Jump to content

Simonon

Members
  • Content count

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Simonon

  • Rank
    50+ Post Club
  • Birthday 10/05/1966

Profile Fields

  • Location
    SA
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,565 profile views
  1. Multimeters?

    Still use it when I dont trust my Fluke.
  2. Audio myths and misconceptions

    The only variable here that I can see is amplifier damping factor which is the subject of a massive interesting thread
  3. Audio myths and misconceptions

    I often wonder why many audiophiles get " upgradeitis" and spend a huge amount of money on a new amplifier for example to replace an already expensive unit. If many upmarket amps are already designed to be " accurate and transparent" I ask the question " what are they chasing" as it has been deduced in the latter part of this thread that.....To a large extent players and amplifiers do sound the same. It's in the realm of speakers and room acoustics that the main differences lie when we sit back and listen. Is the percieved improvement of the new amplifier the " infinite ear" in play, a very slight audible colouration between amps or a combination of both. Would it not be better and cheaper to try speaker placement and/ or room treatments before embarking down the path of an expensive upgrade purchase. I have met some audiophiles that are never happy and constantly swap gear. The strange thing is that the one big variable the speakers usually remain in the same spot. Maybe the speakers are not to the listeners taste or unsuitable to the room. In conclusion it would appear to me that too much emphasis is placed on program input equipment and amplification for infinitesimal improvements when the big changes can be made with speaker placement and room treatments. If all else fails the money would be better spent on upgrading speakers preferably by auditioning in the home. I am very interested in opinions here and again stand to be corrected. Note the intention is not to be controversial.
  4. Audio myths and misconceptions

    I am reading the latest comments in regards to measurements of various pieces of audio equipment. I come from a test and measurement technical background where we "proof of performance" our TV and FM transmission equipment every 12 months including the full audio path from program input to transmitter output on our FM transmitters using the best level one calibrated test equipment available. I am still struggling with the one basic question which is for me products can be divided into two categories "designed for accuracy" and "designed for good sound." I think this is where their are such polarizing viewpoints and why no test methodology will have a definitive answer. During our "proof of performance" testing regime at work we have a set of standards which our equipment needs to comply to. Audiophile equipment measurements, double blind testing etc are not my field and there are many on this thread way more qualified than me judging by the comments so I may be taking a rather simplistic view of this. To me "accuracy measurements" would require a set of solid standards due to the fact that "what" are you comparing the measurements against to quantify accuracy, do these standards really exist? If all audio products were designed for accuracy would it not be the case that everything would sound the same? And finally there is the notion that somehow audio "accuracy" implies a certain sound quality. To me it implies the opposite - a lack of coloration. A more accurate product will be more "transparent" in reproducing the original source. If a product designed for accuracy doesn't "sound good," then where does the "blame" lie - with the product itself, the source material, or the listener's biases? I stand to be corrected and am interested in comments
  5. Audio myths and misconceptions

    I must say that the latter part of this thread is where things have got really interesting and highlights the complexities in the world of audio and our hobby. This has always been a thread that I wanted to start as peoples beliefs and perceptions interest me greatly on this subject. I was always concerned it had the potential to get nasty and it is testament to the high calibre of the people on Stereonet that it has been so interesting. I feel like I have got to know a number of members. From my own perspective this thread has taught me to listen more to peoples opinions before shooting them down with electronics 101 as being in the field of radio/ tv broadcast this comes naturally. I also feel strongly that people should feel free to comfortably argue an alternative point and not instantly be shot down as these alternatives are what make the discussion interesing. I am also aware that this is a two way street and all contributors must bring the attitude of the willingness to learn to the table. Sometimes our hobby reminds me of the following quote. Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, blind dating and religion. Could I also include some aspects of our hobby?
  6. Audio myths and misconceptions

    It is interesting that many recording engineers are now trying to revisit that " analogue" sound. I do not understand the full meaning of this but suspect it means increased slightly boomy bass and rounded off highs. I was recently speaking to a studio sound engineer who spoke of using tube mic preamps and tape mastering. It would seem that things are going full circle. The interest in revisiting old recording techniques with vintage equipment and combining them with modern stuff is huge. I wonder if it relates to the vinyl revival. The clinical dac I find interesting as one artifact of digital that is present a lot is sibilance. I regularly switch to the tube stage on my dac and pump the audio through a 12au7 to remove it. The fact is many people do not like clinical sound and many modern expensive speakers are devoid of decent bass which seems to exacerbate the problem. My vintage tube system built in 1963 with huge papercone wharfedales features slightly boomy but accurate bass., oodles of tube second harmonic distortion and a measured speaker response that is anything but flat. it was built by ABC sound engineers when they used to tweak sound by ear and not rely entirely on test equipment and computer design algorithms. They were based on some bbc papers from the late 50s into speaker design. I can verify this as I spoke to a broadcast tech that remembers them being built at the png workshops here in Adelaide. I would not part with them for anything.
  7. Audio myths and misconceptions

    In regards to standards mine may have slipped a little this weekend. Just finished transplanting a raspberry pi with hifeberry dac into this 1960s all tube radiogram to replace the old reel to reel. I am not sure why I went to this much effort but it sure looks funky in my man cave. Sometimes the fun of hifi is having something odd that nobody else has [emoji41]
  8. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Personally I would like to thank John for his perspective and beliefs in this subject. His courage and conviction to put across an alternative point of view is exemplary and I enjoy reading his posts. If people did not offer alternative arguments we probably would have taken an extra 100 years to figure out the earth was not flat.
  9. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Agreed and I would be interested in comments in regards to USB reclocking devices some of which are very expensive with dubious ckains of effectiveness.
  10. Audio myths and misconceptions

    I appreciate good engineering too. Things that are simply beautiful to look at and perform as good as they look. I also think that knowing where to spend your money based on knowledge gained through solid engineering principle is important. Knowing that you do not need to spend 2k on a USB cable for example as it will make no difference to sound quality. If money is no object I have no problem with that choice but if it is that money wasted could be spent on a better dac for example. Like everything in life it is all about balance and more expensive does not always mean better.
  11. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Hi John Point taken and I respect your opinion. I read the post in respect to the 10k ethernet cable and responded accordingly as it does suggest that if anybody were to spend this amount on such a cable they would most likely have more money than sense. Do not get me wrong I do like nice expensive well engineered things. A case in point is my 15k Colnago road bike, does it perform better than a bike worth 4k on my weekend rides.....probably not. What Colnago do not do is make a blatantly false claim with no engineering credence to back it up that defies accepted engineering principles. I have just read a manufacturer claim for a 5k USB cable for example that is apparently polished 13 times to release its silicon atoms for a more vibrant sound. If a car manufacturer were to make a claim like this they would land themselves in court for propagating fraudulent information or rigging test results.....aka Volkswagen. Nurofen recently got fined for marketing the same painkiller with a different name claiming it targeted specific pain. Why are some manufacturers of audio products not held accountable. The more expensive some audio products are the more this issue appears to manifest. On a better note I enjoy your posts and respect your point of view. You are one of a few on this topic that are prepared to put your money where your mouth is which I find commendable. For such a contentious subject I am surprised we have not had more fireworks as the subject of audio sure ignites some passions. Again apologies for any offence. For your information my wife constantly tells me off at dinner parties.
  12. Yep use them all the time at work where a pulled cable can result in the loss of an entire tv channel to a city. Worth every cent.
  13. Audio myths and misconceptions

    One can also purchase shielded cat 6 cable and there is also the cat 6e standard which allows for cable lengths of up to 60 metres. Overkill for home network applications.
  14. Audio myths and misconceptions

    You appear to be very sensitive and my comment was not intended to offend you and is a commonly used figure of speech. Cat 6 ethernet is a "standard" and therefore a standard cable purchased from IT warehouse for example will have exactly the same properties and performance to a very expensive silver one. Just because it costs more does not necessarily dictate superior performance. Mystical crystals inside the cable will not make a difference either except to satisfy a persons delusions. At the end of the day the question is can you hear an improvement in the sound of your system with an expensive ethernet or Spdif cable over a standard one. As we are talking digital information here any technician, engineer, IT person would say that their would be no audible improvement especially with the cable lengths in question. It is therefore a myth that expensive digital cables will improve the sound of your system over standard cables. I invite comment and again am happy to be proven wrong.
  15. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Standard cat 6 cables are fine and we run them up to 30metres length ( sometimes longer)at a capital city high power broadcast transmitter site with no problems so I dont think you will have an issue at home. Lots of Rf noise and other interference with 5 4Kw digital tv transmitters, 2 5kw fm services and Dab on the premises. Audiophile silver ethernet cables at huge sums of money give me a break. As far as coaxial BNC cable we make our own with belden quad shield and this is the main digital ASI content feed to our digital transmitters and is also in 30 metre lengths. Thats the good thing about digital it is immune to noise.
×