|
Post by repeetavx on Apr 27, 2019 0:01:20 GMT -5
Ignoring, for the moment, the "there are no real differences" argument, and assuming that Russell really CAN hear differences in his unbalanced interconnects, why can't he hear any differences in balanced interconnects? I, like your friend, can hear differences between different unbalanced cables, and cannot hear much difference between balanced cables. Here's my theory why. If the belief that stranded cables cause "smearing" as a result of the signal jumping from strand to strand, that would be a distortion. If capacitive interaction with the jacket around a conductor, or conductors cause a storage and then a release of voltage and current after the signal has been transmitted, that would be distortion. Balanced receiving circuitry cancels out distortions. The next question becomes, how much of the original signal, because some of it has become distorted, survives the balanced reconstruction. Does a balanced signal sound slightly "thinner" than the unbalanced signal? It seems to me that your friends have voted yes by choosing unbalanced cables over balanced cables, and then choosing the unbalanced cable that distorts in such a way that it complements their system. Me, I use Blue Jeans balanced cables.
|
|
|
Post by dsonyay on Apr 27, 2019 7:11:40 GMT -5
Are those the speakers used in Maxell's famous ad where the guy is seated in front of a speaker being blown by a mighty wind? Exactly (except for the updating). I loved the ad.. I probably bought a lot of their UD XL II tapes because of that.
|
|
|
Post by jackfish on Apr 27, 2019 7:47:55 GMT -5
That’s what he gets for sitting in the near field.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 28, 2019 5:37:19 GMT -5
Brilliant! LOL
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 28, 2019 6:21:22 GMT -5
A rumination on preamplifiers... Many purchase a preamp based on brand, on price, or on recommendation of a reviewer or salesman, plug it into their system, and blissfully consider the purchase a done deal. Other components may come and go, but usually when one selects a preamplifier, and said selection performs "adequately," it's never changed again unless it fails. For most, "adequately" consists of providing sufficient switching to allow all the inputs that the user might desire and providing sufficient output to drive any associated power amplifier(s) to usable volume. Some prefer specific features such as a phono input or maybe tone controls, but generally, more thought and care is taken in selecting interconnects, for example, than is given to the preamplifier itself. I contend, and have always contended, that this benign acceptance of the preamp as "adequate" misses some important issues. The preamp is a relatively low-signal-level component, and has a disproportionate impact on the sound of every source run through it. The colorations of the preamplifier (and EVERY preamp is colored) become what the user considers "normal" for their system, and the owner habituates herself (himself) to whatever colorations the preamp introduces. Like a tone control that you didn't know was there, the preamp leaves its sonic signature on each and every single source you select, and its sonic signature becomes so familiar to you that it disappears - until you remove it. I've found again and again that the simple act of removing the preamp from the signal chain changes the sound startlingly (and usually for the better). Now the technicians among the Loungers will quickly point out that I haven't really removed a preamp from the system at all - the variable-volume source component actually has its own preamplifier built in. Furthermore, the digital volume control typical of source components is often inferior to the analog volume control of a preamplifier. I agree with these factual observations, but I still note that time and time again, I've noticed an improvement in sound quality (and sometimes a startling one) when I remove the preamp from the signal chain and use the variable output source component directly. This would argue that despite the handicaps of the source component (digital volume control and less robust analog output buffer amplifiers), there is more opportunity to mess up the sound with an analog preamplifier than not. I've also noticed that there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between the technical specifications of a preamplifier and its sound. I've heard a few preamps with world-class specs that sounded worse than those with really terrible specs, and vice versa. The specifications you read DO NOT MATTER in what the preamp actually sounds like. Fact. I've also noticed that the entire tube vs. solid state argument somehow becomes totally moot when discussing preamplifier sound. I've heard tube preamps that sounded heavenly and tube preamps that sounded like dog soup. I've heard solid-state preamps that sounded heavenly and others that were the biggest yawns you've ever heard. What makes the difference? I don't know. And that's the hardest thing about preamplifiers. The only (ONLY) valid test is to listen. The brand doesn't matter, the parts quality doesn't matter, the differences between unbalanced and balanced circuitry don't matter. The preamp will either sound like music or it won't. And the majority, unfortunately, won't. I've bought and reviewed preamplifiers for DECADES and there were but a handful that sounded truly musical. It's really embarrassing to get an expensive preamp on loan or on review and to find that it just isn't any improvement over the variable-volume source component direct. I'll also say that not all variable-volume source components are anything to write home about either. But if you have a garbage-out source component, you shouldn't expect any preamp to fix that situation. When I first got my Oppo UDP-205 (or my first Stealth DC-1), I found their sound so horrible that I couldn't understand why anyone would consider listening to them. But once left on for a month to two, both changed their sound significantly. garbulky's DC-1 sounds heavenly, and my Oppo isn't too shabby either - and that's driving the power amplifiers directly! So someone is bound to ask what my favorite preamps actually were/are. Although I could certainly tell you, I think that my "all-star list" probably won't do you any good. Everyone has their own idea, apparently, of what recorded music should sound like, and my idea almost certainly won't coincide with yours. I'd further have to note that some preamps that just didn't sound good in my system have sounded spectacular when I've heard the same preamp in someone else's system. So if it's all relative, why bother writing this at all? I want you to consider (just consider) the possibility that your system has the potential to sound a LOT better than it does now, and that one of the main things holding back the true capabilities of your system just might be the preamplifier. I know it's hard to swap out preamps - it isn't like throwing in a new interconnect for a trial - but the potential improvements are significantly greater. The bottom line is that I'd like to persuade you to consider NOT running your preamp to failure before trying another. In fact, ask your friends if you might borrow their preamp for an evening just to hear it in your system. If they're sane, they'll tell you "no - it's too hard to unhook," but at least you tried. So considering the fact that the preamplifier is often the "choke point" for sound quality for your entire system, might it be worth your while to consider alternatives? It was for me. Cordially - Boomzilla
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,223
|
Post by novisnick on Apr 28, 2019 7:23:57 GMT -5
How about that knob to the far left, life is great with variety!
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 29, 2019 13:25:14 GMT -5
"As we shall shortly see, the comma has so many jobs as a "separator," (punctuation marks are traditionally either "separators" or "terminators") that it tears about on the hillside of language, endlessly organizing words into sensible groups and making them stay put: sorting and dividing; circling and herding; and of course darting off with a peremptory "woof" to round up any wayward subordinate clause that makes a futile bolt for semantic freedom." If the brilliant woman who wrote that doesn't look like a supermodel in heat, there's just no justice in the world!
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Apr 29, 2019 16:43:15 GMT -5
Boomzilla,
I have come to love integrated amps. Now my pre-amp and amp are in the same chassis and I can evaluate the overall component. Then I don't have to lie to myself about the "best" interconnect between them.
I think what you are talking about relates to system synergy, which is a bigger problem now that we buy so many things from online sources. It has led to infinite variability in our systems. My system is a mix of eBay, Craigslist and internet direct, and it has taken years to get to a system I truly enjoy.
I feel very fortunate to have acquired (2) separate integrated Amps that I like (one SS and one tube). When I am feeling time for a change I just swap one in for the other.
This is harder to do as your power requirements go up. Luckily I have 91dB and easy to drive speakers so I can get away with the lower power stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 29, 2019 18:56:22 GMT -5
Hi brubacca - I concur - Integrated amplifiers do away with the vagaries of mix-and-match. Then why don't I use one exclusively? Because I'm always receiving new gear to be reviewed and I need the flexibility of separates. The other reason is that the ultimate endpoint of integration becomes a home-theater-in-a-box, and I'm not ready to go there yet. Boom
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Apr 29, 2019 20:09:23 GMT -5
Check this out guys
ALL stereo system in the speakers.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 30, 2019 5:53:06 GMT -5
Now THIS is a cool stacking stand - Note how the uprights have a lever "quick-release" to micro-adjust the height of the stacked speakers! My audio amigo, Russell, has built something similar to hold his stacked Dahlquist DQ-10s.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Apr 30, 2019 7:09:45 GMT -5
Boomzilla, I agree with your dissertation on preamps. However a similar dissertation could be written about every component in the chain including the environment and the human ear / brain. So what else is now?
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on Apr 30, 2019 8:46:05 GMT -5
I also agree with your observations on Pre-Amps. My next planned upgrade to my primary 2-Channel system will be the Preamp. I am currently considering the XSP-1, but that seems to be a bit of a double-edged sword at this point: - PLUS SIDE - It appears to be "dead quiet" when there is no music, and from a sonics viewpoint, it gets rave reviews from several sources that I trust
It also has a remote and a managed Sub Output, which will allow me to better manage / match my amplified Sub
- MINUS SIDE - It appears to have a few performance / reliability "glitches"
My NAD 7220PE Receiver, which is presently serving as my Pre-Amp/Tuner, has served me well: It is a 1980's-era component that I acquired in about 1997 It was a nice upgrade from my Sony-made Zenith Component Receiver that I had been using since about 1979 When I upgraded my Speakers from a set of "vintage" 2-Way PolkAudio bookshelves to my ELAC Uni-Fi B5s - I felt that although it was REMARKABLY capable with about 5 dBA of headroom; it lacked the "grunt" to put it in the sweet-spot of the ELAC's recommended Wattage. So, my trusty 7220 had its role changed when I added the XPS-2 G3 to the system. After a break-in period (my XPS-2 gave me a "toasty electronics" smell for about a week...) I noticed SIGNIFICANTLY better overall sound throughout the spectrum. (Plus, adding an amplified Sub made for a system that could play with "fully-rounded" sonics regardless of Volume setting.) This leads me to question if the sound improvements / "Synergy" may be more than simply the upgraded Amp stage. I have read other reviews of such vintage NAD Receivers sounding better when the Amplifier Section of them is disconnected - Apparently, this leaves the component with a ROBUST Linear Power Supply section (designed to drive ALL Internal components) with a SIGNIFICANTLY "lightened" load. However, the fact remains that this unit is probably 30-plus years old, and there has likely been some degradation to certain electronic components - such as the electrolytic capacitors. Only thing is that when I replace it - I want to be sure to replace it with something GOOD without "blowing the bank", and achieving THAT goal appears to be a major "crapshoot in the dark"... (Probably time to start a new thread about that...)
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Apr 30, 2019 9:13:12 GMT -5
Now THIS is a cool stacking stand - Note how the uprights have a lever "quick-release" to micro-adjust the height of the stacked speakers! My audio amigo, Russell, has built something similar to hold his stacked Dahlquist DQ-10s. Oooo, DQ-10s are nice speakers and they have them properly pulled away from the wall.
|
|
|
Post by emotivate on Apr 30, 2019 9:21:56 GMT -5
Now THIS is a cool stacking stand - Note how the uprights have a lever "quick-release" to micro-adjust the height of the stacked speakers! My audio amigo, Russell, has built something similar to hold his stacked Dahlquist DQ-10s. The mighty DQ-10's ! I enjoyed my pair for 15 years,with the Dahlquist EQ and 2 DQ subs,Theta tube pre amp, and powered by 3 Hafler amps before I sold them to "downsize" before moving from Colorado to La. , now I have twice as much gear, LOL. Always wanted to get the double set up, but didn't because of the amount of space needed to pull this off. Does your buddy Russell have the top DQ-10 upside down to keep the tweeters in the center, and has he replaced the harsh super tweeter too? I never bypassed the fuses, as many owners did either. I would love to hear the double set up your friend has, as I never got to hear them. Hopefully the recovered ones in this picture are not his, they looked elegant in the original black, and I had to gaze at the supermodels in heat picture for a few minutes just to get over it.
|
|
|
Post by geeqner on Apr 30, 2019 9:39:06 GMT -5
Almost looks like posts and collars that are used for Chemistry Lab apparatus supports or recycled X-Ray alignment equipment (to hold the old plates or maneuver the X-ray exposure head).
And is it just me; or do those doubled-up speakers look like some sort of Post-War Modern folding chairs that were propped-up all WRONG? (Fugly, but bet that they SOUND AW-SUM...)
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 30, 2019 13:11:52 GMT -5
...Does your buddy Russell have the top DQ-10 upside down to keep the tweeters in the center, and has he replaced the harsh super tweeter too? I never bypassed the fuses, as many owners did either. I would love to hear the double set up your friend has, as I never got to hear them. Hopefully the recovered ones in this picture are not his, they looked elegant in the original black, and I had to gaze at the supermodels in heat picture for a few minutes just to get over it. First - the speakers shown in the photo are NOT DQ-10s - they are instead Quad electrostatics. Second - Yes my amigo Russell DOES have his top DQ-10 "upside down" to mirror-image them. Third - My audio amigo Russell would LOVE to have us over to hear his gear. Name a weekend! dsonyay - You're invited too!
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 30, 2019 13:17:03 GMT -5
Boomzilla, I agree with your dissertation on preamps. However a similar dissertation could be written about every component in the chain including the environment and the human ear / brain. So what else is now? I contend that the preamp is special. Why? Because it has LOW voltage signals, and there's PLENTY of opportunity to mess them up. Once the signal is amplified by the power amp, the voltages and currents are higher, and less amenable to outside interference. Back in the day when I did vinyl, I thought that the cartridge was the "weak point" in the system because its voltages are even lower. But in the digital age, it seems to be the preamp.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Apr 30, 2019 14:22:10 GMT -5
Boomzilla, I agree with your dissertation on preamps. However a similar dissertation could be written about every component in the chain including the environment and the human ear / brain. So what else is now? I contend that the preamp is special. Why? Because it has LOW voltage signals, and there's PLENTY of opportunity to mess them up. Once the signal is amplified by the power amp, the voltages and currents are higher, and less amenable to outside interference. Back in the day when I did vinyl, I thought that the cartridge was the "weak point" in the system because its voltages are even lower. But in the digital age, it seems to be the preamp. But it is much easier for small signal amplification to take place within the most linear range of either tubes or solid state devices because the voltage or current range is not excessive. Small signal amplification can be done easier sans feedback because the portion of the amplifying devices characteristic curve is so linear. This is not so true of higher voltage amplifier devices.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Apr 30, 2019 15:38:00 GMT -5
Hi mgbpuff - You're absolutely right (technically). But the differences between preamplifiers bother me a LOT more than the differences between power amplifiers. Go figure...
|
|