|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: DJ needs this.....I think 200 feet will do you fine [message #90895 is a reply to message #90894] |
Tue, 02 October 2007 08:15   |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Or third, using test equipment. For example, running test signals down
the cable, recording them with a highly accurate recorder, and comparing
the playback using test/analysis gear, and with phase cancellation, to
the original signal recorded on the same highly accurate recorder.
Complicated by the speaker level signals, but it seems doable.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DC wrote:
> There's 2 kinds of proof that matter: There's the kind that is shown
> in double-blind tests where someone can ID which cable is which
> when someone else is changing them w/o him seeing, and there is
> the proof that comes from someone who knows what the recording
> should sound like, and that only works when there is an objective
> acoustic reference point. An orchestra, or acoustic jazz for instance.
>
> DC
>
>
>
> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Yeah, but how do you prove it? There was a thread (one of many) on R.A.P.
>> discussing this and the point was made that while you can certainly make
>> cable that sounds DIFFERENT how can you know that it's actually more accurate?
>>
>>
>> An age old debate... with no end in sight!
>>
>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>> http://digg.com/gadgets/1_Million_If_Audiophiles_Can_Prove_7 250_Speaker_Cable_Are_Better
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: DJ needs this.....I think 200 feet will do you fine [message #90897 is a reply to message #90895] |
Tue, 02 October 2007 08:58 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Could work, but the test gear would likely introduce far more variables than
AA (audiophiles anonymous)
could accept without exploding into an obsessive compulsive fit.
I love the San Fran guy's comment about the cables being more danceable.....
rofl.
(hmm.... since when does an obsessed audiophile dance? The vibrations would
jar the turntable, which is of course vibration isolated from the building,
and even the earth and air itself, but why take a chance... ? ;-)).
Then again, I would probably be dancing around too - in disbelief that I
actually spend $7250 on a cable,
and hoping so badly that it made a difference that I convinced myself it did
just to avoid the sinking
feeling of wasting more money than my car was worth. ;-)
For sure better cables can really be better in some ways, but whether one
can hear a 145x improvement over a $50 cable...
Dedric
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47026242$1@linux...
>
> Or third, using test equipment. For example, running test signals down the
> cable, recording them with a highly accurate recorder, and comparing the
> playback using test/analysis gear, and with phase cancellation, to the
> original signal recorded on the same highly accurate recorder.
>
> Complicated by the speaker level signals, but it seems doable.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DC wrote:
>> There's 2 kinds of proof that matter: There's the kind that is shown
>> in double-blind tests where someone can ID which cable is which when
>> someone else is changing them w/o him seeing, and there is
>> the proof that comes from someone who knows what the recording
>> should sound like, and that only works when there is an objective
>> acoustic reference point. An orchestra, or acoustic jazz for instance.
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Yeah, but how do you prove it? There was a thread (one of many) on
>>> R.A.P.
>>> discussing this and the point was made that while you can certainly make
>>> cable that sounds DIFFERENT how can you know that it's actually more
>>> accurate?
>>>
>>>
>>> An age old debate... with no end in sight!
>>>
>>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>> http://digg.com/gadgets/1_Million_If_Audiophiles_Can_Prove_7 250_Speaker_Cable_Are_Better
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: DJ needs this.....I think 200 feet will do you fine [message #90902 is a reply to message #90895] |
Tue, 02 October 2007 10:26 |
|
|
But then you need "perfect" speakers in an acoustically transparent environment,
neither of which any two testers could probably agree upon since neither
is really possible.
gantt
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Or third, using test equipment. For example, running test signals down
>the cable, recording them with a highly accurate recorder, and comparing
>the playback using test/analysis gear, and with phase cancellation, to
>the original signal recorded on the same highly accurate recorder.
>
>Complicated by the speaker level signals, but it seems doable.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>DC wrote:
>> There's 2 kinds of proof that matter: There's the kind that is shown
>> in double-blind tests where someone can ID which cable is which
>> when someone else is changing them w/o him seeing, and there is
>> the proof that comes from someone who knows what the recording
>> should sound like, and that only works when there is an objective
>> acoustic reference point. An orchestra, or acoustic jazz for instance.
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Yeah, but how do you prove it? There was a thread (one of many) on R.A.P.
>>> discussing this and the point was made that while you can certainly make
>>> cable that sounds DIFFERENT how can you know that it's actually more
accurate?
>>>
>>>
>>> An age old debate... with no end in sight!
>>>
>>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>> http://digg.com/gadgets/1_Million_If_Audiophiles_Can_Prove_7 250_Speaker_Cable_Are_Better
>>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: DJ needs this.....I think 200 feet will do you fine [message #90903 is a reply to message #90902] |
Tue, 02 October 2007 10:27 |
|
|
I think I recall reading somewhere that George Massenburg used high quality
(but not audio-fool) 12 gauge speaker cable.
"Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>But then you need "perfect" speakers in an acoustically transparent environment,
>neither of which any two testers could probably agree upon since neither
>is really possible.
>
>gantt
>
>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>Or third, using test equipment. For example, running test signals down
>>the cable, recording them with a highly accurate recorder, and comparing
>
>>the playback using test/analysis gear, and with phase cancellation, to
>>the original signal recorded on the same highly accurate recorder.
>>
>>Complicated by the speaker level signals, but it seems doable.
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>DC wrote:
>>> There's 2 kinds of proof that matter: There's the kind that is shown
>>> in double-blind tests where someone can ID which cable is which
>>> when someone else is changing them w/o him seeing, and there is
>>> the proof that comes from someone who knows what the recording
>>> should sound like, and that only works when there is an objective
>>> acoustic reference point. An orchestra, or acoustic jazz for instance.
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, but how do you prove it? There was a thread (one of many) on
R.A.P.
>>>> discussing this and the point was made that while you can certainly
make
>>>> cable that sounds DIFFERENT how can you know that it's actually more
>accurate?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An age old debate... with no end in sight!
>>>>
>>>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://digg.com/gadgets/1_Million_If_Audiophiles_Can_Prove_7 250_Speaker_Cable_Are_Better
>>>
>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: DJ needs this.....I think 200 feet will do you fine [message #90904 is a reply to message #90903] |
Tue, 02 October 2007 10:35 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
as long as i can listen to it on 64kb/s mp3 with earbuds what's the
prob?
On 3 Oct 2007 03:27:43 +1000, "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
>I think I recall reading somewhere that George Massenburg used high quality
>(but not audio-fool) 12 gauge speaker cable.
>
>"Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>But then you need "perfect" speakers in an acoustically transparent environment,
>>neither of which any two testers could probably agree upon since neither
>>is really possible.
>>
>>gantt
>>
>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Or third, using test equipment. For example, running test signals down
>
>>>the cable, recording them with a highly accurate recorder, and comparing
>>
>>>the playback using test/analysis gear, and with phase cancellation, to
>
>>>the original signal recorded on the same highly accurate recorder.
>>>
>>>Complicated by the speaker level signals, but it seems doable.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>DC wrote:
>>>> There's 2 kinds of proof that matter: There's the kind that is shown
>>>> in double-blind tests where someone can ID which cable is which
>>>> when someone else is changing them w/o him seeing, and there is
>>>> the proof that comes from someone who knows what the recording
>>>> should sound like, and that only works when there is an objective
>>>> acoustic reference point. An orchestra, or acoustic jazz for instance.
>>>>
>>>> DC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, but how do you prove it? There was a thread (one of many) on
>R.A.P.
>>>>> discussing this and the point was made that while you can certainly
>make
>>>>> cable that sounds DIFFERENT how can you know that it's actually more
>>accurate?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An age old debate... with no end in sight!
>>>>>
>>>>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://digg.com/gadgets/1_Million_If_Audiophiles_Can_Prove_7 250_Speaker_Cable_Are_Better
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
