Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
|
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
I was referring to the case where an Engineer becomes involved in remarks and audiophoolery claims of things like sonic performance, that they know for sure have no basis in science and are not true, but they are still prepared to push those for advantage. |
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
Cheers, GJ |
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
http://www.quadrevisie.eu/quadinfo/pdf/a24.pdf |
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
Cheers, GJ |
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
He says that "if you took ten modern amplifiers, set the levels correctly and avoided overload, about five of them would sound the same, the other five wouldn't". That's modern amplifiers, not good amplifiers. Later on Walker agrees with Atkinson when Atkinson says "I'm starting to suspect that perhaps there aren't many good amplifiers around." Walker set a very high standard for 'good'. But just to be clear, which is the bit which is outrageous, stupid and factually wrong ? None of it sounds like any of those things to me, I'm afraid. Cheers, GJ |
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
|
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
Yes I think it's wrong. If there is mutual benefit, then the advice and the sale can still be offered, providing it is qualified: "Look, nobody quite know why, and I can hardly tell any difference myself - but lots of people find that using direction-oriented speaker cables results in a noticeable improvement after 20 hours of running-in. That's why I sell the cable." I do occasionally have an open mind myself to things which science can't explain yet - I bought a set of magnetic leg wraps for my chronically lame horse some years ago. No reason why they would work, and whether they made her any more comfortable, only she knows, but for £60 I was less concerned about why they would make a difference as to doing anything possible to help her. (When I told vet, he said, "Well if it makes you feel better using them, Peter, then use them!" Which is perfectly fair.) |
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Never mind the earth screening, the important thing with all this stuff is that it's folks feet that should be connected to earth :) ;)
Lawrence. |
Re: 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
|
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
*ground, could be chassis, common, 0V, reference or loads of other things. |
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
But with balanced cable, the guiding principle is to connect the shield directly to the chassis at each end, enshrined in an AES standard and championed by Neil Muncey in 1994. Having said that, there is a more recent alternative view which connects only the signal source end of the cable shield in balanced systems (see for example Linear Audio, V10, pp25-36). Ott, as previously mentioned, gave an excellent presentation given to the AES in 2008 covering both balanced and unbalanced cabling, hum, noise, RF susceptibility etc etc. http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/AES-RFI-SF08.pdf Of course we have strayed off the topic of cable burn-in. Now some years ago I was keeping an open mind about this, and bought a kit of bits from Hagermann in the US for not a great amount, and built it into a box. I've done AB testing of identical cables of various constructions (BNC-BNC for SPDIF, balanced and unbalanced signal cable and speaker cables). I am happy to report that I could discern absolutely no difference whatever between burnt in and virgin cables. The burn in device collects dust. |
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
[QUOTE=kalee20;983481]
Quote:
The only fly in the ointment is me, standing a little distance off, listening, wearing my Dr Evil hat, and wondering "In what way was that directional cable made directional?" David |
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
The misleading bit, well a total lie, is that the cable has directional properties at all, apart from the arrow on it. OK at RF a tapered line is directional, audio?, untapered?, unmatched?, you are having a laugh.
|
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
|
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
As this thread goes on and on the "explanations" of audio foolery get flakier and flakier. I am enjoying it, so are the engineering department at work. We had a competition for the most ludicrous hifi gadget, that got silly, now it is for the most expensive bit of wire, so far it is $5000 for a one metre phono to phono cable, stereo mind you. |
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
|
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
yesanby, I have been trumped! Must be worth more as it has be broken in, the fools.
|
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
Quote:
|
Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
[QUOTE=Radio Wrangler;983525]
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 7:44 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2023, Paul Stenning.