving Coil Cartridges MC – SUT Series Part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7HtaTGP1v0
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audiophile Audiophoolery: 90% wrong about turntables
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqtuj2f19vA
A major audiophile equipment retailer publishes a claim about turntables that’s so blatantly false, it’s enough to make you blow a fuse!
Viewer comments:
The only thing actually proven to remove at least 90% of the surface noise of a record is to replace it with a CD.
I said it once and I’ll say it again. In the early 80s when a CD player cost a months salary audiophiles salivated over them, while turning their noses up at tape decks and turntables. Today they turn their noses up at CD players because they are cheap.
I love Audiophile myths, they’re the gift that keeps on giving.
It’s refreshing to see a vinyl enthusiast who appreciates the format for what it actually is instead of buying into all the bullshit about it being “superior” to digital audio.
Out of all the audiophile forums that I frequent, SteveHoffman has to be THE destination for this sort of nonsense.
Imagine a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters hoping to one day come up with a definitive answer to “do ‘audiophile cables’ make a difference?” and you got stevehoffman forums basically
Joe Collins addressed the “audio phoolery” of “high end” turntables several years ago and he was pointing out the relatively high wow & flutter vs the old Technics TT’s (namely the 1200). Most of the high end turntables are horribly overpriced for what you get, IMHO. It’s an expensive rabbit hole to climb down into once one goes into “audiophile” territory. Those $50 “audiophile” fuses were the icing on the cake. I literally LOL’ed when I saw that. It’s just as absurd when some sh*t for brains thought that CD’s sounded better when you colored on them with a yellow highlighter pen. Wow, just wow! That BS went around in the late 1980′s.
“High quality Goodyear tires remove 90% of the bumps on the road and allow you to drive through more states compared to Hankook tires”
Bad comparison, because tire construction actually does impact felt vibration from the road. Everything from compound, to sidewall height. Now, they don’t literally remove bumps, obviously.
Your video explains, almost perfectly why I am almost totally obsessed with 1970′s electronics but would never ever dream of stepping into the realm of an audiophile shop !
I’ve had old Sony’s and Technics TT’s on my bench and they are indeed very quiet. Try this: record the noise with the tone arm raised versus an unrecorded portion of a quality disk. I think you’ll with find that the majority of the rumble is transmitted through the surface of the disk as well. The quieter TT’s have quieter motors as well as more massive platters and plinths and better damping. I enjoyed your perusal of the spec sheets and your logical presentation. Expect lies from advertisements always. I haven’t found quality direct drive TT’s to be any more or less noisy than quality belt driven TT’s. Belt drive TT’s are cheaper to manufacture though.
There should be a difference, but if the designer’s done something to shove the motor frequency up beyond the hearing range of a dog, then does a tree make a sound when it falls in an uninhabited forest…
Absolutely… what can be quite telling is lowering is lowering the stylus onto a record whilst the deck isn’t actually rotating, you’ll soon learn how well isolated your deck it and how much environmental noise can get through. Someone made an amazing demonstration about that using an original AR turntable recently, he made some samples with the suspension floating, and some with the suspension locked out and the difference was astounding. I’m sure I could replicate it with my LP12 if I could find a practical way of locking the suspension out. My first turntable, a budget Hanpin made Aiwa deck used to generate insane levels of low frequency feedback at anything approaching realistic listening levels rendering it basically useless unless you were using headphones.
Audiophiles are crazy. I’ve even seen “audiophile” SATA cables selling for hundreds of dollars, for that extra-clean reference-quality data transfer!
A music lover listens to their music on audio equipment. An audiophile listens to their audio equipment on music.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Mcintosh and Audio Research, which is better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skxo2p55tyk
Viewer comments:
Once upon a time when I was young and an audiophile I’d have loved any of this equipment. In those days I couldn’t possibly afford it. It’s amazing what becoming an engineer does to you, how drastically it remolds your mind. Setting out to understand sound and acoustics I pretty much lost interest in the equipment. It became a means to an end, it was the system design that mattered. When I became able to afford any of it, it never entered my mind for one second to buy any of it. Instead my adventure in sound went in an entirely different direction. It is remarkable how complicated sound really is and there are so many variables to deal with. Creating something new and entirely different takes a lot of effort but you don’t mind if it’s a labor if love. Nearly 50 years and I’m still having fun experimenting, adjusting tweaking. I know what I want to hear and I figured out how to get it. The older equipment works just fine for my purposes. Yet I can relive my early days watching you and others who see things as I once did. I’m not being judgmental. In a way I admire your enthusiasm and enjoy watching your adventure, how you explore things and how your views change over time.
Audio is as subjective as it gets.
The sound field that reaches your ears is a physical fact. How your brain reacts to what your ears send to it is subjective.
Fascinating to hear the sound clip at the end. First, this track never sounded this good on your budget gear reviews. Second, the AR system lets more low level info through. I heard stuff at the beginning that was just missing in the Mac system (and in other review systems). But the AR does not go clinical as some solid state systems do. While the Topping DAC is likely just fine, it would also be cool to hear that AR system with your reference level DAC.
Definitely some differences in how these two setups presented the sound. I don’t know that I prefer one over the other which means either would work for me. The Mac system seemed that it had slightly more bass but not necessarily in a better way. The AR system seemed a little more forward in presentation with a quieter background. That whole synergy thing again. It makes me wonder how different things would sound mixing these amps and pre-amps.
Great video as usual, Audio Research sounds fatter and rounder, the Mcintosh is thinner and clearer, but then again with some EQ I’m sure you could make them sound pretty similar. I find it surprising that Mr.Vintage is not a fan of colour as most vintage gear has some the most colour, compared to the modern systems.
A little off topic, but I have to ask. Thomas have you ever tried MONO systems and mono recordings?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Does extremely expensive HiFi equipment matter?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQEB2FcGBw
Does it make sense to spend $50,000 on a preamplifier? How much better is a $50K preamp than one costing ten times less money?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Meet Pass Labs’ Wayne Colburn, he works with Nelson Pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWzvLg1ZLx0
This is Part 7 of a 7 part Nelson Pass series.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Truth about Steve Guttenberg ! What is his story?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E6V6PjUx-A
Who is Steve Guttenberg? The Audiophiliac is an Audiophile reviewer and he might be the most enthusiastic person I have come across !
Tomi Engdahl says:
Who is the Audiophiliac?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcmUORxUDtM
Merry Christmas! This is a rather special episode of the Daily Show, because this time Copper editor Frank Doris is the one asking the questions!
Tomi Engdahl says:
What Does “Muddy”, “Boxy”, & “Tinny” Sound Like? | WORDS TO DESCRIBE SOUND QUALITY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdkrqIqz5Ek
What does “muddy” mean? What does “tinny” sound like? There are so many words we use to describe audio quality. In this video, I’ll discuss the common words used and how they limit us as audio engineers and musicians.
0:00 – Introduction
0:41 – Limitations of Words Like “Muddy”
1:30 – Words to Describe Sound Quality
4:37 – Ear Training for Audio Engineers
5:26 – Subscribe to Audio University!
Tomi Engdahl says:
5 Ugly Frequency Areas YOU SHOULD KNOW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN9oSuz6C20
What problem frequencies are you always cutting?
Whether it’s a muddy hum, or piercing and sibilant resonance, there are some frequency areas that sound BAD (in excess).
In this video, you’ll learn about 5 problem frequency areas that are often cut with EQ, and how to tell when you may have cut too much.
These are THE 5 Ugliest Frequency Ranges YOU SHOULD KNOW
Tomi Engdahl says:
Fat, thin, bright, dull, nasal, hollow, boxy – Understand what all these tonal balance terms mean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y987nuTHR8Q
Fat, thin, bright, dull, nasal, hollow, boxy – What do all these words mean? TONAL BALANCE is vitally important in audio and you need to learn how to speak its language. This video demonstrates with audio examples what the terms mean and what they sound like.
====================
0:00 Introduction
0:11 What is tonal balance?
1:18 Quick list of tonal balance terms
1:45 EQ for newcomers to audio
2:47 A few important caveats
3:38 Tonal balance: Fat
4:36 Tonal balance: Thin
5:20 Tonal balance: Bright
5:59 Tonal balance: Aggressive
6:49 Tonal balance: Smooth
7:44 Tonal balance: Dark
8:40 Tonal balance: Dull/muffled
9:30 Tonal balance: Air/airy
10:34 Tonal balance: Harsh
11:26 Tonal balance: Nasal/honky
12:21 Tonal balance: Muddy
13:07 Tonal balance: Presence/bite
13:59 Tonal balance: Scooped/smile curve
15:07 Tonal balance: Hollow
15:57 Tonal balance: Boxy
16:52 Summary
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why do capacitors sound different?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCk50RTtrT0
When audio signals pass through a capacitor they sound different depending on which kind of capacitor is in use. Why? And, for that matter, what is a capacitor and how does it work?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Best AB amplifier design?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DIYAudio/permalink/4775782935820848/
there is no such amplifier as the best.. the very best made valve amps sound nothing like the very best solid state amps. So much depends on your listening preferences.. A sweet sounding 10 w class a valve amp is never going to give you a HEAVY ROCK BAND life like presentation on a pair of 6″ bookshelf speakers. but a Lab Grupen class t 20k w amp will give it a good go fed into a Tom Danly set of speakers. comparisons are impossible..
De Pio Ariel Tanuco But they create the biggest differences,, Differences between well designed AB amps is subtle in most cases and many people cant even hear the differences… You certainly can get a good idea what an amp will be like for a given design but just looking at the schematic doesnt tell the whole story, layout and even component brands can make small differences so can the power supply. As a manufacturer of amplifiers for domestic and pro use ..In fact our domestic amps only had the bias turned up a lot higher than the ones for pro use. But they certainly sounded different at low volume. And strange as it may seem we sold some pro amps for domestic use as the buyers preferred their sound.its not an easy question to answer.
My mentor always said the lowest value resistors you can get away with (without over driving the previous stage) & the least amount of components in the audio path makes it better
Some people prefer AC coupled some prefer DC coupled
Some prefer local feedback, others global feedback & a few no feedback (normally single ended valve but they are class a)
I personally think the best amp I’ve experienced was a circlotron but it requires 4x power supplies, a quick Google came up with this page
https://www.passdiy.com/project/amplifiers/build-the-amazing-fet-circlotron