The most important parameter of all: overall system integrity

[RayDunzl]

I was going to deconstruct this

I'll take a stab at it while waiting for a backup to complete.

---

Can EMI be measured in the signal path?

Why not? Put a meter on it.

But cable manufacturers can make specific measurements that allow them to offer incremental grading of their cable offering and every high end cable maker does it.

Is that what they do, or what they infer that they do?

So what are they measuring?

We don't know because they don't tell us, as you remind us in the last line of your post (see below).

Also grounding devices are now the new rage.

No raging here at Neverland East.

but they do not intersect the signal path directly.

Well, when ground intersects the signal - in my experience - it's goodbye signal.

But both cables and grounding devices have the same characteristics as far as burn in and affecting audio quality...what do they have in common?

They do?

In common? I give up. I'm ill-informed, sometimes, I admit it.

Ground is sometimes referred to as "common". Is that the answer?

Most modern equipment will produce a excellent square wave.

Depends on the gear and the load.

but why do they tend to sound different in both sound quality and imaging?

Because it depends on the gear and the load and, generally speaking, speakers don't do square waves worth worrying about. When you contemplate analyzing imaging, that adds a whole new barrel of monkeys to the equation.

But equipment can exhibit a quality called synergy.

Maybe seems that way, or, yes, in the general sense that the pieces are complementary in performing a task (making sound) that neither can accomplish alone.

so what does all this have in common....grounding.

You got me on that one!

Do you think cable manufacturers would broadcast what actually they measure that enables them to market the cables with gradient accuracy? Much less the whole high end industry?

It might be detrimental to their profit margins.

On the other hand, real Cable manufacturers do give some specs:

http://www.belden.com/techdatas/english/1192A.pdf

 

[Blumlein 88]

"overall system integrity" is dependent on the size of the pathway to ground. For all the different variables between cables,equipment,source,and speakers,the pathway is the only thing that matters. When that is sufficient everything else is just a preference. How's that for a bold statement Frank....

Btw what Steve hears is correct....MB has just engineered a better shield and termination protocol. I doubt cables will ever achieve a large enough pathway,but using a ground sink with a secondary pathway will get a system to the point of near total signal integrity.....isn't that what it is all about anyway.....

One might learn a lot reading this nifty little missive.

http://www.rane.com/note110.html


Summary
If you are unable to do things correctly (i.e. use fully balanced wiring with shields tied to the chassis at the point of entry, or transformer isolate all unbalanced signals from balanced signals) then there is no guarantee that a hum free interconnect can be achieved, nor is there a definite scheme that will assure noise-free operation in all configurations.

Winning the Wiring Wars

• Use balanced connections whenever possible, with the shield bonded to the metal chassis at both ends.
• Transformer isolate all unbalanced connections from balanced connections.
• Use special cable assemblies when unbalanced lines cannot be transformer isolated.
• Any unbalanced cable must be kept under ten feet (three meters) in length. Lengths longer than this will amplify all the nasty side effects of unbalanced circuitry's ground loops.
• When all else fails, digitize everything, use fiber optic cable and enter a whole new realm of problems.

 

[RayDunzl]

Just a data point here:

Product Name: MasterBuilt Ultra Power Cord
Manufacturer: MasterBuilt Audio
MasterBuilt Audio cables were designed by leading Aerospace engineers and are handcrafted exclusively in the U.S.A. using proprietary manufacturing technics. Delivering performance unmatched by anyone in the high-end audio industry, MasterBuilt Audio cables utilizes the world's most cutting edge signal transmission technology which results in the greatest signal purity and lowest distortion possible. Simply put, MasterBuilt Ultra Line is our top tier cable; the best of the best, and deservedly holds its spot in the top 1% of all high-end audio cables. This line is exclusively manufactured utilizing rare and precious alloys only produced here in the US. The MasterBuilt Ultra Line belongs in the world's finest audio systems.
Price Range: $17,000 1.5m

Product Name: MasterBuilt Ultra USB cable
Manufacturer: MasterBuilt Audio
(same spiel as above deleted)
Price Range: $11,000 1m

The Ultra lineup - http://www.masterbuiltaudio.com/ultra-line-audio-cables

 

[Thomas savage]

Do you think cable manufacturers would broadcast what actually they measure that enables them to market the cables with gradient accuracy? Much less the whole high end industry?

Well I would expect their endeavours to be known to science, thusly their engineering objective(s) would be explainable and easily verifiable even if the results of their work were to remain confidential.

Your idea that the high end cable manufacturers understand the 'special science' but it's all a big secret thats beyond the intellect of any other individuals in the known world is a bit bonkers. ( that's the logical conclusion to your argument)

Maybe these 'special' high end cable makers could put their advanced understanding of 'secret' science to a use less self serving than fleecing wealthy humanoids... so they are either self serving arseholes or conmen and full of crap

This idea that by buying expensive hifi ( possibly not high fidelity) having the 'designer' come to your house and talk to you some how means that everything is explainable by layman thought and No actual specialised knowledge is needed as long as it 'makes sense' is completely insane

Iv done it too! I was guilty of this.. Sadly the audiophile world kinda conditions you to be that way, it's all so seductive.. Reality is suspended and no one says no.. The dealer comes round with £10000 worth of entreq and tells you all about how it lowers the noise floor and 'filters' your ground plane, drains electro fog etc etc..

i have no problem with you disagreeing but unless you want to provide 'proof' that's roughly based on known, repeatable and verifiable theory's or even better measurments you will have to be consigned to the thread in fight club ' arguing against science and known understanding '.

No proof needed in the bellow thread, it's 'what I reckon' paradise.

http://audiosciencereview.com/forum...against-science-and-known-understanding.1136/

The main forum is for argument, but argument that's based on ideas known to science.. Not 'what I reckon' or ' what the bloke who sold me a £15000 mains cable told me' ..


Welcome to the forum

 

[RogerD]

Cable manufacturer offers cable A,B,C & E price @ 1,2,3,4 dollars per ft and each offer more clarity,speed,dynamics,tonal nuance. What are they measuring? http://www.rane.com/note166.html

Not that RF is a major factor or EMI rejection is either,but it is the removal of EMI that effects signal purity the most. Also EMI will migrate and collect on metal enclosures so when a pathway is provided back to ground signal purity increases.
People tend to say that EMI is not in the audible bandwidth,but it still interferes with the signal.

Anyway I have yet to see anybody prove that I am wrong with any science.....have at it.

 

[Thomas savage]

Cable manufacturer offers cable A,B,C & E price @ 1,2,3,4 dollars per ft and each offer more clarity,speed,dynamics,tonal nuance. What are they measuring? http://www.rane.com/note166.html

Not that RF is a major factor or EMI rejection is either,but it is the removal of EMI that effects signal purity the most. Also EMI will migrate and collect on metal enclosures so when a pathway is provided back to ground signal purity increases.
People tend to say that EMI is not in the audible bandwidth,but it still interferes with the signal.

Anyway I have yet to see anybody prove that I am wrong with any science.....have at it.

Oh, the obligation to provide proof is on the one making the claim..

Provide some, then we can have a discussion

Else we end up with this...,

I reckon pots of chocolate mousse dampen vibrations and lowers my systems potential to store harmful energy ...

No ones ever proved me wrong with any science so... Have at it.

 

[RogerD]

System moderator has split off this present discussion here....

http://audiosciencereview.com/forum...ussion-on-its-management-via-cables-etc.1147/

 

[watchnerd]

Cable manufacturer offers cable A,B,C & E price @ 1,2,3,4 dollars per ft and each offer more clarity,speed,dynamics,tonal nuance.

They provide more clarity, speed, dynamics, and tonal nuance?

Please provide evidence of this.

The Belden and Canare cable I use makes no such claims.

 

[Don Hills]

...
MasterBuilt Audio cables were designed by leading Aerospace engineers and are handcrafted exclusively in the U.S.A. using proprietary manufacturing technics.

Likely true. "technics?" Their quality control apparently doesn't extend to proof reading, though. Or was that your typo, Ray?

Delivering performance unmatched by anyone in the high-end audio industry,

True. All the others are better.

MasterBuilt Audio cables utilizes the world's most cutting edge signal transmission technology which results in the greatest signal purity and lowest distortion possible.

True. They use wire.

Simply put, MasterBuilt Ultra Line is our top tier cable; the best of the best, and deservedly holds its spot in the top 1% of all high-end audio cables.

True. It's their most expensive, and in the top 1% price range of all high-end audio cables.

This line is exclusively manufactured utilizing rare and precious alloys only produced here in the US.

True. They bought a job lot of out-of-spec wire from a wire manufacturer.

The MasterBuilt Ultra Line belongs in the world's finest audio systems.

No argument there.

 

[fas42]

True. They bought a job lot of out-of-spec wire from a wire manufacturer.

Not quite. The people behind it come from Delphi Aerospace, a division of the monster Delphi group - enough patents to make your head spin from that mob.

 

[Don Hills]

So it would be more accurate to say that they bought a job lot of wire originally intended for quite a different role in the aerospace industry?

 

[fas42]

So it would be more accurate to say that they bought a job lot of wire originally intended for quite a different role in the aerospace industry?

As far as I can determine the key people doing the manufacture are employees, possibly now resigned, of the company, and are organising the manufacture of the cable within the boundaries of that organisation. Whether they bought, in a legal sense, cable from one area of the company I can't say; one of their lines does use a highly specialised product intended for true superconductivity use - they are now using the leftovers until it runs out.

 

[fas42]

A better thread to post this on, ... on WBF in the thread "Members' Gallery > ack's system - end of round 1", from post #211 on, a familiar description of a system getting into the "zone". Note that was achieved by focusing on the power supply of the DAC, which leads, as a number of people comment on, to a reduction of those noise factors which is crucial for getting the best from digital based systems.

 

[watchnerd]

A better thread to post this on, ... on WBF in the thread "Members' Gallery > ack's system - end of round 1", from post #211 on, a familiar description of a system getting into the "zone". Note that was achieved by focusing on the power supply of the DAC, which leads, as a number of people comment on, to a reduction of those noise factors which is crucial for getting the best from digital based systems.

Link?

 

[Thomas savage]

A better thread to post this on, ... on WBF in the thread "Members' Gallery > ack's system - end of round 1", from post #211 on, a familiar description of a system getting into the "zone". Note that was achieved by focusing on the power supply of the DAC, which leads, as a number of people comment on, to a reduction of those noise factors which is crucial for getting the best from digital based systems.

We use evidence in our arguments on this forum, solely relying on subjective listening and or what you reckon don't cut it..

It's what stops us all putting tin foil on the Windows, wrapping our heads with lead and locking ourselves in the bathroom...

Can we investigate system integrity with reliable knowns?

 

[fas42]

Link?

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2740-ack-s-system-end-of-round-1/page22 ... fairly near the spot.

 

[fas42]

Can we investigate system integrity with reliable knowns?

Depends what we mean by "reliable knowns" ...

 

[watchnerd]

A better thread to post this on, ... on WBF in the thread "Members' Gallery > ack's system - end of round 1", from post #211 on, a familiar description of a system getting into the "zone". Note that was achieved by focusing on the power supply of the DAC, which leads, as a number of people comment on, to a reduction of those noise factors which is crucial for getting the best from digital based systems.

I disagree with him entirely that it's all about timbre.

In my experience, it's all about the acoustic.

Why do I say this?

Almost every week I record a live jazz band at a local pub. In my preferred location, I get to use stereo cardioids, which makes for a good loudspeaker listening experience. But sometimes I can't get my spot and I have to use my Shure Motiv MV88 plugged into my iPhone Lightning port and mounted on a tripod on the table I'm sitting at with a beer.

If I listen to the AKG cardiods, the timbre is much better than the little tiny Shure, especially on the big rig stereo.

BUT...if I listen through headphones at the same seat at the same pub where I made the recording the effect is spooky realistic. Like I'll hear glasses clinking and look over my shoulder because I'm not sure if the sounds are real or in the recording.

The headphones are sealed, but they're not noise cancelling. So there is some noise audible when music isn't playing.

My hypothesis that my ear/brain has an acoustic knowledge of the space I'm in, what the venue sounds like and when a recording is played back in the same venue, over headphones near where my head was, it's much easier to trick the brain than a recording from one venue played back in another.

 

[fas42]

An interesting piece ... http://www.regonaudio.com/Why Recorded Music Sounds Too Aggressive.html.

This emphasises why the overall quality of playback has to be of such a high order. Personally, I enjoy the emotional hit of close up, intense music making; proximity to the instruments "doing the damage" gives me a real buzz - but if the sound is "damaged" then I'm happy to throw the experience into the bin ... do it right, or don't do it at all ...

 

[watchnerd]

An interesting piece ... http://www.regonaudio.com/Why Recorded Music Sounds Too Aggressive.html.

This emphasises why the overall quality of playback has to be of such a high order. Personally, I enjoy the emotional hit of close up, intense music making; proximity to the instruments "doing the damage" gives me a real buzz - but if the sound is "damaged" then I'm happy to throw the experience into the bin ... do it right, or don't do it at all ...

This is one of the reasons why I keep saying that the "live music" reference standard is a red herring: the (multiple) mics aren't placed where the audience is.