My overall method is to knock off the worst offenders first, that degrade the sound in the most obvious way. As you eliminate them then the effects of remaining factors become more apparent, the system is steadily becoming more "transparent", and one can hear the impact of remaining "inaccuracies" more clearly. So another round of experimenting, to try and isolate that next level of where damage is being done - possibly at some point the qualities of different solders will stand out, but I feel that a lot of other areas can be addressed first, with great benefit.
The Fallacy of Accuracy
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
WBT... very easy to use lead-free solder, best sound, pricey.
For the solder pot, tinning litz wire I use Johnson IA423, also lead free, more difficult to use.
Different types of solder will have different soldering temperatures and also different deoxidation fluxes. I think we can technically expect greater variation in sound quality due to the union of different metals with a third one than that of using for example different purifies of copper wire.
Some manufacturers have produced cables avoiding solder, using either direct metal to metal welding or crimping.
yeah i agree with folsom. your logic makes no sense to me, still.
here is the deal ... at least from my perspective. i want to hear what is on the recording, nothing more nothing less. if the recording is crap i want crap. if it is a very good recording where you hear the weight of the piano keys, instruments have space between them and vocals sound, well like a voice that is what i want. this notion of altering a system or 'tuning' or 'de-tuning' is really pointless. if that is your goal you are spending money on the wrong thing ... if that is your goal you can tune the sound with a computer program and at that point you might as well as make your own recordings. this whole hobby is about getting to the most neutral sounding system possible. if you are trying to make all recordings sound good then you are missing the point, at least from my vantage point. it is music, you want to hear it the way it was meant to be heard.
I think the same , thats why the industry should design a top modern r2r deck imo , instead of fiddling with cables and what not
False dichotomies abound! Why is it always an either/or proposition? We can do it all.
If the topic was about limiting yourself to one improvement and one only I can see it, but luckily we are not limited in this way.
Why? IMHO most probably they will find it is too expensive if you include development and manufacturing costs and there is no real market for it.
Just for the fun of debating - how many "modern r2r" do you anticipate that such manufacturer will sell in five years?
I dont know , but certainly not everybody is in it for the money .
I remember a quote by mike lavigne who said " the best way to make a small fortune in audio is to start with a large fortune "
But serious if fidelity is what your after then ....???
I remember a quote by mike lavigne who said " the best way to make a small fortune in audio is to start with a large fortune "
But serious if fidelity is what your after then ....???
Does anyone really get rich selling audio gear? Even if you sell $200K amps, what are the business costs like?
Fortunately for all the music enthusiasts, it doesn't work that way ... the key thing is, that the system has to work well enough so that the ear/brain can then step in and do the work of separating what you want, the music, from what you don't want, the crap. I've spent years playing around in this "game", and I have no difficulty making a system that is sounding fabulous one moment, produce crappy sound the next - it's a fine balance getting to and keeping a system at a level of quality where your mind does an excellent job of filtering out, discarding the bad stuff, from what you really want to hear.
It's not about "tuning", "de-tuning", fiddling with the sound - what you're after is ultra clean playback, genuinely neutral sound. The automatic, I repeat, automatic result of doing that is that those "bad" recordings then come to life - every time! Which makes it very easy to assess the quality of a system - if a "bad" recording sounds crappy then there are too many audible flaws in the sound, that rig doesn't get a tick of approval ...
Most enthusiasts have come across systems that do this highly addictive type of reproduction, at least momentarily, at some time - and they then spend lots of time and money chasing it. I'm saying that this experience is the real deal, and is the natural result of getting competent playback - the irksome part is that achieving the necessary standard of quality is not a trivial exercise, requires a lot of focused attention ... it won't just fall off the back of a truck!
do you even enjoy music? you seem to be caught up chasing some sound ... that would suck!
Not the slightest problem in doing so - I'm after reproduction that sounds 'real' ... not like a hifi! To me, the differences are obvious: with the former I can enjoy it at any volume, from anywhere in the house, for any length of time; with the latter, I have to focus on it to not get agitated, I have to listen to the "right" recordings, and I get fatigued after a short period of time if one little thing starts to irritate me - this hifi thing reminds me of going to a gym: you have to "suffer" the stress of the process, to get something out of it ...
i get 'fatigued' trying to 'make' 'sense' of 'what' you 'write.' but ok, im just gonna say okie dokie cause like ... ???
No prob's, - sorry about the quotes thing, but I hate using using a word that will a different meaning to other people, because of their POV, straight - I'm emphasising that my understanding of the term doesn't match how others see it, okay ...
The overall principle is simple - I put on a solo piano recording, and I walk around my home doing things - I just want to hear someone playing a piano in my house, and not be aware that an audio system is on somewhere ... no more than that, really.
- sorry about the quotes thing, but I hate using using a word that will a different meaning to other people, because of their POV, straight - I'm emphasising that my understanding of the term doesn't match how others see it, okay ... The overall principle is simple - I put on a solo piano recording, and I walk around my home doing things - I just want to hear someone playing a piano in my house, and not be aware that an audio system is on somewhere ... no more than that, really.
I'm designing modern R2R DACs - but on reflection I see andromeda meant reel-to-reel so as you were...
@Folsom - when I was an engineer working in the audio business I noticed that the guys getting rich were the distributors, not the manufacturers nor the retailers. The distributors had the fanciest cars by far....
@Frank - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sous_rature - looks like you're thinking like Heidegger and Derrida
I'm designing modern R2R DACs - but on reflection I see andromeda meant reel-to-reel so as you were...
@Folsom - when I was an engineer working in the audio business I noticed that the guys getting rich were the distributors, not the manufacturers nor the retailers. The distributors had the fanciest cars by far....
@Frank - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sous_rature - looks like you're thinking like Heidegger and Derrida
R2R = resistors
RTR = reel
That's how I keep them apart.
and I suppose it makes sense, given that distributors have almost no costs.
No prob's,
The overall principle is simple - I put on a solo piano recording, and I walk around my home doing things - I just want to hear someone playing a piano in my house, and not be aware that an audio system is on somewhere ... no more than that, really.
i feel like im being punk'd.
Similar threads
