UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum

UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum (https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/index.php)
-   General Vintage Technology Discussions (https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=29)
-   -   The Audiophoolery Thread. (https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/showthread.php?t=140332)

stuarth 14th Oct 2017 12:28 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Argus 25's comments have reminded me that I had an example where cable types really did make a difference.

It was several decades ago now, so I don't remember all the details, but it involved connecting a reel to reel tape recorder to a tuner amplifier using a 5-pin DIN to 4 Phono-plug cable. I had an unexpectedly poor treble response which was fixed when I used a different cable. I had several 4-way screened cables, and it turned out that they fell into 2 groups, one group had a capacitance of 100 to 150pF (core to ground), the other group were 500 to 600pF (all cables were similar length). The tuner-amp had high value series resistors to the DIN socket (specified for current drive) and, coupled with the high capacitance cable, produced a very noticeable treble roll-off.

My audio cables still have the labels showing their capacitance so I don't get caught again. The low capacitance cables could easily have justified a higher price! As Argus said, instances like this could support the "cables make a difference" argument, when actually it is a design bug (feature?) of the particular tuner-amp.

Stuart

Ted Kendall 14th Oct 2017 2:20 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
This is a fair point - the DIN standard was responsible for a lot of confusion and the odd cable-affected compatibility issue, and it is a short step from there for the uniniated to be persuaded that audible problems with cables do not allow of a simple explanation. Hence the whole fancy cable thing.

If hi fi kit is properly designed and used, the effect of exotic cables is negligible.

Excess cable length on magnetic cartridges has an effect, agreed, but this is seldom necessary - passive volume controls likewise. A simple understanding of the lumped parameters involved is entirely adequate to avoid pitfalls at audio frequencies.

When it comes to musical instruments, of course, things are different, for the reasons outlined - high and variable sending impedances, indeterminate cable lengths and diverse amplifier designs. Also, a sound is being created, not reproduced. Just look at what goes into making an Ondes Martinot...

TonyDuell 14th Oct 2017 9:54 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
One important difference between cable capacitance and audiophool effects is that cable capacitance (and inductance, and resistance) can be measured using normal measuring instruments. It is a real property of the cable, there are good theoretical reasons for believing that there should be a measurable capacitance between the core and screen of the cable (for example).

Moreover, it is possible to calculate (or model) the effect of this capacitance (assuming the rest of the circuit is known). No (sane) electronic engineer would dispute that.

And I suspect that if the capacitance causes a significant effect it can be detected in a listening test (although probably not by me :))

But most of the audiophool effects have no measurable properties, they have no physical justification and don't seem to be properly detectable in a listening test.

PJL 14th Oct 2017 11:37 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
The multiplex output from the Beam Echo tuner I restored went directly from the demodulator to a phono socket. As stereo was not being transmitted when it was made I guess they could get away with it, but a simple calculation says it would play havoc with the signal. I added a FET buffer.

I wonder how many buy equipment for other reasons than sounds quality. This definitely applies to speakers where looks often take precedence.

In modern art there is no coloration between skill and effort and the value. In celebrities, none between earnings and abilities. It's a strange world we live in and esoteric cables at least perform a useful function.

mhennessy 14th Oct 2017 11:45 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Argus25 (Post 982687)
Long cables between magnetic phono cartridges can also have some high frequency roll off effects.

Funnily enough, long cables have the opposite effect on a typical MM cartridge. We discussed this a while back in this thread: http://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/s...d.php?t=134895 (see post #13 and onwards) :thumbsup:

Argus25 15th Oct 2017 1:18 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Yes, That is true I agree due to resonance effects the cartridge inductance with certain length cables and their exact capacity. But if the capacitive loading is high enough there will be HF roll off too.

In any case, this represents a problem where the output of a device, be it a transducer like a cartridge or microphone or pickup, really has an impedance that is too high and a frequency response profile that can be affected by loading from a real cable, be it resonances or damping. Ideally the turntable cartridge, or a microphone or guitar pickup, or a signal source from any unit would have a buffer in it and drop the output impedance to a sensibly low value prior to driving "the cable" and then we wouldn't have to worry about cable length & capacity issues as much.

In some controlled professional audio work it is attended to with 600 Ohm systems and balanced lines too, but in a lot of audio equipment and especially with instruments like guitars a lot less attention is paid to the issue so people start noticing the effects of the cables, and generalizing those experiences to every other situation involving a cable.

stevehertz 15th Oct 2017 8:06 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
I think we need to pull back a frame or two and remember that there are rather basic, 'sensible' things to remember when considering cables eg that in certain circumstances you have to pay 'attention to' their capacitance and their shielding capabilities. There's other factors too, for sure, but those two are the main ones that are likely to affect the sound - in certain circumstances.

But this 'sensible', and for want of a better word, scientific approach is a million miles away from the audiophool type of thing where all manner of non-scientific, no-proven phrases and words are used to justify a ridiculously high price for cables that in truth offer no real benefits and again, in truth, sound no different to decent, good quality ones that can be bought for a few pounds.

So just because we're talking about cables that have (say) too much capacitance, it doesn't mean that the only alternative is an esoteric, audiophool version that costs a small mortgage; lower capacitance cables are readily available in the normal price range of 'non-esoteric' cables.

stuarth 15th Oct 2017 9:18 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Back in the day, I wasn't aware that the capacitance of the 4-way audio cables was specified on the packaging. And even if it was, would folk appreciate the benefit of the low capacitance, or could smart marketing (or "experts") convince people that more is better, "more capacitance to handle the complexities of the music" or some such baseless claim.

I once read a review of a CD player in what I thought was a respectable magazine which made the claim that this particular player had cleaner bass because in had a die cast chassis....

Stuart

Radio Wrangler 15th Oct 2017 9:19 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Applying logic: (dangerous, I know...)

If wire makes a difference and what comes out of one can't be 'better' than what went in the other end, then the best wires are no wires. All the electronics, the tuner, turntable etc should be in the same box.

We're back to the music centre!

But then there are the speaker cables... So the speakers have to go in the box, too. Those audiophiles who treat 'interconnects' as more important than the things they interconnect should never have left the radiogram era.

They've already bought up all the pre-war triodes, so they just need to fight over the remaining radiogram carcasses to put them back in.

glorious sound?...................tick
valved?............................. tick
rare?................................ tick
absolutely digital-free?....... tick
impressively expensive?......soon will be!

We just need an audiophool-acceptable pundit to explain it to them in their language.

What goes around, comes around.

David

Refugee 15th Oct 2017 11:17 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by stuarth (Post 982904)
Back in the day, I wasn't aware that the capacitance of the 4-way audio cables was specified on the packaging. And even if it was, would folk appreciate the benefit of the low capacitance, or could smart marketing (or "experts") convince people that more is better, "more capacitance to handle the complexities of the music" or some such baseless claim.

I once read a review of a CD player in what I thought was a respectable magazine which made the claim that this particular player had cleaner bass because in had a die cast chassis....

Stuart

When I made up the cabling for MP3/CD to a valve amplifier I put the loading resistors for the 30 ohm in the jack plugs at the amplifier end of the cable. It is common practice to match a cable run at the destination.

If the CD player has to have a cast chassis then the amplifier also needs a cast chassis.

Argus25 15th Oct 2017 11:25 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
It seems awfully easy for people with electronics engineering knowledge to slag off the Audiophiles with derogatory remarks. But if you point one finger at someone else, you have three pointing back at yourself.

I submit that part of this problem has come about because as a group of Engineers and Scientists, we have failed in our job as educators. We dropped the ball.

What has happened is that one of the oldest sins, human greed, has been left to run rampant in the field of audio engineering. So now, with a bit of help from the internet, the marketing of audio related products has about as much meaning and truth as a copper bracelet to cure arthritis or a Homeopathic treatment for cancer.

Perhaps as a group we should be more active in creating scientifically based documentation on audio amplifiers and related products to help inspire a quest for relevance and scientific reasoning. Actually Silicon Chip in Australia have been good at this, with their many projects on low distortion amplifiers.

If we don't put effort in this area, then it will be hardly surprising that someone tells you a valve sounds better because it has a black plate or some specific type of getter.

mhennessy 15th Oct 2017 11:41 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Look, all this really is very simple...

The hi-fi market has been declining for decades. Today, it's a minority interest for a very small percentage of the population, and it's harder than ever to make a living from it.

The present state of affairs is the response to this. Rather than waste time on the technical aspects of these cables and accessories, try studying the marketing of this stuff. Really study it - from inside the industry. It's simultaneously fascinating yet depressing yet somehow impressive. We as engineers are far too quick to dismiss marketing, but it's far more important than the actual product you're trying to shift. The people doing it have very, very different mindsets to ours, but they're just as smart as we are. Perhaps more so - which is the depressing yet inevitable conclusion when you compare salaries ;)

People need to put food on the table, and they can't be too fussy about whose money they take...

GrimJosef 15th Oct 2017 12:46 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Argus25 (Post 982924)
I submit that part of this problem has come about because as a group of Engineers and Scientists, we have failed in our job as educators. We dropped the ball.

What has happened is that one of the oldest sins, human greed, has been left to run rampant in the field of audio engineering. So now, with a bit of help from the internet, the marketing of audio related products has about as much meaning and truth as a copper bracelet to cure arthritis or a Homeopathic treatment for cancer.

There is definitely some truth in this. But it's no more than half of the problem. The fact is that it's very difficult indeed, some would say impossible, to reproduce many musical performances, from small-scale pure-acoustic soloists and ensembles to massively amplified stadium rock, using any domestic stereo system. The best that can be done is to create a good impresssion of the real thing, enough of a 'reminder', if you like, to allow you to imagine that you're not on your own in your living room. But from the customers' point of view that leaves plenty of room for improvement. They want better. There is real consumer 'Pull' here as well as industry 'Push'.

An engineer/scientist might say "We've done the best possible. There's no more improvement to be had. Like it or lump it". A salesman might know this to be true but might tell the customer that the new kit contains technological improvements which will make a difference. He might be fibbing, but when it comes to the experience of audio we are all suggestible. So that fib, if it convinces us, can genuinely make our experience better. This is the critical point. Lying about electronics can't make a plane's autopilot work better. But it can make the sound of a hi-fi system better. And it can do so when the engineer/scientist has got no more to give. So in those circumstances how wrong is it to lie ? The salesman might argue that he has taken people's money and given them a better experience.

Where I definitely do object though is when someone tells me that my understanding of what's going on is wrong, and if I can't hear the improvement then I'm either deaf or simply trolling.

Quote:

Perhaps as a group we should be more active in creating scientifically based documentation on audio amplifiers and related products to help inspire a quest for relevance and scientific reasoning ... If we don't put effort in this area, then it will be hardly surprising that someone tells you a valve sounds better because it has a black plate or some specific type of getter.
This assumes that the customers will want to hear this message. I'm afraid a lot of them don't, and just won't listen. For those who do Ethan Winer's videos are well worth a watch e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvireu2SGZM

Cheers,

GJ

Junk Box Nick 15th Oct 2017 1:07 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
There's a very old saying in the advertising industry: "Sell the sizzle, not the sausage."

Radio Wrangler 15th Oct 2017 1:29 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Take a good, hard, look at the firms selling the snakiest, oiliest, silliest cables and they're tiny. Their turnover is minuscule in units per annum and they need the ludicrous prices to survive. No-one is getting rich on making this stuff. The snobby hifi boutiques handling multiple brands might be doing a little better but the real money comes from the quick turnover cheaper stuff and that's been sewn up by Currys, Richer Sounds, etc. Independent hifi shops, record shops, camera shops all wiped out.

It's a different world.

Many people are PROUD of not understanding 'technical" things.

David

kalee20 15th Oct 2017 2:37 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
I like the chassis!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Refugee (Post 982922)
When I bade up the cabling for MP3/CD to a valve amplifier I put the loading resistors for the 30 ohm in the jack plugs at the amplifier end of the cable. It is common practice to match a cable run at the destination.

Yes I agree to match at the remote the end... But that's only if the cable has 30Ω characteristic impedance and also it's electrically 'long.' Assuming that it isn't, and also that the MP3/CD output you're using is the headphone output, why would you deliberately load this down? Almost certainly it'll just be a complementary NPN/PNP emitter-follower pair, with beefy enough devices to drive 30Ω without dying... why not give them an easier life by letting them just feed into a near open-circuit, and avoid any crossover distortion at the same time?

Argus25 15th Oct 2017 2:52 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimJosef (Post 982939)
Lying about electronics can't make a plane's autopilot work better. But it can make the sound of a hi-fi system better. And it can do so when the engineer/scientist has got no more to give. So in those circumstances how wrong is it to lie ?

Very wrong. Because a lie is practically always something that has some downstream destructive effects. Sometimes it is not obvious how it will. A lie could be one of the most well intentioned acts in the world, even set out to "help people" or make them feel better, but it often leads to trouble...because...someone believes it, and then acts on it and there is the problem.

People in the audio profession & business would be held in some regard by their non technical customers and asked for advice at times, there is a trust there. If the engineer or sales people push a fable, like the Emperors New Clothes, saying something is there, or some improvement, when its not, that trust is violated, regardless of whether the customer believes what they are told or not. Even if they feel happy about it and now think their stereo sounds better, it is wrong.

Look at the results of what amounts to the marketing lies in audio components, claims of superior sonics from valves, cables, tube sockets, capacitors, resistors etc. Then downstream someone on this forum is trying to do a period correct restoration and goes to get a valve and finds its $200 because it has been deemed an audiophile type type with black plates and superior sonics. This is the price we pay for the dishonesty in the marketing that made someone feel better. I've even seen EF50s' sold as audiophile tubes.

mickyfinn 15th Oct 2017 3:06 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
1 Attachment(s)
Heres a pic of some Naim speaker cable being sold second hand on a hifi forum, apparently it's directional? ??? He's asking 200 euro for two 4.5m lengths (plus postage).

Mick

julie_m 15th Oct 2017 3:17 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Adequacy is the enemy of perfection. Today's mass-produced amplifiers and speakers can give a performance that would once have been considered excellent. It's not perfectly linear from DC to RF, or even over the full range of human hearing; but it's good enough for most people, most of the time, so that's the way the market moves. Once you pass a certain price point, diminishing returns set in; but even before then, the amplifier and speakers will already be near enough perfect that the listening environment is going to begin to dominate.

The scientist or engineer can prove that there is no measurable difference whether or not a certain expensive gadget is used, but the audiophool can always protest that the instruments being used are simply not sensitive enough.

stevehertz 15th Oct 2017 3:41 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhennessy (Post 982928)
Look, all this really is very simple...

The hi-fi market has been declining for decades. Today, it's a minority interest for a very small percentage of the population, and it's harder than ever to make a living from it.

The present state of affairs is the response to this. Rather than waste time on the technical aspects of these cables and accessories, try studying the marketing of this stuff. Really study it - from inside the industry. It's simultaneously fascinating yet depressing yet somehow impressive. We as engineers are far too quick to dismiss marketing, but it's far more important than the actual product you're trying to shift. The people doing it have very, very different mindsets to ours, but they're just as smart as we are. Perhaps more so - which is the depressing yet inevitable conclusion when you compare salaries ;)

People need to put food on the table, and they can't be too fussy about whose money they take...

So true Mark. And I can say that, having started out as an electronics test engineer (a techy) and ending up in the heady world of marketing communications in the electronics industry (a marketing man). Ok, that market is very different to the retail/commercial electronics side of electronics, but it's an area I have worked in since 1989 and rose to become a director of such a company. It's all about convincing a potential customer that what you are selling will make them feel 'how they want to feel' given the nature of the particular product that you are promoting. And in the case of audiophiles (I'll refrain from using 'audiophools' for a minute!) that's largely a feeling that:

1) It will improve and enhance their listening pleasure.
2) It will impress their friends and associates on forums.
3) It will give them a feeling of belonging to an elite group of people who appreciate better hifi equipment

I'm sure it creates other feelings too.

Out of interest, what does buying a new (vintage) piece of hifi equipment mean to me?

1) Nostalgia, it's probably a piece of kit that I saw as a teenager, lusted after but could never afford.
2) The pleasure and satisfaction of getting it to work properly.
3) It's visual appeal - new stuff just doesn't compare for me.
4) Hopefully it sounds better than the previous one. Doesn't matter that much though!
5) Maybe an investment if I bought shrewdly and made a good job of fixing it up.
6) The chance to share my problems and get advice from people on here while I fix it, and ultimately do a 'write up' that may help others.
7) The thought and satisfaction that I have 'saved' a relatively modern piece of hifi from being junked and turned it into a desirable piece for many similar minded collector enthusiasts.

I've digressed, but yes, esoteric, audiophile hifi equipment is all about money. And there is not a group of people on the face of this earth who at times will be 'economical with the truth' in order to make money. In fact, audiophile hifi equipment is as good an example as you will find. :beer:

GrimJosef 15th Oct 2017 3:54 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Argus25 (Post 982965)
Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimJosef (Post 982939)
... So in those circumstances how wrong is it to lie ?

Very wrong. Because a lie is practically always something that has some downstream destructive effects. Sometimes it is not obvious how it will. A lie could be one of the most well intentioned acts in the world, even set out to "help people" or make them feel better, but it often leads to trouble...because...someone believes it, and then acts on it and there is the problem.

People in the audio profession & business would be held in some regard by their non technical customers and asked for advice at times, there is a trust there. If the engineer or sales people push a fable, like the Emperors New Clothes, saying something is there, or some improvement, when its not, that trust is violated, regardless of whether the customer believes what they are told or not. Even if they feel happy about it and now think their stereo sounds better, it is wrong.

You make a distinct point below which deserves to be considered on its own. But with that exception I think we are now moving into the field of moral philosophy and, specifically, normative ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics. Most of the examples in this thread, including the issue which started it (cable burn-in), don't actually 'lead to trouble' or create 'downstream destructive effects' beyond (sometimes) parting the customer from their money without delivering the improvement they hoped for. The problem of customer dissatisfaction isn't confined to hi-fi, nor is it new, and over the millennia we have worked out remedies for it. So I think we're just left with the abstract 'right or wrong ?' discussion and the middle view seems to be that sometimes lying is unacceptable but sometimes it's OK (my friend introduces me to his wife, who's dressed up for an evening out, and he says "Doesn't she look great ?" and I say "Yes, she does" instead of "Well, not bad, but let's face it she's no oil painting" which might be most people's honest view). Each case needs to be decided on its own merits and views will differ. I'm afraid that's why I raised the question without venturing an answer ...

Quote:

Look at the results of what amounts to the marketing lies in audio components, claims of superior sonics from valves, cables, tube sockets, capacitors, resistors etc. Then downstream someone on this forum is trying to do a period correct restoration and goes to get a valve and finds its $200 because it has been deemed an audiophile type type with black plates and superior sonics. This is the price we pay for the dishonesty in the marketing that made someone feel better. I've even seen EF50s' sold as audiophile tubes.
This particular example of what we might call audiophoolery does involve negative consequences for some people. They have to be weighed against the positive consequences for other people. If the question of 'right or wrong ?' is difficult when there's no conflict of interest then it becomes even more difficult when there is one. You'd need the wisdom of Solomon to establish whose enjoyment of a rare valve is 'worth' the most ...

Cheers,

GJ

Radio Wrangler 15th Oct 2017 4:44 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
The need for 'burning-in' is a brilliant marketing invention.

Joe Q Audiophile buys a new cable, or a new piece of equipment, connects it up and expects to hear the revelatory experience the makers trumpet and the reviewers report.

It sounds the same. Is it faulty? Has he been told a load of bull? Is his hearing not as refined as he'd like people to believe? Is the Emperor coming out in goose pimples? These are worrying thoughts. Has he made an expensive mistake?

Don't worry, the concept of burn-in comes to the rescue. The wotsit simply hasn't had time to come up to its full wonderfulness. He needs to keep it running gently for several days for it to bed-in. Just like running in a car's engine. The amount of time is long enough for him to forget what things sounded like before the new thingy, and having it playing music to burn-in helps overwrite his memory.

By the end of the burn-in process he'll be able to believe there is an improvement just as he's been told there is.

It's one of the most brilliant ideas in maarketing. It ranks up with the invention of the disguised racing driver... That adds mystery and frees the producers to stick whoever is available in the disguise suit. there are some very bright people on the dark side!

David

Guest 15th Oct 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

I put the loading resistors for the 30 ohm in the jack plugs at the amplifier end of the cable.
No need to do that, volts out will stay the same, all the 30ohm means is what the minimum resistance it can drive. You could have saved a number of pennies on the cost (grin).

And being a bit silly (if this thread wasn't silly enough, great fun though)...
Quote:

It is common practice to match a cable run at the destination
staying in the middle lane is also common practice, doesn't make it right.

Luckily today (for the last 40 years at least) we have audio stuff with low output impedance and high input impedance making cable irrelevant, even screening isn't required in most cases, just as well, the unbalanced unscreened twisted pair seems to have a following in the "interconnect" scene.

To top it all the RCA Phono "jack" is all pervading, quite a bad connector IMHO, OK it's more than good enough for audio and cheap, I use them because cables cost pennies and that saves loads of time soldering.

To sum up, it's bloomin' audio, nothing above 20kHz means anything (outside the box anyway), nearly DC as far as cables below a mile or so long are concerned. 20kHz is about 10 miles wavelength.

dseymo1 15th Oct 2017 5:02 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Radio Wrangler (Post 982989)
The need for 'burning-in' is a brilliant marketing invention.

Joe Q Audiophile buys a new cable, or a new piece of equipment, connects it up and expects to hear the revelatory experience the makers trumpet and the reviewers report.

It sounds the same. Is it faulty? Has he been told a load of bull? Is his hearing not as refined as he'd like people to believe? Is the Emperor coming out in goose pimples? These are worrying thoughts. Has he made an expensive mistake?

Don't worry, the concept of burn-in comes to the rescue. The wotsit simply hasn't had time to come up to its full wonderfulness. He needs to keep it running gently for several days for it to bed-in. Just like running in a car's engine. The amount of time is long enough for him to forget what things sounded like before the new thingy, and having it playing music to burn-in helps overwrite his memory.

By the end of the burn-in process he'll be able to believe there is an improvement just as he's been told there is.

It's one of the most brilliant ideas in maarketing. It ranks up with the invention of the disguised racing driver... That adds mystery and frees the producers to stick whoever is available in the disguise suit. there are some very bright people on the dark side!

David


Were this not the case, pre-burnt-in cables would be available (great value-added opportunity for suppliers), but are in fact conspicuously absent from the market.

Refugee 15th Oct 2017 5:27 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kalee20 (Post 982961)
I like the chassis!


Yes I agree to match at the remote the end... But that's only if the cable has 30Ω characteristic impedance and also it's electrically 'long.' Assuming that it isn't, and also that the MP3/CD output you're using is the headphone output, why would you deliberately load this down? Almost certainly it'll just be a complementary NPN/PNP emitter-follower pair, with beefy enough devices to drive 30Ω without dying... why not give them an easier life by letting them just feed into a near open-circuit, and avoid any crossover distortion at the same time?

The amplifiers shake everything when cranked up a bit. They are heavy enough not to shake themselves to bits too.

MP3 players are almost all 30 ohm and most decent CD players also have a 30 ohm output so that is the lead I use. 33ohms it the normal value to go in the jack plugs.

GrimJosef 15th Oct 2017 5:55 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dseymo1 (Post 982996)
Were this not the case, pre-burnt-in cables would be available (great value-added opportunity for suppliers), but are in fact conspicuously absent from the market.

Tut, tut. Everyone knows that burn-in is about bringing your cables into a state which is harmonious with the rest of your system and, just as important, the particular range of music that you like. You can't honestly expect manufacturers to stock a whole range of cables suitable for different set-ups and musical genres :-).

Cheers,

GJ

Guest 15th Oct 2017 6:29 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

MP3 players are almost all 30 ohm and most decent CD players also have a 30 ohm output so that is the lead I use. 33ohms it the normal value to go in the jack plugs
They are rated at a maximum (current, minimum load resistance) and don't care in the slightest if they are not loaded at all, a few k ohms might (very very very much might if the following bit of kit is DC coupled to the input and has a huge input resistance) be useful. And do you use 30 (or is that 33) ohm cable?

Some may have noticed I have not included the output impedance of the unit which, in most cases, is near zero not matching any cable.

Radio Wrangler 15th Oct 2017 6:39 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
You could while away many days and a king's ransom auditioning different cables pre-burnt-in for different equipment and genres. What's more, with the burn-in wait no longer necessary, a nasty evil scientist could get a whole load of cables and do an immediate ABX set of tests.... ooo... errr! No, we can't have that!

David

julie_m 15th Oct 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
So cables that were "used to", say, jazz, would not sound as good when the system was being used for listening to, say, folk?

That hypothesis would be worth testing, but for the inevitable accusations of insufficiently-sensitive measuring instruments .....

GrimJosef 15th Oct 2017 7:08 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Radio Wrangler (Post 983023)
You could while away many days and a king's ransom auditioning different cables pre-burnt-in for different equipment and genres. What's more, with the burn-in wait no longer necessary, a nasty evil scientist could get a whole load of cables and do an immediate ABX set of tests.... ooo... errr! No, we can't have that!

David

Honestly, some people ! If the burn-in wait is a problem for you then you'll have to get one of these http://www.bluehorizonideas.com/prod...ories/proburn/ or these https://www.thecablecooker.com/ and burn your cables in off-line. They'll be better in some ways (it says so) but true audiophiles know they'll still continue to improve as they get used to your musical tastes.

The website for the second one makes the legitimate point that running your amp 24/7 to burn in your new cables does have the unfortunate side-effect of wearing out your NOS valves.

Cheers,

GJ

stevehertz 15th Oct 2017 7:10 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by julie_m (Post 983024)
So cables that were "used to", say, jazz, would not sound as good when the system was being used for listening to, say, folk?

That hypothesis would be worth testing, but for the inevitable accusations of insufficiently-sensitive measuring instruments .....

Oh we have such sensitive instruments, they're called ears, and in some respects, contrary to the view of us 'techies', audiophools trust their ears 100%. That's even when the difference either doesn't exist, or is demonstrably so miniscule as to be unmeasurable, as it is in so many cases. No, the problem that audiophools have is that they are either unaware of, or choose to ignore the fact that what they are listening to is actually not just an aural event, but a psychoacoustic one. And that changes everything. The reason? because it is dead easy to convince ourselves (for lots of reasons but one of them being that you just dished out thousands of pounds on this new piece of hifi) that the 'upgrade' that you have just made sounds better. In short, you desperately want, and really believe that this new piece of kit will make your system sound better, so your brain says, there you go, it is better! Seller and audiophool are happy! This satisfying deduction is arrived at on the basis that in truth, your ears have not been able to detect any difference. But you knew the difference would be subtle anyway (didn't you?!), so it all makes sense.. :laugh2:

Guest 15th Oct 2017 7:32 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Try the spoken word through most "posh" hifis' it sounds awful. Nuff said.

Valvepower 15th Oct 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Hello,

Well, with the risk of being drummed off the forum…

Tomorrow morning I’ll be heading to a hi-fi manufacturing factory on the South-East Coast. The company employs over 100 people and in lot of ways this is a very traditional manufacturing environment with the following departments/disciplines:

Tool makers
Electronic and mechanical engineers
Mechanical assemblers
Electronic assemblers
Test engineers fault finding to component level
Service department who will be willing to repair a 40-year-old unit if they can do so
Wire men and ladies
Coil winders
Use local and UK suppliers where they can
It was only up until recently they had a tea lady

And the cable, oh sorry interconnect department, which has gold door knobs, platinum flooring, diamond encrusted chandeliers and silk clad gurus being feed caviar by nubile hand maidens all in harmony with the local lay lines. These gurus are regularly seen enticing electrons the wrong way through cables :-D :-D :-D

But seriously folks I’ll be the first to admit the hi-fi industry hasn’t done itself any favours (the words skeleton and cupboard jump to mind), but isn’t every industry guilty – to some extent – of creative marketing to promote their products!

Anyway, I’m proud to be a part of this company as its basically it’s good ole' engineering and manufacturing with its associated fun games and characters and, thankfully there is not an audiophool in sight, well not in a quarter of mile or so if the 'phool' police have their way :-D

Regards
Terry
Best get my coat….

kalee20 15th Oct 2017 7:40 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by merlinmaxwell (Post 983018)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Refugee (Post 983003)
MP3 players are almost all 30 ohm and most decent CD players also have a 30 ohm output so that is the lead I use. 33ohms it the normal value to go in the jack plugs

They are rated at a maximum (current, minimum load resistance) and don't care in the slightest if they are not loaded at all, a few k ohms might (very very very much might if the following bit of kit is DC coupled to the input and has a huge input resistance) be useful. And do you use 30 (or is that 33) ohm cable?

Exactly, MM! So Refugee... why load your outputs? It's like saying, the mains cable to all the lights in my house is rated at 3A, therefore I must fit a 750W bulb in every socket!

mhennessy 15th Oct 2017 8:58 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Good audio-quality op-amps show an increase in distortion when asked to drive low impedance loads. As a rule of thumb, 2k is a good minimum load impedance (including the negative feedback resistors, of course). Some, like the good old NE5532, are good to perhaps 600-ish ohms, perhaps.

Meanwhile, the output impedance of a "hi-fi" CD player - set by an output resistor - will be anywhere between 50 and 500 ohms, give or take. Just depends on the whim of the designer - there's no formal standards for domestic hi-fi.

So slapping a 30 ohm load at the output of a hi-fi CD player will not only reduce the output voltage (by an amount that depends on Zout, and so will vary from machine to machine), but will increase harmonic distortion. So, a bad idea every way you look at it (if you actively want less level, use a potential divider with higher value resistors that add up to 2-4k). Matched impedance audio circuits went out decades ago. Just try finding 600 ohms in a modern professional installation - if you do, it'll be for legacy gear like vintage valve preamps or similar...

The output stage of a portable device is a bit different, however. The op-amps in these, working from very low supply rails, will be designed to drive 32 ohm headphones (the actual impedance will obviously vary with frequency, so 32 ohms can only be very nominal, just like it is with loudspeakers). These ICs tend to have pretty high distortion values compared to the usual audio op-amps, but for the application, they're usually good enough.

Some output stages can be upset by not seeing a low-ish load. It's hard to investigate exactly what's going on because such devices tend to be hard to take apart, and once you have, you can't see any of the components in there anyway! Perhaps they need a DC path to charge the output capacitors - who knows? Either way, I've found that a load of a k or 2 is enough - 30 ohms would just take current from the battery needlessly.

Needless to say, there are plenty of other areas where matched impedance is useful/essential. But not audio. Ever seen a power amp with 8 ohms Zout?

julie_m 15th Oct 2017 9:09 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by merlinmaxwell (Post 983041)
Try the spoken word through most "posh" hifis' it sounds awful. Nuff said.

Indeed.

And if you can't tell Sheffield from Donny, or Wolverhampton from Dudley, or Stoke from Stafford, or pick any two towns near where you're from, then it might not be that good.

Craig Sawyers 15th Oct 2017 9:19 pm

Re: 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Voxophone (Post 982540)
Quote:

Originally Posted by LeakyGrid (Post 980673)
The Quad VA-One is available with “audiophile-grade” valves treated by freezing at -300ºF for 48 hours.

This one is actually true. Spending 48 hours at such a low temperature is ‘character building’ for the valves (similar to DofE or one of those American military schools). They then go on to be well-rounded/superior sounding members of society/your hi-fi system.

Non-cryo-treated valves lack perspective and never realise how lucky they are, whereas those which have been to the North Pole are always thankful for the warmth of their filaments.

Very interesting thread by the way.

Liam

Well, I'm back. I cannot speak on the topic of cryo-treating valves, but I can speak as the ex-Technical Director of Oxford Instruments. We used to build huge and complex superconducting magnets (and other stuff) for research establishments worldwide.

The problem was that if you machined a magnet former (out of a 316LN steel billet), assembled the magnet to the former and then cooled it down to liquid helium temperature (4.2 Kelvin) it did not work - it would never get to the design magnetic field. Disassembly (a week long process) showed that the former has distorted. Every time a magnet did not work - distorted fomer. A fraction of a mm was enough.

We overcame the problem by rough machining the former, and then cycling it in a bucket (it was a big vacuum insulated bucket!) cryostat repeatedly to 77K (liquid nitrogen), and then final machining to dimension.

The background is that cycling to liquid nitrogen results in stress relieving. So at least the plausibility argument is that doing the same thing with a valve changes in some way its characteristics, at least audibly.

Craig

Craig Sawyers 15th Oct 2017 9:22 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by G8HQP Dave (Post 982479)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Sawyers
Basically RF is picked up by the inductive component of a cable

Not true. A coax cable has inductance but near zero pickup. A twisted pair has inductance but near zero pickup. A woven cable, or other poor designs, will pick up RF and for these cables the amount of pickup may vary with inductance.

I was not talking about coax cables, which I hope was clear from my posts. I was talking about loudspeaker cables, which are rarely (if ever) of coaxial construction. For an unscreened cable my argument most certainly holds

Craig

Craig Sawyers 15th Oct 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stuarth (Post 982904)
I once read a review of a CD player in what I thought was a respectable magazine which made the claim that this particular player had cleaner bass because in had a die cast chassis....
Stuart

You have to be a bit careful here. The tracking requirements for a Red Book CD are quite testing. The laser focus has to be held to less than 1um and 1um in radial tracking with respect to the recorded data. The 1um focus has to be held even with 1.2mm warp. Given the rapid movement of the lens and tracking system, and the associated inertia, a rigid frame to hold the parts together is essential to prevent structural resonances.

OK - I hear you say "This is digital - it is 0's and 1's". Well it might be at one point, but I'd invite you to look at an eye diagram for the analogue output from the photodiodes in a CD mechanism. A CD mechanism is analogue through and through. Focus, tracking and data.

Craig

Craig Sawyers 15th Oct 2017 9:52 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Radio Wrangler (Post 982989)
Were this not the case, pre-burnt-in cables would be available (great value-added opportunity for suppliers), but are in fact conspicuously absent from the market.

Well - just not true.

Just as an example, Russ Andrews offers cryogenic treatment for any of his interconnect and speaker cables for an additional £12.50, regardless of cable cost. Or burn-in for £15.

Craig

Craig Sawyers 15th Oct 2017 10:02 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stevehertz (Post 983038)
Quote:

Originally Posted by julie_m (Post 983024)
So cables that were "used to", say, jazz, would not sound as good when the system was being used for listening to, say, folk?

That hypothesis would be worth testing, but for the inevitable accusations of insufficiently-sensitive measuring instruments .....

Oh we have such sensitive instruments, they're called ears, and in some respects, contrary to the view of us 'techies', audiophools trust their ears 100%. That's even when the difference either doesn't exist, or is demonstrably so miniscule as to be unmeasurable, as it is in so many cases. No, the problem that audiophools have is that they are either unaware of, or choose to ignore the fact that what they are listening to is actually not just an aural event, but a psychoacoustic one. And that changes everything. The reason? because it is dead easy to convince ourselves (for lots of reasons but one of them being that you just dished out thousands of pounds on this new piece of hifi) that the 'upgrade' that you have just made sounds better. In short, you desperately want, and really believe that this new piece of kit will make your system sound better, so your brain says, there you go, it is better! Seller and audiophool are happy! This satisfying deduction is arrived at on the basis that in truth, your ears have not been able to detect any difference. But you knew the difference would be subtle anyway (didn't you?!), so it all makes sense.. :laugh2:

You have to be a trifle careful regarding human hearing. I suggest you scan this http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...ghly-nonlinear

And the paper from Physical Review Letters on which that is based https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstrac...ett.110.044301

Quote "We study human ability to simultaneously judge the frequency and the timing of a sound. Our subjects often exceeded the uncertainty limit, sometimes by more than tenfold, mostly through remarkable timing acuity. Our results establish a lower bound for the nonlinearity and complexity of the algorithms employed by our brains in parsing transient sounds, rule out simple “linear filter” models of early auditory processing, and highlight timing acuity as a central feature in auditory object processing."

Craig

Argus25 15th Oct 2017 10:30 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimJosef (Post 982978)

Quote:

Look at the results of what amounts to the marketing lies in audio components, claims of superior sonics from valves, cables, tube sockets, capacitors, resistors etc. Then downstream someone on this forum is trying to do a period correct restoration and goes to get a valve and finds its $200 because it has been deemed an audiophile type type with black plates and superior sonics. This is the price we pay for the dishonesty in the marketing that made someone feel better. I've even seen EF50s' sold as audiophile tubes.
This particular example of what we might call audiophoolery does involve negative consequences for some people. They have to be weighed against the positive consequences for other people. If the question of 'right or wrong ?' is difficult when there's no conflict of interest then it becomes even more difficult when there is one. You'd need the wisdom of Solomon to establish whose enjoyment of a rare valve is 'worth' the most ...

Cheers,

GJ

I'd have to disagree with that, turning the right-wrong question about "truth or dishonesty" into an ethical dilemma is merely a smoke screen to allow some people, with the positive consequences you refer to, to benefit and avoid facing the consequences of dishonesty. It doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon to figure this out, Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory did (or at least the script writers)..he said, : "wrong is an absolute state and its not subject to gradations".
Of course some people in the industry who have been successfully coached to believe the lies about things like component sonics, think that what they are saying is entirely true and its hard to argue they are doing anything wrong, but for those who know, its shameful.

GrimJosef 15th Oct 2017 10:43 pm

Re: 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Sawyers (Post 983085)
... The background is that cycling to liquid nitrogen results in stress relieving. So at least the plausibility argument is that doing the same thing with a valve changes in some way its characteristics, at least audibly.

Temperature cycling can indeed relieve stress, but it works just as well if the parts are heated and then cooled. It's just a shame that there's no way for the internal metalwork in a valve to be heated up and cooled down a few times.

Oh ... hang on ... ;D.

Seriously though, during the pumpout procedure for almost all valves the metalwork has to be heated much hotter than the normal operating temperature of most of it to get it to release any trapped gases. By the time it leaves the factory it will have experienced much greater temperature excursions than the 200-odd degrees that an LN2 bath will give it.

I know what you mean about 316 stainless though. When I was a graduate student I used to have TEA laser electrodes machined from it and we went through the same process of rough cutting followed by annealing followed by closer working followed by more annealing followed by even closer working etc etc.

Cheers,

GJ

GrimJosef 15th Oct 2017 10:50 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Argus25 (Post 983106)
I'd have to disagree with that, turning the right-wrong question about "truth or dishonesty" into an ethical dilemma is merely a smoke screen to allow some people, with the positive consequences you refer to, to benefit and avoid facing the consequences of dishonesty. It doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon to figure this out, Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory did (or at least the script writers)..he said, : "wrong is an absolute state and its not subject to gradations".
Of course some people in the industry who have been successfully coached to believe the lies about things like component sonics, think that what they are saying is entirely true and its hard to argue they are doing anything wrong, but for those who know, its shameful.

We'll have to leave it there then. You're clearly confident in that position.

Cheers,

GJ

Refugee 15th Oct 2017 11:26 pm

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by merlinmaxwell (Post 983018)
They are rated at a maximum (current, minimum load resistance) and don't care in the slightest if they are not loaded at all, a few k ohms might (very very very much might if the following bit of kit is DC coupled to the input and has a huge input resistance) be useful. And do you use 30 (or is that 33) ohm cable?

Some may have noticed I have not included the output impedance of the unit which, in most cases, is near zero not matching any cable.

Using the lower value is done to load out mobile phone noise.
The amplifiers have heavy metal cases and are out of reach of mobile phone noise.
There is a short stub of two core from the jack plug and then two bits of 50 ohm.
The total length is about 3 to 4 feet.

The source is designed to take 30 ohm headphones so loading it to the designed resistance is the correct thing to do surely.

PJL 16th Oct 2017 12:24 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Is the conclusion that audio reproduction has reached perfection and technological advances can do nothing to improve the listening experience? Or is it that audiophiles are a dying breed as people only listen to music when they are texting or looking at facebook?

My hi-fi can still get a bit of an oooh from my daughters friends (30) especially when I tell them that I was about 5 when most of the equipment was made.

Refugee 16th Oct 2017 1:45 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
I have found a web link that I could not resist.
The sound of solder.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/parts...er-alloys.html

Craig Sawyers 16th Oct 2017 6:48 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Refugee (Post 983152)
I have found a web link that I could not resist.
The sound of solder.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/parts...er-alloys.html

The problem is that there are truths lurking under all the pseudo science. Sure thermoelectric effects are DC in nature, and at face value have no impact on an AC signal, such as audio. And indeed for domestic audio that is really pretty much the case.

But if you were designing something using a 20 bit A-D (they are now available to 24-bit) thermoelectric effects are very real and can easily mask the lower bits with DC offset. See for example the attached.

Craig

Craig Sawyers 16th Oct 2017 6:52 am

Re: 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimJosef (Post 983109)
I know what you mean about 316 stainless though. When I was a graduate student I used to have TEA laser electrodes machined from it and we went through the same process of rough cutting followed by annealing followed by closer working followed by more annealing followed by even closer working etc etc.

Cheers,

GJ

Where were you working on high power CO2 lasers? A Culham studenship?

Craig

PS for those not initiated in laser technology TEA stands for Transversely Excited Atmospheric (pressure).

kalee20 16th Oct 2017 9:34 am

Re: Audiophoolery. 'Cable Break In' - I never knew that!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Refugee (Post 983128)
Quote:

Originally Posted by merlinmaxwell (Post 983018)
They are rated at a maximum (current, minimum load resistance) and don't care in the slightest if they are not loaded at all, a few k ohms might (very very very much might if the following bit of kit is DC coupled to the input and has a huge input resistance) be useful. And do you use 30 (or is that 33) ohm cable?

Some may have noticed I have not included the output impedance of the unit which, in most cases, is near zero not matching any cable.

The source is designed to take 30 ohm headphones so loading it to the designed resistance is the correct thing to do surely.

Why?

The output stage will almost certainly use complementary NPN/PNP emitter followers. So loading with less than 30ohms would overly stress them. But loading with HIGHER will give them an easier life - less heating; less thermally-induced distortion, everything happier!

A DC path might be necessary, but probably isn't.

Have you tried switching out your 33ohm loads and compared results?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 2:29 pm.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2023, Paul Stenning.