Well I think it is a good idea to keep the cables from your audio source to your amp away from mains cables.
these are line level connects, you need to have the shield connected at both sides, or you would completely lose ground reference. Another audio phooling. High end RCA is stupid anyway in my opinion, when there is hum-free differential signaling available, or even better digital links.
Maybe. I am not an audiophool, nor am I an expert in making fun of them.
For those particular cables (with directional arrows) they state that the signal ground and shield ground are separate.
True directional cables have multiple layers of shielding. The inner layer is connected at both ends and the outer layer connected to whatever end is less sensitive to noise, usually the source. The main exceptions are sources that do not have a direct connection to ground such as microphones and guitars.
Whew, didn't know that. What an effort (and still not solving ground loops and hum), instead of using a simple shielded twisted pair cable and differential signaling. *plop* next business idea popping up. We could even use correct wave impedance termination and sell them KillAReflection[tm] as an extra. They don't need to know that this is pretty irrelevant for audio frequencies
Well I think it is a good idea to keep the cables from your audio source to your amp away from mains cables.
Yeah, shielding helps so much against H fields. Or do they use Permalloy there? *pop* was that the next business opportunity that I just heard popping up?
Sorry, but can't just keep shaking my heads here...
While I do agree that there is a lot of ridiculous stuff sold in the audiophile world, not everything is totally stupid.
I have had the priviledge to spend some time on listening sessions with audiophile equipment in propper rooms.
I too came with the preconceived idea that 10.000 Euro speakers are bullshit, as well as 5.000 Euro valve amplifiers.
To make it short: for the first time I HEARD how bad an ipod sounds, when connected to a propper audio equipment. I had brought it along with "my" songs and after one or two I resorted to CD's...
Same goes for mp3 with up to and including 128 kbps. It sounds lousy against a CD. And yes, I can hear that.
At 160 kbps upwards I cannot distinguish the source (CD or mp3), except on special occasions when I am hinted to pay attention to given details. Different people do have different perceptions and you can train your ear. So I am not defending the impossible - i.e. mp3 at 320kbps will be undestinguishable for most people, except people with exceptional hearing and propper training. Many audiophile would disagree, but I think that would be bullshitting.
But the really overwhealming difference for me was to experience familiar songs in a way, where I could hear details I never noticed before. Also, with a propper setup you can locate each instrument in space. All of this gives you an experience as if you were entering the stage where the music is being done. Great listening experience!
After some time I got used to this sound quality and I started for instance to notice how aweful the sound is at many live concerts!
Now to the "audiophool":
Because I am neither rich nor an audiophile willing to sell his car in exchange of an amplifier and speakers, I got my own stereo out of eBay components. Vintage audio from the 70ies and early 80ies is pretty cheap, but probably produces the best sound per buck.
The best of my systems has cost me about 250 Euro and uses a PC to reproduce music (over an Audio Fidelity DAC). The sound is pretty good and beats any modern system based on iPod stuff hands down.
So what do you get if you pay 15.000 Euro instead of the 250 Euro I spent?
First off, you get something new and don't have to repair, clean or exchange cracking potis...
Then you get a much better sound. Imagine having a FullHD 42" LCD and then you move over to an 84" 4K screen playing native 4k material. That is the difference. Is it worth the price tag? That has to be decided by yourself.
And if you spend 15.000 Euro or more (I have listened to one setup with a 100.000 Euro price tag), you need a propper room to benefit from the sound. And then you need matching furniture: a comfortable couch, etc. And after spending this fortune, would you the buy cheap speaker cable?
Also, audiphile equipment in this price range is to be considered art - it doesn't only sound great, it looks great, too. It has the signature of the brand and engineer who developed it. Hence why there is a market for speaker support, cable support, etc. You wouldn't put a cheap frame on an authentic Renoir, would you?
Much is indeed nonsense, but not everything. I recommend that you seek an audiophile store and ask for a listening session. Serious stores will be happy to let you sit and listen for an hour or so, helping you through your preferred bands. Listen to the sound and enjoy. Relax and never mind if some components (monster cable) are silly: at a given price, nothing matters.
And after spending one hour listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, try to listen to this same album on a modern 200 Euro system.
Audiophile stores are happy to let you listen to their setups because they rely on making people familiar again to great sound - I was never refused by any store. And they won't be agressiviley trying to sell you anything.
Regards,
Vitor
Same goes for mp3 with up to and including 128 kbps. It sounds lousy against a CD. And yes, I can hear that.
At 160 kbps upwards I cannot distinguish the source (CD or mp3), except on special occasions when I am hinted to pay attention to given details. Different people do have different perceptions and you can train your ear. So I am not defending the impossible - i.e. mp3 at 320kbps will be undestinguishable for most people, except people with exceptional hearing and propper training. Many audiophile would disagree, but I think that would be bullshitting.
...
Then you get a much better sound. Imagine having a FullHD 42" LCD and then you move over to an 84" 4K screen playing native 4k material. That is the difference. Is it worth the price tag? That has to be decided by yourself.
It's content dependent. Most music does indeed seem to do well at 192kbps, but the compression artifacts are audible in a few songs with complex content. Storage is cheap enough nowadays that there's little reason to use anything less than 320kbps or (if supported) FLAC.
I have actually seen a 85" 4K display at work. As a desktop display, it would be way too pixellated. But it works great for giving presentations. A 85" 5K display (if it existed) would be better. Or indeed, an 8K, but that's many years away.
a true audiofool will only like a perfect analog stream
I have actually seen a 85" 4K display at work. As a desktop display, it would be way too pixellated. But it works great for giving presentations. A 85" 5K display (if it existed) would be better. Or indeed, an 8K, but that's many years away.
8k displays do exist. Japanese TV Channel (I think NHS) has shown it at IBC a couple of years ago. The question is if it is worth it, as you cannot see any difference at reasonable distance of the screen.
Anyway, what I wanted to express with my post was that one should listen to audiophile equipment before bashing it. Much is bullshit but not everything.
Regards,
Vitor
I have actually seen a 85" 4K display at work. As a desktop display, it would be way too pixellated. But it works great for giving presentations. A 85" 5K display (if it existed) would be better. Or indeed, an 8K, but that's many years away.
8k displays do exist. Japanese TV Channel (I think NHS) has shown it at IBC a couple of years ago. The question is if it is worth it, as you cannot see any difference at reasonable distance of the screen.
Anyway, what I wanted to express with my post was that one should listen to audiophile equipment before bashing it. Much is bullshit but not everything.
Regards,
Vitor
The human eye is supposed to have approx 140 mega"pixels". When sitting 2m away from a screen, and assuming that the eye is roughly covering a half sphere, I calculate
A1 = 0.5 * 4 PI * r^2 = 25.1 m^2.
An eye "pixel" projected onto this surface would then be
Apixel = A1 / 140e6 = 0.18 mm^2,
or, assuming square pixels (which they of aren't),
Apixel = 0.4mm x 0.4mm.
If we now have an 3840 × 2160 8k TV screen, that must at least be 1.6 x 0.9 meters large, or 64'' x 36'', or 74'' diagonal.
If my calculations are correct, then 8k 74'' TVs and up do make sense, you could sell them as Retina TVs.
The human eye has 576 megapixels.
I put this on here a couple of years ago, but this still takes the biscuit!
http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html
You led me to this http://www.lessloss.com/dfpc-series-p-213.html notice the MP3 previews! Hilarious 
Btw crossing signal and power is a good idea if you are not certain proper balun is in place. This has saved me at concerts more than once.
A bargain for $595!
"Our Skin-filtering technology ... —without impeding dynamics
(unlike traditional power filters)."
So in other words, power filters in front of an audio amp can impede its dynamic response, do I get that right?
Without words.
"Our Skin-filtering technology ... —without impeding dynamics (unlike traditional power filters)."
So in other words, power filters in front of an audio amp can impede its dynamic response, do I get that right?
Without words.
Oh yeah? Will it protect against this?!
*plugs
into the Photonicinduction Big Boy Supply and makes sure it is properly elevated by more
*
*rams the skull lever to max*
"AVADA KADAVRA!"
*click* *BZZZZZZAAAAAAP* *sizzle*
"And Todays Audiophool Product is............DESTROYED! Voltamort approves."
EDIT: "On next weeks Voltamort show... we "service" the server hosting the
"
I live near a fair campus. After the audio fair, there will always be an Esoteric fair. People do not need to dismantle their exhibition booths.
I got kicked out of a "hifi" (It was nothing of the sort!) show once, turns out that bringing a SSB capable handheld radio clipped to your belt reveals a few too many immunity issues in the tweaky stuff when you squeeze the key.
Regards, Dan.
I got kicked out of a "hifi" (It was nothing of the sort!) show once, turns out that bringing a SSB capable handheld radio clipped to your belt reveals a few too many immunity issues in the tweaky stuff when you squeeze the key.
Regards, Dan.
You've given me far too many ideas for trolling these idiots.
Now I’m on to it.
Cables with thicker insulation will sound better because they increase the distance between the floor and the conductor! You could extrapolate that out by using the thinnest conductors capable of carrying the load.
I think a cheaper, easier solution is to increase the distance between the audiophool and the music.
The best, and in fact what should be the
only way to decide whether a component, technology or signal encoding makes a difference in the sound is to run a properly moderated ABX test using the two things in question. Granted, it's not easy to set one up for things like power amplifiers, but low level components, passive items, and source signals can be tested pretty easily. It's amazing (or maybe just satisfying) to see alleged differences evaporate when they are properly compared with a methodology that takes the visual evidence away from the audiophool. I've done this with lossy audio sources and even preamps, and it's evident that the human ear is terrible at distinguishing some things, somewhat better at others.
https://hometheaterreview.com/why-do-audiophiles-fear-abx-testing/I haven't read the comments, but I fear they would destroy my faith in humanity all over again.