Power cables (for amp)
Discussion
ian996 said:
TonyRPH said:
ian996 said:
<snip>
The Kimber cable leads were the first that I felt I could detect an improvement from (back in about 2000) and my guess is that their impact is mainly, as advertised, due to the rejection of EMI/RFI.
<snip>
So in essence what you are saying here, is that the short ~1m length of main cable is behaving as a filter?The Kimber cable leads were the first that I felt I could detect an improvement from (back in about 2000) and my guess is that their impact is mainly, as advertised, due to the rejection of EMI/RFI.
<snip>
In fact that is how I approach all modifications to my system - I test the water in a small way and, if it works for me, I follow-up in a more comprehensive manner. In terms of mains supply, I started with a few Russ Andrews power leads,then I progressed to fitting a dedicated consumer unit and a dedicated HiFi ring-main of Kimber woven cable. I now have a somewhat extreme implementation (loosely based on Ben Duncan's "Super Spur" approach), which involves four dedicated spurs, each consisting of a copper pipe containing closely mutualled and suitably over-specced live and neutral cables, running from the dedicated CU, then six metres under the listening room floor to the system. Earth's for all four spurs run adjacent to the copper pipes, via a separate set of trunking to the house "safety earth". Each of the copper pipes is also earthed at one end. Two of the spurs feed my mono power amps directly, the other two spurs feed two PS Audio P5 regenerators, which supply the rest of my components.
In fact, the implementation is actually a little more complex than the above, but its already probably too much information merely to confirm that, yes, I believe RFI (airbourne, transmitted and self generated within my components themselves) is insidious, damaging and audible. And, yes, I believe that even a short length of mains cable can alleviate the issue to some degree.
Here's the blurb on the Russ Andrews cables from the man himself, I know he is a little reviled in certain "objectivist" enclaves, but I have a suspicion he could give you a run for your money in a technical conversation:
https://www.russandrews.com/images/pdf/SuperKordTe...
I did quite a bit of investigation before embarking on the above and am quite content with both the theoretical basis of the implementation and the benefit it provides in terms of the performance of my system. I certainly wouldn't suggest the O.P. embarks on such a journey but that is where I ended up, based on my perception of the audibility of upgrading a few power leads. The PSU in both my pre and power amps have also been extensively reworked, utilising Mundorf HC+ and AG+ four-pole caps throughout in a further attempt to reduce spurious noise. This is another "tweak" which I am inordinately happy with .
I am sure that you are very capable in what you do, and if you are happy with your system and enjoy your music,that is great. I am happy with my system and I enjoy my music very much - there is absolutely no reason why our systems (or our commitment to them) should be the same. .
I'm tempted to get their entry level Stellar one which looks like it would have enough juice for my system which has a Class D amp.
Supposed to add life to the music rather than take it away?
Crackie said:
It's misleading to say a speaker can measure flat whilst having phase anomalies. There has to be a caveat added to say "the response would still have measured flat but at one specific microphone position. " If a speaker measure flat but has phase errors then the moment the microphone, or listener, moves anywhere from the exact position where it measures flat the measurement will cease to be flat. There is a direct correlation between phase and amplitude measurements.
It is very easy to get a speaker to measure perfectly flat if all you are trying to achieve is a flat response, on axis, at 1m away. There are plenty of crap speakers out there that do just that.
The late, and very great, John Dunlavy said " If a speaker measures well and sounds bad.........you're measuring the wrong things"
Regarding whether or not cables ( Speaker, interconnect, mains ) make an audible difference, here are the thoughts of someone who knows his onions. The competent credentials Dunlavy modestly refers to are the fact he invented the log period antenna whilst working for the US Air force and Cavity Backed Spiral antenna whilst working for NASA; it enabled NASA to listen to track and communicate with Gemini and Saturn space programmes. Apologies for the length of the quote but for anyone interested in the subject of cables, it makes sense to read what Dunlavy had to say; particularly in respect of well meaning, open minded listeners and the placebo effect.
To summarise for those who don't want to read the whole article...……..all competently designed cables sound just the same. Some cables, very occasionally, can and do have a sonic signature but they don't fit into the competently designed i.e neutral category. The differences these cables introduce are flaws not improvements. It may, in certain cases, be possible for certain flawed cables to rectify similar but opposite flaws elsewhere in a system. It doesn't make them better cables though...….they just might be complementary to a certain system, under a very specific set circumstances or a certain listeners preferences. These are very rare cases though...….in the vast majority of cases any perceived differences in sound are imaginary and don't hold up to any form of scrutiny.
"Subject: Cable Nonsense
Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.
To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophileapplications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.
The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.
Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).
While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) — Caveat Emptor!
For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.
Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier – not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect – which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe – if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company’s staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens – if we wish to be honest!
Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best – even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist – if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc.
Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!)
So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve – in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize.
Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm’s, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.
I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.
Best regards,
John Dunlavy
https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163/index.h...
Thank you for posting this and a very good read. It is very easy to get a speaker to measure perfectly flat if all you are trying to achieve is a flat response, on axis, at 1m away. There are plenty of crap speakers out there that do just that.
The late, and very great, John Dunlavy said " If a speaker measures well and sounds bad.........you're measuring the wrong things"
Regarding whether or not cables ( Speaker, interconnect, mains ) make an audible difference, here are the thoughts of someone who knows his onions. The competent credentials Dunlavy modestly refers to are the fact he invented the log period antenna whilst working for the US Air force and Cavity Backed Spiral antenna whilst working for NASA; it enabled NASA to listen to track and communicate with Gemini and Saturn space programmes. Apologies for the length of the quote but for anyone interested in the subject of cables, it makes sense to read what Dunlavy had to say; particularly in respect of well meaning, open minded listeners and the placebo effect.
To summarise for those who don't want to read the whole article...……..all competently designed cables sound just the same. Some cables, very occasionally, can and do have a sonic signature but they don't fit into the competently designed i.e neutral category. The differences these cables introduce are flaws not improvements. It may, in certain cases, be possible for certain flawed cables to rectify similar but opposite flaws elsewhere in a system. It doesn't make them better cables though...….they just might be complementary to a certain system, under a very specific set circumstances or a certain listeners preferences. These are very rare cases though...….in the vast majority of cases any perceived differences in sound are imaginary and don't hold up to any form of scrutiny.
"Subject: Cable Nonsense
Having read some of the recent comments on several of the Internet audio groups, concerning audible differences between interconnect and loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.
To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical properties for the audiophileapplications intended. However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.
The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency), dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.), velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into different impedance loads, etc.
Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to microphonic noise in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a D.C. off-set created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).
While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) — Caveat Emptor!
For example, claiming that copper wire is directional, that slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along them, that a final energy component (improperly labeled as Joules) is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe cable performance.
Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a special configuration included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as being able to terminate the cable in a matter intended to deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower noise, etc. The real truth is that this special configuration contains nothing more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this box appears at the loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a Zobel network, which is usually a series resistor-capacitor network, connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of the cable, it is probably either a parallel resistor-inductor network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a network, if it is needed to insure amplifier stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations, is within the amplifier – not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
Having said all this, are there really any significant audible differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old Placebo-Effect – which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders audible signatures easy to detect and describe – if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing. Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company’s staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens – if we wish to be honest!
Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to consistently identify huge, audible differences between cables. But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any better than chance. For example, when led to believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a high-tech looking cable with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best – even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many true blind comparisons with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that real, audible differences seldom exist – if the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system interactions with cables, etc.
Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!)
So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called pure snake oil and buzzard salve – in short, pure fraud. If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a Nobel Prize.
Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm’s, regarding cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.
I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed to serve.
Best regards,
John Dunlavy
https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163/index.h...
Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 4th February 10:02
For me I thing the truth lies between both. Often differences are a misinterpretation of the facts.
Often when people put new tyres on there car they are so much better then the old ones. Have you got a better tyre then last time or where the old ones just worn out? When swapping cables or even "burning in" is the sound change just an effect of oxidation?
Cost and quality are not linked leading to a lot of cable company's as said making just good looking cables, not ones that sound better.
Do I think the cable that I have upgraded to was better then the one that came in the box, yes. Do I think going for a solid silver cable will make any real difference from there no.
legzr1 said:
One of my KWs is poorly - quiet static type noises which don’t increase in volume when music level increase, followed by distortion. I’ve pinpointed one monoblock and had it to a local MF dealer/repairer. Soak tested for a week without any fault. Sods Law - a day after getting it home the same fault has appeared.
I don’t have original packaging so I’m faced with a 500+ mile round trip to drop it at Henley Designs or another 100 miles to get it to JS. Then a repeat journey to pick it up
A friend who knows a little about big amps and has recapped and fettled a few over the years had the top cover off, looked at the internal design and multi-level boards and simply replaced the cover - no way would he delve into it lol.
I’ve bought a little Quad QSP (modern version of the 909 current-dumper) to tide me over while I decide what to do and it’s amazing with the 800Ds - so much so that I’m not too worried about taking a few months to decide what to do!
There’s a local ‘man with a van’ who’s offered to pack both amps and the PSU and drop them off at Henley’s and I think I’ll do this - getting the time to do it myself is proving difficult.
Sorry, just rambling now. I love what the KWs do so sticking with them.
And I still haven’t got round to sourcing longer umbilical leads - I think JS is the man to get them from after reading of your issues with incorrectly wired cables - at least I think it was you who mentioned it?
Gutted for you that one of the KW is playing up. If you can sort the logistics and are patient enough to arrange a slot with him, I'd give J.S. my highest recommendation. He has had the guts out of mine in order to replace them with a whole new set of guts, and I believe he has done similar major surgery on a couple of other pairs, so he knows his way around them. Worth giving him a ring at the very least (although, I don't think he jumps for joy at the thought of working on them, as they are so inconvenient to move around). I hope you "Keep The Faith" with the KW and get it/them sorted. Enjoy the Quad in the meantime! I don’t have original packaging so I’m faced with a 500+ mile round trip to drop it at Henley Designs or another 100 miles to get it to JS. Then a repeat journey to pick it up
A friend who knows a little about big amps and has recapped and fettled a few over the years had the top cover off, looked at the internal design and multi-level boards and simply replaced the cover - no way would he delve into it lol.
I’ve bought a little Quad QSP (modern version of the 909 current-dumper) to tide me over while I decide what to do and it’s amazing with the 800Ds - so much so that I’m not too worried about taking a few months to decide what to do!
There’s a local ‘man with a van’ who’s offered to pack both amps and the PSU and drop them off at Henley’s and I think I’ll do this - getting the time to do it myself is proving difficult.
Sorry, just rambling now. I love what the KWs do so sticking with them.
And I still haven’t got round to sourcing longer umbilical leads - I think JS is the man to get them from after reading of your issues with incorrectly wired cables - at least I think it was you who mentioned it?
urquattroGus said:
how do you get on with the PS Audio regenerators?
I'm tempted to get their entry level Stellar one which looks like it would have enough juice for my system which has a Class D amp.
Supposed to add life to the music rather than take it away?
As one who is happily and determinedly swimming against the tide on this thread, I'll try and keep my comments as objective and non-controversial as I can!I'm tempted to get their entry level Stellar one which looks like it would have enough juice for my system which has a Class D amp.
Supposed to add life to the music rather than take it away?
The regenerators are great for me, as I live fairly close to a sub-station, and my voltage ranges from the high 230's to the borderline 250 mark. The P5's allow me set the voltage exactly at 230,
According to the readout, my raw mains run fairly steadily at 2.5% distortion, the units bring that down to an indicated 0.1% 99% of the time. It is interesting when service interruptions occur and I'm (apparently) switched over to some kind of back-up supply, the voltage and distortion figures go a bit squirrelly, suggesting that they are actually reflecting something, rather than being connected to a random number generator.
I'm not sure what the output of the Stellar one is, but I wouldn't have thought a system with a Class D amp would trouble it. If in doubt, chuck a question on their board, I'm sure they'll clarify suitability. In terms of adding or removing "life" to the system, I would say that my sense is that , in my system, it is dropping the noise floor and making the sound a little more natural (which, with a big solid-state amp, is one of my key aims).
One thing I would say is that PS Audio are a brilliant company to deal with. The units are a bit finiticky when adding or removing attached components, and I managed to send one of my (out of warranty) units into a weird deep-standby mode. I posted a message on the PS Audio board on a Saturday morning and, at crack-of-dawn-Colorado-time, Paul McGowan replied/emailed me to say that they'd be able to sort me out with a call to tech support on Monday morning. Sure enough, after a very efficient and pleasant conversation with tech support, I was back up and running again. They're a cheerful bunch out there - probably something to do with living and working in Colorado in the ski season.
In terms of the wider thread, and the audibility of cables etc, I've always calmed my conscience re: the amount of money I spend on expensive s
t I don't need by thinking about the contribution I'm making to the economy. If loads of that st doesn't even work, I must be even more altruistic than I thought!ATG said:
Cables do not burn in.
You sure about that statement? https://www.futureshop.co.uk/free-cable-burn-in:-)
Can't think why its a free service????
To be honest I really cant decide if this tread is now a joke? Professional XLR leads for £649.00
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/analogue/xlr-balanced...
Funny how the connectors for the above leads are only £3... https://cpc.farnell.com/neutrik/nc3mxx/plug-xlr-ni...
Here you go.
If some here think it’s like printing money, go for it. Work out how much you’d like to earn from your venture, costs, tax, tooling and advertising, then just start knocking out mains, speaker and interconnect cables to your heart’s content.
Should be a piece of wee wee!
If some here think it’s like printing money, go for it. Work out how much you’d like to earn from your venture, costs, tax, tooling and advertising, then just start knocking out mains, speaker and interconnect cables to your heart’s content.
Should be a piece of wee wee!
Tony1963 said:
Here you go.
If some here think it’s like printing money, go for it. Work out how much you’d like to earn from your venture, costs, tax, tooling and advertising, then just start knocking out mains, speaker and interconnect cables to your heart’s content.
Should be a piece of wee wee!
Ripping gullible people off is easy. Most people aren't prepared to do it.If some here think it’s like printing money, go for it. Work out how much you’d like to earn from your venture, costs, tax, tooling and advertising, then just start knocking out mains, speaker and interconnect cables to your heart’s content.
Should be a piece of wee wee!
ATG said:
Ripping gullible people off is easy. Most people aren't prepared to do it.
This ^^^I have the ability to make / manufacture 'exotic' cables and electronics, however I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
None of this stuff makes a shred of difference.
As per one of the comments above about the mains conditioners - a few % distortion on the mains is not an issue for any audio equipment.
In fact, a lot of equipment will even operate (without any change to the sound) with a near square wave, although the power supply won't be too happy (will get hot).
996owner said:
ATG said:
Cables do not burn in.
You sure about that statement? https://www.futureshop.co.uk/free-cable-burn-in:-)
Can't think why its a free service????
To be honest I really cant decide if this tread is now a joke? Professional XLR leads for £649.00
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/analogue/xlr-balanced...
Funny how the connectors for the above leads are only £3... https://cpc.farnell.com/neutrik/nc3mxx/plug-xlr-ni...
USB burn in........ pure comedy.
As for those rediculously overpriced XLR cables. Take a trip to Abbey Road and see what cables they use for their microphones. It will be a bog standard no frills cable.
TonyRPH said:
ATG said:
Ripping gullible people off is easy. Most people aren't prepared to do it.
This ^^^I have the ability to make / manufacture 'exotic' cables and electronics, however I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
None of this stuff makes a shred of difference.
As per one of the comments above about the mains conditioners - a few % distortion on the mains is not an issue for any audio equipment.
In fact, a lot of equipment will even operate (without any change to the sound) with a near square wave, although the power supply won't be too happy (will get hot).
Here are a couple of reviews, for different regenerators, with measurements. The PS review was carried out by one of the most respected technical experts in the audio industry. The conclusions and technical reviews of the Isotek regenerators are also compelling, particularly the last one carried out by Keith Howard.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/ps-audio-direc...
https://www.isoteksystems.com/downloads/brochure/I...
thebraketester said:
996owner said:
ATG said:
Cables do not burn in.
You sure about that statement? https://www.futureshop.co.uk/free-cable-burn-in:-)
Can't think why its a free service????
To be honest I really cant decide if this tread is now a joke? Professional XLR leads for £649.00
https://www.futureshop.co.uk/analogue/xlr-balanced...
Funny how the connectors for the above leads are only £3... https://cpc.farnell.com/neutrik/nc3mxx/plug-xlr-ni...
USB burn in........ pure comedy.
As for those rediculously overpriced XLR cables. Take a trip to Abbey Road and see what cables they use for their microphones. It will be a bog standard no frills cable.
As my post above states.. The cable we used in our radio station installs is the cheapest stuff we can find.
We make our own xlr leads..
I have seen cables burn mind, usually caused by a short circuit with high voltage across it, funny thou after the cable was burnt it didn't work too well.
I might try burning fuses in.. I could offer it as a service hmm.
More ripping off
https://www.synergisticresearch.com/fuses/blue/
From their site, (Seems big business ripping off the gullible. )
Frequently asked questions.
Q: Are fuses directional?
A: Yes, fuses are directional. Electricity should flow from the left to the right when you view the fuse. If you do not know
the direction of flow you should listen to the fuse inserted in both directions. One direction will sound more detailed. This
is the correct way.
Q: Do fuses have a burn in period?
A: Yes, most products have a settling in period. The first 200-300 hours of use are the most crucial.
https://www.synergisticresearch.com/fuses/blue/
From their site, (Seems big business ripping off the gullible. )
Frequently asked questions.
Q: Are fuses directional?
A: Yes, fuses are directional. Electricity should flow from the left to the right when you view the fuse. If you do not know
the direction of flow you should listen to the fuse inserted in both directions. One direction will sound more detailed. This
is the correct way.
Q: Do fuses have a burn in period?
A: Yes, most products have a settling in period. The first 200-300 hours of use are the most crucial.
TonyRPH said:
Crackie said:
Hi Tony, we've discussed regenerators on PH a few times previously. I appreciate you are a sceptic; that is fine.
Not so much a sceptic as a realist Crackie. 
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the following.1. What do you think is behind all of the positive and significant audible improvements heard by the majority of reviewers?
2. Do you think the conclusions of large swathes the Hi-Fi press i.e.5 star reviews, outstanding product awards s, Editors Choice awards etc etc are unjustified? Is the hi-fi press misleading / fraudulent?
3. What do you think is the motivation for 3rd party manufacturers to use another manufacturers' regenerators in their demo rooms and during demonstrations at Hi-Fi shows? Companies like PMC, Roksan, Monitor Audio, Genesis Technologies speakers for example?
Edited by Crackie on Wednesday 5th February 12:06
Crackie said:
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the following.1. What do you think is behind all of the positive and significant audible improvements heard by the majority of reviewers?
Crackie said:
2. Do you think the conclusions of large swathes the Hi-Fi press i.e.5 star reviews, outstanding product awards s, Editors Choice awards etc etc are unjustified? Is the hi-fi press misleading / fraudulent?
The HiFi press has been guilty of fraudulent reviews for many years. I have little to no trust for any of the publications.Crackie said:
3. What do you think is the motivation for 3rd party manufacturers to use another manufacturers' regenerators in their demo rooms and during demonstrations at Hi-Fi shows? Companies like PMC, Roksan, Monitor Audio, Genesis Technologies speakers for example?
Probably because they know that people who buy their gear will likely have regenerators etc. so feel obliged to demo their kit as such.My new website will be synicon.com and I'm going to offer very reasonably priced cable and fuse enhancement and restoration services. These will include talking therapies (from CBT through to mindfulness), reflexology and homeopathic preparations, all tailored to the specific construction and ratings of the fuses and cables. If customers are interested, we can also prepare their horoscopes for a modest additional fee.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff