More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t
Discussion
Gary C said:
I recall an article that music studios would mix music to sound the best it could on an average system rather than mixing it 'perfectly'. They would have multiple types and grades of monitors so to give their market for the music the best sound they can.
So your not even getting a 'perfect' source in the first place.
Music is (was?) typically mastered to sound good on portable devices, and to achieve this required a lot of compression and hence loss of dynamic range.So your not even getting a 'perfect' source in the first place.
This is known as the 'loudness wars', and is a practice which hopefully appears to be on the decline.
The 'quality' (bandwidth etc.) is mostly still there but the dynamic range is compromised and as we moved into the digital age, so was distortion (digital clipping).
Tony1963 said:
Yes, many years ago. Also have a couple of apps to test dynamic range etc.Most of the time I use the standalone Orban Loudness Meter but there are plugins for Foobar etc.
Deranged Rover said:
Only an idiot would buy cheap rubbish like that.
This is where you need to aim to be: https://www.futureshop.co.uk/nordost-odin-2-speake...
Excellent - I went for the 4M option with 96hr burn in.This is where you need to aim to be: https://www.futureshop.co.uk/nordost-odin-2-speake...
Gary C said:
Spleen said:
Deranged Rover said:
Miserablegit said:
It’s ok- I think if I throw those 70k speaker cables into the event horizon it will reverse the “energy field” and put everything back to normal.
"We won't need ears where we're going..."OutInTheShed said:
The same people who don't believe 'good speaker wire makes a difference' often seem to believe that one Class B amp with plenty of power and bandwidth and negligible distortion sounds significantly different to another. Usually they can't explain what the amp is physically doing different.
When you look at it in detail, it seems to me that the bit outside the feedback loops, which is often a damped series inductor, a Zobel network and the reactive crossover, all connected together by an undefined bit of two core wire, must be quite significant?
I've read a few books about amp design, the authors seem to wash their hands of anything beyond that inductor.
I forget where I saw the article - however it was a demonstration of how currents flowing in the speaker cable do get into the feedback loop and influence the operation of the amplifier.When you look at it in detail, it seems to me that the bit outside the feedback loops, which is often a damped series inductor, a Zobel network and the reactive crossover, all connected together by an undefined bit of two core wire, must be quite significant?
I've read a few books about amp design, the authors seem to wash their hands of anything beyond that inductor.
This is also a good way to test an amplifier - feed it a signal from another amplifier (signal is fed into the speaker outlets) and observe the behaviour.
I think this is illustrated in one of Bob Cordell's book on power amplifier design.
So speaker / cable / amplifier interaction is a thing.
The same principles can be demonstrated in a simple preamp - usually adding a buffer (to isolate the feedback loop form the load) does improve performance (and subjectively, sound).
theboss said:
I saw a forum post the other day relating to super audiophile switches which turned to the use of fibre patch cables with media converters to 'isolate' streaming devices from copper based ethernet.
Some bloke responded that he saw a further improvement when switching from multimode to singlemode!
(And yes I think it was deadly serious, not a piss take)
Look at this beauty - fast ethernet sounds better than gig apparently
https://innuos.com/phoenixnet/
You see those 4 little black boxes I've highlighted? They are transformers - isolation transformers, which forms part of the Ethernet standard.Some bloke responded that he saw a further improvement when switching from multimode to singlemode!
(And yes I think it was deadly serious, not a piss take)
Look at this beauty - fast ethernet sounds better than gig apparently
https://innuos.com/phoenixnet/
So isolatiing the LAN with fibre patch cables achieves nothing.
OutInTheShed said:
To be fair, I've seen things fail EMC due to common mode across ethernet transformers.
Using fibre to eliminate such issues must be a pretty common approach, I first saw it in industry in the '80s.
I'd be surprised if common mode leakage was an issue in all but the most stringent of environments though? Especially as the connections are isolated at both ends, and when you take into account the length of a typical cable run (if that would make any difference).Using fibre to eliminate such issues must be a pretty common approach, I first saw it in industry in the '80s.
In my many years working with networks I've certainly never encountered any issues that could be attributed to EMC leakage.
thebraketester said:
I think that reviewer needs an introduction to asynchronous usb, which make bullsh*t like this redundant.911hope said:
Reading the associated drivel text with claims, there is a comment that the fuse is directional and it will make a difference if installed wrong. Now given that it is a mains fuse and mains is AC, how does this make sense?
That's the point - that it's directional makes no sense at all, and reinforces the audiophoolery involved here.A fuse, is a fuse, is a fuse. So long as it complies with BS 1362 it'll do the same job as any other compliant fuse.
Sporky said:
This. There's a difference between having an open mind, and letting anything at all fall into it and take roost.
Different speaker technology or arrangement? Worth a go.
Different amplifier? Maybe.
Different DAC? I can see how that's worth a go.
Different CD transport to an external DAC? Probably not.
Different interconnects? Ha ha ha. Sadly I have been there and tried that (didn't spend any money on it, but lost some of my life), not going to bother again.
Different mains cable, 13-pin socket, or fuse? Get back in the sea.
Now there's a contentious point. I share your views above with the exception of the interconnects (which as I'll explain is not really the interconnect causing the difference but the equipment it's connected to).Different speaker technology or arrangement? Worth a go.
Different amplifier? Maybe.
Different DAC? I can see how that's worth a go.
Different CD transport to an external DAC? Probably not.
Different interconnects? Ha ha ha. Sadly I have been there and tried that (didn't spend any money on it, but lost some of my life), not going to bother again.
Different mains cable, 13-pin socket, or fuse? Get back in the sea.
Differences are rare, but every now and then I have encountered some device (usually British designed, usually esoteric) that does sound different into (some) different interconnects.
How could this be? Well, looking at the design of the final output stage (whether opamp or discrete) reveals a stupidly high output impedance, presumably intended to make interconnects sound different.
And then of course there's our old friend, the passive 'pre amp' (and oxymoron if ever there was) which, depending on the value of the pot, can also have a high output impedance at some control settings, which with some interconnects will result in a variable HF response.
Combine the above with some 'high end' interconnects, with high capacitance in particular, and suddenly interconnects do sound different.
Except it's not the interconnect itself that sounds different, it's the equipment that's sounding different with different capacitive (and in the case of speaker cables, inductive & resistance) loading.
@sporky as an engineer I'm sure you know this
Spleen said:
I actually fall into the speaker cable camp. Years ago I was running an Arcam set up with some Royd Audio speakers when I switched to Naim gear with some Monitor Audio RS6s but kept the same speaker cable. As expected the sound was very different and, to my unsophisticated lugs, much 'better' for my listening tastes.
Back in the store a few weeks later and the chap asked how it was going and casually asked what speaker cable I was running and offered a trial run of some NAC A5 that he had sitting around. I was a bit dubious but thought what the hell and took it home and I'm glad it did, it made a huge difference to my system. Still got the same cables some 15 years later (changed the bits around them mind). And no, I don't dress them!
Almost certainly "because Naim" - another British manufacturer that tailors their equipment to sound different with (some) different cables.Back in the store a few weeks later and the chap asked how it was going and casually asked what speaker cable I was running and offered a trial run of some NAC A5 that he had sitting around. I was a bit dubious but thought what the hell and took it home and I'm glad it did, it made a huge difference to my system. Still got the same cables some 15 years later (changed the bits around them mind). And no, I don't dress them!
The same company that back in the 80's forced you to use their own cable with their amps, otherwise said amps would generally self destruct.
As per my post above - this is not the cable sounding different - it's the cable / amplifier interface that's causing the change in sound.
Take any half decent Japanese amplifier from the mid 70's onwards, and you'll find it will sound the same with any cable, because the Japanese designers didn't pander to the 'boutique' cable 'designers' by compromising their designs.
Tony1963 said:
No they didn’t.
And no they didn’t.
The early Naim designs lacked an output inductor* which made the amps unstable into certain loads if you didn't use their specific Naim speaker cable.And no they didn’t.
Edited by Tony1963 on Sunday 12th February 12:41
In later revisions of these amps, they added a small value resistor (0,47 ohm from memory), which was intended to stabilise the amp.
But yes, they were prone to oscillation and subsequent thermal runaway under some conditions if not using the Naim specified cable.
The clones from Avondale audio incorporated an inductor for stability.
I downloaded a 1989 Naim manual which covered the NAP90, NAP140, NAP250 and NAP135
And then there was this...
A VDR in a mains plug won't make a shred of difference, and somewhat ironically most (if not all) lauded power conditioners will use a VDR somewhere.
NaimManual said:
NAP90/140
Speaker leads are also very important. Naim Audio speaker cable and speaker cable plugs are correct for your system. Your dealer will make up leads to your own requirements. They should be at least 3.5 metres long and of equal length. Like interconnect leads,they are directional, and should be connected so that the printed arrow points towards the speakers. Incorrect cable will degrade performance, and some types may damage your amplifier.
NAP135/250
SPEAKER CABLE
For best results Nairn Audio's own speaker cable should be used to connect a loudspeaker to the output of the amplifiers. Alternatively use two conductors of 4 sqmm single core multistrand wire (R.S. type 360-396) lightly twisted together, about 4 turns per metre. Suitable 4mm connectors are supplied to make the connection to the amplifier .
DO NOT, FOR ANY REASON, USE SO CALLED HIGH DEFINITION WIRE OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL CABLE BETWEEN AMPLIFIER AND LOUDSPEAKER.
I think it's pretty clear that the 'wrong' cable can damage the amp. Where as any Japanese amplifier from the same period would happily drive any old cable without breaking a sweat.Speaker leads are also very important. Naim Audio speaker cable and speaker cable plugs are correct for your system. Your dealer will make up leads to your own requirements. They should be at least 3.5 metres long and of equal length. Like interconnect leads,they are directional, and should be connected so that the printed arrow points towards the speakers. Incorrect cable will degrade performance, and some types may damage your amplifier.
NAP135/250
SPEAKER CABLE
For best results Nairn Audio's own speaker cable should be used to connect a loudspeaker to the output of the amplifiers. Alternatively use two conductors of 4 sqmm single core multistrand wire (R.S. type 360-396) lightly twisted together, about 4 turns per metre. Suitable 4mm connectors are supplied to make the connection to the amplifier .
DO NOT, FOR ANY REASON, USE SO CALLED HIGH DEFINITION WIRE OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL CABLE BETWEEN AMPLIFIER AND LOUDSPEAKER.
And then there was this...
NaimManual said:
A hi-fi system usually shares a ring main with other household equipment, some of which can cause distortion of the mains wave-form, leading to mechanical hum from the transformers in amplifiers and power supplies. This hum is not transmitted through the speakers, has no effect on the system, but is purely local to the transformer itself.
A separate fused spur from the consumer unit (like the spur reserved for electric cookers) may reduce transformer noise. It's also worth bearing in mind that current from such a spur(ideally with a 30 amp rating)is cleaner and has lower impedance that that supplied on a ring main, and will improve performance.
Please don't wire V.D.R .s (voltage dependant resistors) into mains plugs, they degrade the supply, and the music.
A spur with a 30A rating will indeed have a low impedance, however it won't be any lower than a typical ring main, as the ring main is a loop - and hence the cable is effectively doubled up, resulting in low impedance and 32A capability.A separate fused spur from the consumer unit (like the spur reserved for electric cookers) may reduce transformer noise. It's also worth bearing in mind that current from such a spur(ideally with a 30 amp rating)is cleaner and has lower impedance that that supplied on a ring main, and will improve performance.
Please don't wire V.D.R .s (voltage dependant resistors) into mains plugs, they degrade the supply, and the music.
A VDR in a mains plug won't make a shred of difference, and somewhat ironically most (if not all) lauded power conditioners will use a VDR somewhere.
OutInTheShed said:
Is the Naim NaiRn typo original?
No, the PDF I downloaded didn't allow me to copy & paste the text, so I ran it through a pdf2word converter using OCR. I corrected a couple of errors, must have missed that one!OutInTheShed said:
Impedance is not the same as resistance.
It's a bold statement, and often wrong, to say that a ring main will have lower impedance. Likely true at some frequencies, untrue at others.
I was taking a leaf out of the Naim manual that claims a spur will have a lower impedance - as you say, this is a bold statement, and a gross over simplification.It's a bold statement, and often wrong, to say that a ring main will have lower impedance. Likely true at some frequencies, untrue at others.
OutInTheShed said:
That's the whole minefield of debunking audiophile bullpoo about mains, the would-be debunkers are often only considering the trivial 50Hz.
If you look at a mains supply with a spectrum analyser, suddenly life gets complex.
Somebody, somewhere will have had a mains-borne interference problem cured by wiring his gramophone to a separate spur.
Yes I realise that impedance and resistance are two different things - if I didn't, I should hand my qualifications back... If you look at a mains supply with a spectrum analyser, suddenly life gets complex.
Somebody, somewhere will have had a mains-borne interference problem cured by wiring his gramophone to a separate spur.
I also realise that there can be a fair amount of noise on the mains, derived from various sources - common mode etc.
I'm sure someone has had their mains interference problem solved by a spur, earth rod etc. however if someone actually took the time to analyse the issue, the source of said noise could probably be readily established and eradicated. However it's always easier (and provides bragging rights!) to have a dedicated spur installed.
For what it's worth - my own HiFi is fed from a dedicated spur, however this was purely accidental! (in our new flat, the consumer unit is in the lounge of all places and we had it replaced recently, and I wanted a couple of extra sockets - they were placed directly below the CU - you don't get much more of a spur than that! Did it make any difference to the sound? No, But the cables are tidier now!
SteveKTMer said:
It didn't.
They did.
Naim in those days wasn't a sweet shop manufacturer, 6 of those and half a dozen of these, not that they are now really. The amplifiers were designed to be built into systems with certain parameters, this was Naim, not Sony or NAD.
"The amplifiers were designed to be built into systems with certain parameters" - fair enough, but hardly the best way to go about a design, although obviously their intention was to lock customers into their 'ecosystem'.They did.
Naim in those days wasn't a sweet shop manufacturer, 6 of those and half a dozen of these, not that they are now really. The amplifiers were designed to be built into systems with certain parameters, this was Naim, not Sony or NAD.
I believe that one of the key reasons Naim survived throughout the 70's and 80's was because so many HiFi publications lauded their (and other British) products, when in many cases there were equal (and often better) products from US and Japanese manufacturers which were often given bad rep in the very same press.
SteveKTMer said:
I'm not sure they wanted to lock you into their parts or eco system, Julian Vereker and later Steve Sells had very strong ideas about why their designs sounded good and I spent a long time, too much time, 25 or so years ago auditioning kit and I had to agree, that with my music, the Naim amplifiers sounded a lot better than others of the same period. I'm not sure I heard much from the US but the Japanese amplifiers always sounded too thin to me and lacked punch, so maybe the high slew rate design was beneficial.
I believe it was the other way around - the US and Japanese amps (Japanese in particular) had massively fast slew rates.Naim couldn't achieve high slew rates because the transistors they used were too slow. Ironically, the early Naim designs lack any bandwidth limiting, and it is this that led to the instability issues.
SteveKTMer said:
Years ago I had a business which used various Philips and Analogue Devices parts, transmitting multiplexed audio over distance, and a colleague built a device to check the quality of the audio being extracted from CDs. If you want to look for poor audio then most early CD players were much worse than expected and interpolation was the only way to make them sound at least OK. I've now got some very nice Chord kit and Mr Watts has I think done for digital audio what Julian did for amplifiers.
I'd be interested to know which CD players you refer to in your statement "most CD players" as the Achilles heel with early CD players was not the player itself, but the high output levels (2vRMS) which overloaded many amplifiers on the market at the time (in particular Naim, with it's quirky DIN standard input sensitivity). It was this which led to the 'grungy' sound so many complained about.This issue is what led to the introduction of inline attenuators which made a big difference.
Those of use who designed and built our own amps / preamps back in the day incorporated attenuation on the CD input.
I will agree that the very earliest players which used the TDA1540 DAC chip certainly were not the best, however I seem to recall a comparison between an early Meridian player (I think it was) to a fairly modern player (this being mid 2000's) and the early player acquitted itself quite well!
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff