Zak, g8ina, Lowe...you lot are a bad influence....

[Lowe]

Hey, stop pointing the finger at me. I didn't say a thing for a change lol

[dave87]

Hey, stop pointing the finger at me. I didn't say a thing for a change lol

Guilty by association


Been listening to a Classic FM CD - the difference in sound quality from anything I've heard it on before (including the Technics system my parents' have) is impressive. Now I get why people like Classical music....so much more to it than a lot of contemporary music - but you can only tell that if you can hear it properly.

Any suggestions as to other music I should try?

[Terbinator]

Guilty by association


Been listening to a Classic FM CD - the difference in sound quality from anything I've heard it on before (including the Technics system my parents' have) is impressive. Now I get why people like Classical music....so much more to it than a lot of contemporary music - but you can only tell that if you can hear it properly.

Any suggestions as to other music I should try?

Perhaps a bit cliche but Machine Gun by Hendrix?

O/T: Any thoughts on the Q Acosutics kit i mentioned up above? I've seen the 2010i's for £109 as well which are smaller but thats better for em personally.

[dave87]

Perhaps a bit cliche but Machine Gun by Hendrix?

O/T: Any thoughts on the Q Acosutics kit i mentioned up above? I've seen the 2010i's for £109 as well which are smaller but thats better for em personally.

My best bit of advice would be to go to a local hifi shop and have a listen. Richer Sounds are particularly good as I understand it, and will often price match online retailers (so if you are buying new, then you get the online price and the ability to walk out with them that day - bonus!)

Downside to that is, like me, you'll probably end up walking out with something better than what you had perhaps intended.....


As to the Q Acoustics, I can't remember who I was speaking to when I first bought my Denon AVR-2809, but they were one of the better budget speaker sets for Home Cinema - how they rate in hifi terms, I wouldn't know I'm afraid. WhatHiFi and the like usually have pretty good reviews & recommendations on their website though, so might be worth a look.

[Dareos]

2020's are a fair bit bigger than the 2010's. The mounting plates are twice the size and come with the speaker mounts i bought . I plan on getting the 2020's and floor stands for the home cinema kit as I mistakenly put the existing speakers high on the wall and will switch those to front high surround mode when I get them. Not sure whether to go with the 2020i's or the standard 2020's as reviews are better on the i's but dont want to change the sound too much from the rest of the kit.

They are excellent speakers by all accords tho.

[dave87]

New speakers on their way. Two letters....



B & W

[Rave]

the better quality the interconnect used (Nikkai something or other - not particularly expensive)<snip>all has an impact on the sound.

Nope, no impact.

Degrade a Digital signal where the potential values are 0 or 1 - and it is easy enough for the electronics to work out what it was meant to be. Degrade an analogue signal (which has values between 0 and 1) and it isn't so easy.

Yeah, except it's very hard to degrade an analogue audio signal.

t also means that the quality of everything post the DAC is more important -the better quality the cable (to a point) the better the sound.

Unless you're getting interference, nope.

So you want it arriving in the same shape it left the original device (i.e. PC or CD player in my case). This is done by having the best quality interconnects (cables) that you can distinguish between. I've not set the bar very high - mainly because it isn't worth it, at the moment, to me. I got a decent (ish) cable which looks sturdy enough to last more than five minutes. In very high end system hand made cables can be the norm - whether it makes a noticeable difference or not is very hotly debated.

Not by electronics engineers, it's not.

Concept wise, it is fine - it is the quality of the specific lead used to connect the two devices I think we are talking about.

The better quality, the better the sound is likely to be, though how noticeable a difference it will make is another topic.

Why make it a different topic? Surely this thread is about getting great sound, and none of us have unlimited funds. Money spent on cable beyond £1/m is completely wasted.

I've enough 3.5mm > 2x phonos to supply 8 channels but I'm guessing they're not all that great as they were supplied by Asus with the card and don't even have gold-plating.

Although analog is (somewhat ?) inevitable in the chain, I thought i'd left the audio-cable quality race behind however.

I have done a bunch of testing and the only thing cheap cables do badly is allow in 50hz hum if you site them next to mains cables- and even then it's not noticeable at normal listening levels. If you get problems with 50hz hum then route your cables differently. Only if that's really not possible should you spend up to 5 quid on cables.

Naah, at the very least it needs considering between the amp and the speakers

I've never set that much store by the whole gold-plated thing, as that just introduces another bi-metallic boundary into the chain. I suspect the quality of the cable is far more important than the plating of the connector. So unless someone's going to sell me a solid gold audio cable, I'll go for more copper in my wires, rather than more gold on my connectors

How about paying for more quality in the rest of your kit? All the scientific (double blind testing) evidence suggests that cables make so little difference to the sound that it's not discernable by the average human.

So, what difference does length of speaker wire make? And should I bi-wire/bi-amp them? (the Denon has A and B speaker outputs - so I can use both at the same time)

Bi-amp, yes - empiral data suggests this is better.

It's probably better if you regularly thrash the hell out of your amp. The rest of the time, I suspect, not so much. And that begs the question- if you regularly thrash your amp to the limit, why not buy one good one, rather than two regular ones?

Equal cable lengths, yes - could give rise to minute phase errors otherwise (hardly noticable really).

Given the difference between the speed of electricity in a cable and the speed of sound in air, I'd say that the the difference could be made up by moving your head considerably less than 1mm .

Sorry to selectively quote 6-odd posts and sarcastically reply to all of them, but folks, I thought I covered this nearly 8 years ago:

http://forums.hexus.net/general-cons...-magazine.html

[Lowe]

Rave - can, worms, crawling things everywhere.

I agree in the main with your sentiment however it's not quite as black and white as you make out. There are some systems, that under the right circumstances can show differences in cabling - things like speaker cable. I'm talking listening in an acoustically treated spaces with high end kit that's been made properly. For example, PMC make a series of activated speakers where the power amp strapped to the back of the monitor is positioned in such a way so that the connection between amp and loudspeaker input is kept as short as possible. Why? Because it made a measurable difference to the sound.

It's fair to say generally it's a law of diminishing returns and most people won't be able to notice the difference. I for one won't use cheap cabling, but then I won't use expensive cabling either unless it's a freebie! I'm happy to pay for something that's made properly, with oxygen free copper if it's an audio cable, with a decent cross section if it's speaker cable. Beyond that, nope. But, I won't buy something which potentially can limit my system (and it's fair to say my system is above average); so that means tiny interconnects that come with kit don't get a look in chez Lowe.

With regards to bi-amping, it's got nowt to do with how hard you drive the amp. It's more to do with if you've got a poor crossover in your loudspeaker. With a decent crossover, the tonal difference is minimal, with a poor crossover it can be quite an improvement.

[Steve]

Aw man I really want to weigh into this again on the side of Rave.

Most of the reasons for going with more expensive cable is bollocks. For me there are two:

1. How durable does the cable need to be? It's usually more about the connector in this case.
2. How much power must they transmit? If it's feeding big-arse speakers, make it thick cable.

[g8ina]

Originally Posted by g8ina [Bi-amp, yes - empiral data suggests this is better.]

It's probably better if you regularly thrash the hell out of your amp. The rest of the time, I suspect, not so much. And that begs the question- if you regularly thrash your amp to the limit, why not buy one good one, rather than two regular ones?

=

My empirical was a series of properly conducted double blind tests using my wife and my 2 sons as audience.

The theory being, if my wife can hear a difference, there is one.

I know science says it's rubbish, but the ears disagree

[Lowe]

My empirical was a series of properly conducted double blind tests using my wife and my 2 sons as audience.

The theory being, if my wife can hear a difference, there is one.

I know science says it's rubbish, but the ears disagree

Bi-amping is far from rubbish, it's pretty much the staple method of any high end studio monitor or large PA system! It's the 'proper' way to do it (minimise the use of extra passive circuitry).

Bi-wiring however is rubbish. Easy way to fool people into thinking they're bi-amping and sell twice as much cable.

[1stRaven]

Thought my gut feeling about equal lengths being better was right (same way I've wired the home theatre setup). Good to know bi-amping does make a difference

Re: PC Output. Purely out of interest, rather than any impending plan to do so - I've got an XFi, which will be better than onboard audio - but my guess is for the best sound from a PC you'd need either an audiophile grade soundcard or digital out from any soundcard to an external DAC, then to the amp? I can't see any weakenesses (except for the quality of the DAC) in the second setup - as the PC is only transferring digital audio...?

oh, and...



They are good

I connect out on my PC via an HDA X-plosion (http://www.auzentech.com/site/products/x-plosion.php - Awful name but a decent decent card for the money) via an optical cable to a Yamaha A2 amp which then does all the decoded. Sound better to my ears than the analog method although the amp and card did support that method as well.

New speakers on their way. Two letters....



B & W

I run a pair of B&W 602 s2 (Might need to check this)as my computer fronts and then added a KAF reference centre to the mix. I did end up going for cheap rears but for movies,music and pc gaming, I thought this was the best place to make a saving. The sub is the only thing that I dont own and I am currently borrowing an Mordaunt-Short twin 8" sub which is punchy enough but struggles a little at the real bottom end.

[Hicks12]

Yup rave has hit the nail on the head, i spent many months searching this and came to the conclusion that unless you're spending insane amounts on speakers (5k+) then its not worth buying the expensive cable, the van damme cables are always recommended so if you're spending alot on speakers id say just get that nothing more (about £1.5 or £2 a metre). I have my front tannoy v4s connected via some CA cable and that was £1.5 per metre and the rest of my setup is hooked up with some real cheapy speaker cable(read copper painted/plated aluminium!), i did try my rears on both the cambridge and the 30pence per metre cable and did i notice a difference? No, well not much at all... its incredibly hard as i can sense my mind made me think there was a slight difference but it was so small that id say it makes no difference for my rears!.

I only bought the cheap stuff to tide me over till i move house in 5 months (no point wiring it all up and then having to buy new stuff!). I will keep to the same cable, only reason id up the budget would be to get better sheathing as the cheap one is crap .

End of the day, you can buy X speaker for £500 and cheap(or relatively cheap) cable or grab a £400 speaker with the more expensive cable... if they're from the same company then its normally quite easy to say that the more expensive speaker will be better!. Also, speakers last a life time (or a third of it atleast...) and so speaker cable can be replaced whenever!.


On to the PC, yes using analogue would be worse than digital but better than nothing . I would recommend using the HDMI on one of your devices (if you have onboard gpu it will work, atleast my i5 does ), i currently have my gpu connected to the av receiver and its really because you cant get DTSHD or DolbyTrueHD via any other means, if you could then i most likely would .

And Dave, enjoy the new speakers! I think it was an easy choice since you've heard them already .

[Rave]

Rave - can, worms, crawling things everywhere.

I agree in the main with your sentiment however it's not quite as black and white as you make out. There are some systems, that under the right circumstances can show differences in cabling - things like speaker cable. I'm talking listening in an acoustically treated spaces with high end kit that's been made properly. For example, PMC make a series of activated speakers where the power amp strapped to the back of the monitor is positioned in such a way so that the connection between amp and loudspeaker input is kept as short as possible. Why? Because it made a measurable difference to the sound.

Interesting. But then the question must be- why did it make a measureable difference? I find it extremely hard to believe that the capacitance and/or resistance in a few metres of anything better than bell wire speaker cable caused it. If PMC are clever enough to measure the difference at the output of the speaker, then surely they're clever enough to explain why it happened?

It's fair to say generally it's a law of diminishing returns and most people won't be able to notice the difference. I for one won't use cheap cabling, but then I won't use expensive cabling either unless it's a freebie! I'm happy to pay for something that's made properly, with oxygen free copper if it's an audio cable, with a decent cross section if it's speaker cable. Beyond that, nope. But, I won't buy something which potentially can limit my system (and it's fair to say my system is above average); so that means tiny interconnects that come with kit don't get a look in chez Lowe.

O.K. fine, I too am a bit happier with a nice chunky interconnect that costs, say, 2-3 quid rather than a 2mm thick cheapy- but only really because the shielding on the cheapy is quite obviously pathetic, and they have a measurable resistance, albeit still in the region of an ohm or two. But you can get tiny signals in the hundreds of MHz region down satellite cable that costs well under a pound a metre even with rudimentary screw fit connectors- I should know, I've cabled up my mate's various sky systems enough times. For audio signals, it's complete madness to pay more than a tenner even for a relatively long cable.

With regards to bi-amping, it's got nowt to do with how hard you drive the amp. It's more to do with if you've got a poor crossover in your loudspeaker. With a decent crossover, the tonal difference is minimal, with a poor crossover it can be quite an improvement.

O.K. but in that case why not do the job properly with an active crossover? 15 years ago Hi-Fi News (who were always a bizarre cross between proper scientific method and complete audiophile lunacy) were experimenting with a 20 quid Maplin crossover designed for car applications and (IIRC) a pair of those generic 50 quid monitors with the crossover removed. They claimed considerable improvements. Today, when AFAIK a generic DSP IC capable of operation in the GHz range costs under a quid it seems completely mad to be chasing a small improvement by doubling up on amplifiers in the hundreds of pounds range.

My empirical was a series of properly conducted double blind tests using my wife and my 2 sons as audience.

Wife and two sons as audience....this was a double blind test, who was doing the switching?

I only ask out of interest, of course I'm sure you know how a double blind test works . And I'm not saying you're wrong.

The theory being, if my wife can hear a difference, there is one.

I know science says it's rubbish, but the ears disagree

If your wife can tell the difference to a statistically significant extent on a double blind ABX test then fine, there's a difference, I accept that.

I do accept that bi-amping can, and presumably does, make an audible difference IRL, and perhaps I am clouding the issue by including a moan against bi-amping in a more general rant against cable buying sillyness. I would still say, however, that whatever issues bi-amping passive speakers might solve would be better solved by just buying better speakers or a better amp, or using an active crossover tuned to the response of the drivers and cabinets.

Bi-amping is far from rubbish, it's pretty much the staple method of any high end studio monitor or large PA system! It's the 'proper' way to do it (minimise the use of extra passive circuitry).

Yes precisely, use of extra passive circuitry. Active bi-amping is good stuff. Passive, not so much.

[g8ina]

Wife and two sons as audience....this was a double blind test, who was doing the switching?

I only ask out of interest, of course I'm sure you know how a double blind test works . And I'm not saying you're wrong.

If your wife can tell the difference to a statistically significant extent on a double blind ABX test then fine, there's a difference, I accept that.

My mate Don P set the test up I did the switching. And yes, I do know

[dave87]

Well, the B&Ws arrived. I need to tidy my desk, so you'll have to make do with the picture the seller gave me:



They are a set of B&W 601 S3s, so they have the woven kevlar speakers which are gorgeous, I don't know why they feel the need to include speaker covers tbh....


They also happen to sound epic