

 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 %                                                                            %
 %                             Info-High-Audio                                %
 %                                                                            %
 %                 The High End Audio Digested Mailing List                   %
 %                                                                            %
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
       Volume 20 Number 8                 Wednesday, March 10, 1993
 
 
Today's Topics
--------------
 
 B&W 801 mods - effective?
 KEF 103.4 vs B&W 804 Speakers
 fancy CD remastering
 Re: Ultradisk CD's??? Are they really better???
 Roger Waters "Amused to Death" LP
 Re:Re: Tuners: Opinions Sought
 cal cd players
 READ THIS...MY LIFE DEPENDS ON IT!!!
 Hafler?
 RE: FM
  Elightened Audio Designs DSP-7000 DAC
 Re: Utradisk CD's??? Are they really better???
 Re: Hafler?
 Speaker Question
 Re: System warmup...
 Roger Waters
 Re: CAL CD Players
 Info Wanted: Integrated Amps/Receivers
 Re: Low price interconnect & cable
 Re: Hafler?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: procter%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Steven Procter)
Subject: B&W 801 mods - effective?
Date: 9 Mar 93 20:56:46 GMT

Please send me any information you have about modifications to the
B&W 801s or experiences you have had with them that make them
sound better (or worse).  

I have a pair of 805s right now, and I found that replacing my transistor 
amp with a tube amp improved the high midrange and high end a lot.  Every
time I auditioned the 801s they were powered by expensive transistor equipment
and sounded great except for a harshness on some recordings.
I don't want speakers to dictate which of my records I can listen to.

I don't know of any other speakers that are as dynamic and exciting as
the 801s.  If there is something great that I am missing out on, please
tell me about it.  Thanks,

							Steven

------------------------------
 
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 93 15:22:31 CST
From: clee@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Cassian K. Lee)
Subject: KEF 103.4 vs B&W 804 Speakers

Any subjective/objective opinions about KEF 103.4 vs B&W 804 speakers?
Has anyone had a chance to compare them side by side? Which is a better buy?
Are the quality significantly different?  Are there other speakers that are
better than these two in the same price range??

I listen EXCLUSIVELY to classical music. 

Thanks.

Cassian Lee
clee@ncsa.uiuc.edu

------------------------------
 
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 93 17:20:30 EST
From: jas@proteon.com (John A. Shriver)
Subject: fancy CD remastering

Ultradisc II may be transferred to a digital mastertape format with 20
bits, but only 16 of them make it to the CD.  Sure, there is probably
some very smart noise shaping going on in the dithering from 20 to 16
bits, but only 16 bits come out.  Sony's Super-Bit-Mapping is one
particular 20->16 scheme.

Now, this all has very audible benefits when playing the 16 bit CD on
a 16 bit CD player.

20 bit mastering is one of the two major approaches to getting better
sounding 16 bit recordings, the other is heavy oversampling, often
with less than 16 bits/sample.  This is the approach being taken by
Chesky, and I think this is what the DCS 900 A/D that Mercury uses
does.

These high-resolution D/A convertors are MUCH better than the dreadful
Sony 1630's that are used in the majority of the in-house mastering
studios at the major US record companies.  Those are completely
out-dated junk.

Certainly, a major benefit of these "audiophile" remasterings is that
they use the original master tape.

The down side is that some of the MFSL ones have been real duds.  Some
may because of applying EQ where is wasn't needed, others may have
needed EQ and not gotten it.  Mastering is art, not science.

------------------------------
 
From: csc@malone.austin.ibm.com (Chris Cheyney)
Subject: Re: Ultradisk CD's??? Are they really better???
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 22:24:59 GMT

qchorn@mtu.edu wrote:
>First and foremost, do they [Ultradiscs] sound better than the normal
>disks?

The few that I've bought have been well worth the cost.  I'm rather
impressed with the stuff that Mobile Fidelity puts out, and some of
what they have you just can't find anywhere else (like the Firesign
Theatre recordings).

My favorite of the "gold" discs is Robert Cray's _Strong Persuader_.
Many of the songs on the original Hightone release don't have a lot
of punch in the recording, and when you compare the two, especially
with an audio spectrum analyzer, you can hear and even see some of
the difference.   The tracks "Smoking Gun" and "Foul Play" have the
most noticeable differences, at least to me .....

>Second, what is the difference between a CD digitally remastered by
>"Ultradisk" and by the company that markets the normal CD?

The duplication process is where you get a significant portion of
the noise in CDs, not in your system's components (unless you have
cheaply made components).  The MFSL guys take the original masters
and massage them (i.e., re-mix them properly, eliminate errors in
the recording, etc.).  I've also never had a problem with an MFSL
CD either, which is more than I can say for some of the Hightone
and other CD's I've purchased .....

>Third, what good is having a gold foil instead of an aluminum one
>(besides allowing the disk to last virtually forever without oxidizing
>if deeply marked)?

I believe the gold foil's pretty much there to make the purchaser feel
like he's getting his money's worth.  Since there's not a whole lot of
gold, it doesn't really add too much to the intrinsic value of the
disk .....

>Fourth, now Ultradisk has come out with the "Ultradisk II".  What is
>the difference?

I've not heard a 20-bit CD player, so I can't really comment on this,
but considering MFSL's process for making excellent CDs, I'd really
like to hear some of these on 20-bit equipment.

>And finally, are Ultradisks worth the two to three times the price
>of the normal CD's?

For me, they are.  A lot of CD music to me is slightly annoying,
mainly because some of the sources used sound like they were made
in wind tunnels.  What these guys do to get the sound like it
should be with CD's is well worth the extra money.  For that
matter, there's quite a bit of other stuff that I'd like to see
these guys put out (Donald Fagen's _The Nightfly_ comes first
to my mind) .....

Anyhow, enjoy the sound ..... Be Seeing You.

chris
---
Chris Cheyney, IBM BAI (MS# 9530)     | The opinions expressed in this
11400 Burnet Rd., Austin TX 78758     | message are independent of IBM.
Internet: csc@malone.austin.ibm.com   |____________________________________
IBM only: csc@e53.austin.ibm.com      | Telephone: +1 512 838 3186

------------------------------
 
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 93 17:57:13 EST
From: jas@proteon.com (John A. Shriver)
Subject: Roger Waters "Amused to Death" LP

Well, I got my copy of "Amused to Death" in four days from Acoustic
Sounds.  It's an English copy, with the records pressed in Holland.
The pressings are very quiet and flat, but only moderately thick.
(Maybe 80-100 grams each, this isn't a HQ-180 pressing!)

The album is not gatefold.  It's just extra thick, and has two LP's in
black sleeves, and a CD-style booklet blown up to 12" square.  (You
can see where they masked out "This Compact Disk...".)  The color
theme is black, including a portrait of Roger in black on black.

The groove modulations are extreme.  When spreading 70 minutes over 4
sides, you have the luxury of lots of room.  They were mastered on
lacquer at The Mastering Lab by Doug Sax and company.

These records aren't going to track on a cheap cartidge.  There are
very deep vertical modulations.  Some of the grooves might be as wide
as 0.5 mm.  I presume this is because some of the loudest bass
excursions are Q-sound encoded, which puts in a lot of out-of-phase
(vertical) information.

The Q-sound definitely works.  There is a periodic television set 4
feet in front of, and 3 feet to the left of, the left speaker.  The
sound stage is much wider than the speakers, more so than a typical
Mercury LP.  The depth isn't really that much deeper than a typical
Mercury recording from Rochester, however.

Among the sound effects is a missile that zooms in and blows up in
your face.  (I won't say when.)  Definitely a good show-off record for
the Stereo.

It is certainly a very clean sounding record, you can tell it's
analog, not digital.  Roger's voice is very clear, in all of it's
gravelly state.  While there are some dramatic sound effects, I don't
find them as varied and precise as "Dark Side of the Moon".

If you have a good turntable and cartidge, you're going to lose
something going to the Sony SBM CD.  The price is just about the same
either way.  (A co-worker paid $30 for the SBM CD.)  Thanks to Waters
for giving us the choice!

As for the music, well, Roger Waters is sticking to his basic "war is
hell" theme.  He picks on the Tienanmen Square massacre, the air raid
on Tripoli, and The Persian Gulf (video game) War.  The idea is that
we've come to the point where wars are a public relations measure for
amusing the TV viewing public.  God is TV, money, corporate greed,
politics, etc.

Some songs are better than others, one is particularly boring.  The
tempo of all the songs is rather similar - a "dramatic" sort of pace.
This grinds after a while.  There is not a lot of variety.  Certainly
less than when he had David Gilmour as a co-conspirator.

The whole thing is very obvious.  When he sings about a cat, you hear
a cat meow.  The plot, the topic, is very obvious.  (By comparison, I
really didn't fully understand the story line of "The Wall" until I
saw the movie.  Of course, I'm not as alienated and misogynistic as
Roger is...)

------------------------------
 
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 09:47:32 EST
From: peterca@ento.csiro.au
Subject: Re:Re: Tuners: Opinions Sought

>I know that there are many fine receivers out there, ones that can make
>the most of the medium (radio), and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this,
>but why would someone spend many hundreds of dollars to accurately
>recreate the distorted, massively compressed, bandwidth limited, stereo
>seperation almost non-existant source that most fm stations supply?
>I mean after all, fm (in the US) is brickwall rolled off at 15 kHz,
>and except for the classical music stations, have a dynamic range of
>about 6 db.  The types of processing used..... I had many "conversations" with 
>the pd and the engineer, my side being we should try for something more
>real, since we could, and their side that we had to be the "loudest station 
>around".  Geez, what's this "loudest" stuff?  
I understand that the marketing people have worked out that as people scan
through the dial they are very much more likely to stay with the "loudest"
station.  However, a radio station license places a maximum signal strength
which you are permitted to broadcast.  To be the loudest you greatly
compress and roll of the bass.  Thus your average volume is as close as
possible to the maximum permitted.  Of course it ruins the sound.  For most
people raised on cheaply reproduced music loudness is the onset of
distortion although they don't recognise it as such.  It is interesting
what happened when I replaced the portable radio in the lab with an NAD
reciever and some OK bookshelf speakers.  I left others to set the volume
to a "reasonable", "not loud" level and the actual volume played was much
louder.   However, the people who felt the old radio was too loud did not
recognise the new system as louder.  

As for bandwidth and FM quality.  I have a fairly decent system with home
built/modified valve/tube amps and very modified Allison one speakers. 
Other sources include a Linn LP12/Ittok/Ortofon MC3000, Nakamichi tape, and
Marantz CD60SE (modified analog stages).  I find that the local pop
stations are lousy but our public broadcaster (the ABC) is at times superb.
 I can readily hear the difference between their direct broadcasts and
recordings, although the latter can be very good, especially their in-house
recordings.  I am not too bothered by  a 15KHz cut off rather than 20KHz. 
Remember this is a log scale so you lose the top third of an octave (three
notes!), not 1/4 of the frequency range.  At 31, I can't hear above 15KHz
anyway.  Objectively, cymbles can really sizzle on a good broadcast so the
top end can't be too bad.  The dynamic range is also very good.  I am a
happy fan of our public broadcaster (and to get political for a moment, I
am worried about whether this quality will survive the new government we
may soon get).  While I'm at it, ABC AM can be remarkably good too inspite
of the top octave missing.  What marvellous tuner do I use to get all this?
 An ancient Heathkit tuner with a very simple circuit which I got for $10
at a garage sale -the best value hifi purchase I ever made.  If you don't
get good radio blame the broadcaster not the technology (unless you have
poor reception of course).

----------------------------------------
Peter Campbell
C/O Div. Entomology, C.S.I.R.O.
Box 1700 Canberra A.C.T. 2601
Australia  (peterca@ento.csiro.au)
Ph.61-6-2464158 (w), 61-6-2516213 (h),
61-6-2464173 (fax)
----------------------------------------

------------------------------
 
From: Roger Hein <roger.hein@canrem.com>
Date: 	Mon, 8 Mar 1993 19:00:00 -0500
Subject: cal cd players

Norman,
I own a CAL Icon and love it.  I'm from the old school of LP's having 
owned or used several good turntables (LP-12, VPI, etc.) in the past.  I 
took a break from audio when CD's came out because I was so peed-off with 
the sound and because Classical material (What I mostly listen to.)  was 
one of the first to go totally CD.

I had a brief encounter with things like the highly recommended Rotel and 
Meridian but found them all to be somewhat aggressive in tonal quality and 
detail.

I've never had a problem with the product.

Good Luck,
Roger...

---
 * Freddie 1.2.5 * The first full-featured QWK reader for the Mac.
--
Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
416-629-7000/629-7044

------------------------------
 
From: tuba4@camelot.bradley.edu (Russell Shartzer)
Subject: READ THIS...MY LIFE DEPENDS ON IT!!!
Date: 10 Mar 93 05:36:00 GMT

Now that I have your attention...

I have some okay (okay shity) stereo equipment.  For everything that it
does and I don't like I really don't know what I would do without it.  I am
a music major and I constantly listen to it.

Well my small fridge kicks on and off and sends a surge throughout my room.
It is not enough to disturb the lights or t.v. but it does come through the
receiver...is there anything I should do for this or am I just sweating
something small?

Thanks guys,    
Rusty Shartzer
Tuba4@camelot.bradley.edu

------------------------------
 
From: slinnero@NMSU.edu (Linnerooth, Steven T.)
Subject: Hafler?
Date: 10 Mar 1993 10:04:21 GMT

Has anyone out there heard of Hafler audiophile products?  I saw
one component in a store once, (in "hammered aluminum" finish)
and judging from where it was, I think it was VERY expensive.
How good is Hafler, and where is it made?
--
                                           -Steve Linnerooth
                                            slinnero@nmsu.edu

------------------------------
 
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 09:19:30 EST
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: FM

Why is it worth spending the money on a good FM tuner when most of the
FM stations out there are clipped and compressed beyond recognition?  The
answer is because not all of them are.  If there is one station in your
area with good sound that you enjoy listening to, then by all means go
and buy a quality tuner.

FM sound quality can be very good, although it's usually not.  Still,
there are quite a few smaller stations out there that really do care about
sound quality, and do go out of their way to provide good sound for their
listeners.  I live in a town with two radio stations, an AM and also an
FM station, and the difference in sound quality when I leave town and drive
up to a major market is incredible... the distortion on some of the major
market stations is awful.

So, I just don't listen to them.  That's the great thing about a tuner:
it's tunable.  If you don't like the garbage, then don't listen to it.
And be sure to call up the station and tell them why you aren't listening
to it.
--scott
   (an engineer at a station with no compression and only moderate limiting,
    whose ex-girlfriend is an engineer at a station with three racks worth
    of processing gear)

------------------------------
 
From: deastman@vnet.ibm.com (Don Eastman)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 06:31:43 PST
Subject:  Elightened Audio Designs DSP-7000 DAC

If there is anyone who can comment pro/con about the DSP-7000 DAC, I would
appreciate hearing from them.  I have read the review in Stereophile, but
it differs significantly from the review in TAS.  I know, listen for yourself.
Actually, I have one at home right now.  I would like to get some other
opinions to see how they compare to mine.

Thanks, Don
 =======================================================================
|           Don Eastman            |   INTERNET: deastman@vnet.ibm.com  |
|           IBM  ADSTAR            |     BITNET: deastman@vnet.bitnet   |
|       San Jose, CA. 95193        |        FAX: (408) 256-7221         |
 =======================================================================

------------------------------
 
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 10:07 EST
From: Skip Osborne <osborne@software.org>
Subject: Re: Utradisk CD's??? Are they really better???

	There's a quick check you can do to find out if the level of
difference in fancier CDs is audible in your system and/or
worth it to you. Buy a much cheaper (~$9- $10) Mercury Living Presence
CD to suit your taste. Play it. If the better soundstaging, mids,
ambience, etc., are not a big deal to you, don't pay more money for a
disk with similar properties...or fewer.

	Many lines of CDs are starting to come out with big, easily
audible improvement over the older CDs. "Perfect Sound
Forever"...yeah... Apart from the Mercuries, which in my experience are
uniformly excellent, Sony has improved their mastering process (called
"Super Bit Mapping"). RCA is trying to do their old Shaded Dog LPs
justice ("Living Stereo" CDs...resurrecting an old name as did
Mercury/Phillips) with a much better remastering process. The
audiophile label, Reference Recordings, puts out wonderful recordings -
and are now exploring a "High-Definition CD" compatible encoding
scheme. Listen to RR's "Testament", minus any decoder, for beautifully
recorded choral sound.  Must be a real heller with a decoder....

	All of these efforts are available at standard prices, or (RCA
and Mercury, some Sony) midprice. All represent significant
improvement over earlier CDs of the same original master. For instance:
the RCA Living Stereo sampler starts with Reiner's performance of
'Dawn' (2001 theme) from Also Sprach Zarasthustra. You Will Not Believe
the quality of the stereo orchestral production.  And, it's from 1954!

	I have some of Mobile Fidelity's LPs - they did a great job of
remastering them from the originals, so I presume that their
CDs will also show that they do a careful job. However, nobody else is
charging a premium for fine quality, this year.

	You should buy based on the musical content - given that
audiophile-quality disks seem to be coming into fashion. And
for that, thank you, Wilma Cozart Fine, thank you very much.
 
Skip Osborne
Software Productivity Consortium
Herndon VA 22070

------------------------------
 
From: Doug_Steinfeld@vos.stratus.com
Subject: Re: Hafler?
Date: 10 Mar 1993 16:30:56 GMT

In article <1nkruaINNqsr@uwm.edu> slinnero@NMSU.edu (Linnerooth, Steven T.)
writes:
>Has anyone out there heard of Hafler audiophile products?  I saw
>one component in a store once, (in "hammered aluminum" finish)
>and judging from where it was, I think it was VERY expensive.
>How good is Hafler, and where is it made?
>--
>                                           -Steve Linnerooth
>                                            slinnero@nmsu.edu
>
My recent query to the net yielded:

	HAFLER, a division of Rockford Corporation
	613 South Rockford Drive
	Tempe, Arizona 85281
	602-967-3565

I was looking for parts & service, not new products, but I'm sure they can send
some literature.  Since I own pre-Rockford Corp. stuff, I can't comment on
their current products.

Doug

------------------------------
 
From: ST002560@brownvm.brown.edu ()
Subject: Speaker Question
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 11:40:45 EST

Has anyone heard of Digital Research?  I've seen a set of their speakers and wa
nt to find out more about them.  Thanks, Dan.

------------------------------
 
From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Subject: Re: System warmup...
Date: 10 Mar 93 18:01:18 GMT

In article <1n7louINNgqf@uwm.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:

>	I thought this was hilarious, so I'll pass it along.
	
>	I recently invited one of my physic's major buddies over to my dorm 
>room to study. When we walked into my room, he noticed that I had left my 
>reciever/CD player/Subwoofer one. And, he made some flipiant joke about me 
>going senial. I told him matter of factly, that I find the sound improves if 
>they have been left on for several hours. He told me that was ridiculous, 
>and it was just mystisism on my part. I sort of left it at that.

>	Well, in our physics lab, we just starting working with the LeCroy
>9310 Digital scopes. In the instruction manual, it recommends warming up the 
>scope at least 4 hours for best accuracy.

>	I almost died laughing as I pointed it out to him...

	
You are the one that I am laughing at!  Comparing precision test
equipment operation with that of a reciever HA!!! :-).

On a regular basis I "warm up" my studio equipment before a session.
I know of people who leave all of their studio equipment on all of the
time!  I choose not to based on the cost of the electricity and fire
danger.

Now on to a stereo reciever.  I don't believe that your practice will
net much more then a psychological benefit, and I don't dispute that
that is a good enough reason should you choose. There is a good reason to
warm up equipment but the net effect will be small.

The good reason for warming up equipment is so that all of the
electronic components will be at a nominal operation temperature and
all offsets will be normalized.

Precision test equipment is warmed up fot the same reasons but with a
measureable result.  I use the term measurable in this forum with
caution.  I am not after a Holy War on audiblity vs. measurability!

I _am_ planning a research project and paper on that topic!

-- 
Chris Christensen                  The opinions I express are my own,
chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com            and sometimes they are wrong!
916-478-3419 FAX 916-478-3887      After all, I *AM* only human.

------------------------------
 
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 10:49:01 PST
From: mcmillen@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Mark McMillen)
Subject: Roger Waters

I got that import from a record store around here that deals in imports.

They got 30 bucks out of me, too.  You're in for a treat, sonically.

Its done in Q-sound, you know so if your system is set up properly you 
get a lot of effects way off to the side.  My friend swears he can hear
the genie like he is standing three feet off the left of the listening
position, but I have yet to hear this effect.

Musically?  Too damn much TV in the background, but I really enjoy a lot
of the tracks.

--Mark

------------------------------
 
From: dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt)
Subject: Re: CAL CD Players
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 18:45:38 GMT

In article <1nfl7iINNmh2@uwm.edu> apctrc!znpt01@uunet.UU.NET (Norman P. Tracy) writes:

>When service is required CAL is very responsive to customers, often bringing
>the player up to latest spec. for no charge.

I can confirm this from firsthand experience.  My original CAL Icon
developed a noisy door mechanism about a month after the warranty
expired, and was having problems tracking a couple of discs.  I called
the factory and spoke to the factory manager, and he said "I'm not going
to deny you support over a matter of a month or so."  We discussed the
problems I had been having.  He instructed me to take the Icon back to
my dealer and ask them to ship it to the factory.  A couple of weeks
later the player was returned, with [1] the noisy door mechanism fixed,
[2] new emitter-drive circuitry installed in the tracking servos, and
[3] a completely new front-panel display/control with an improved
remote-control receiver module installed.  The unit had been completely
recalibrated for proper tracking.

All at no charge.

I've rarely had such excellent service, above and beyond the call of
duty.

-- 
Dave Platt                                                VOICE: (415) 813-8917
              Domain: dplatt@ntg.com      UUCP: ...netcomsv!ntg!dplatt
 USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2470 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303

------------------------------
 
From: leapman@junior.austin.ibm.com ()
Subject: Info Wanted: Integrated Amps/Receivers
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 19:36:47 GMT

A few days ago I posted a request for purchasing information for high-end
integrated amplifiers and tuners, or receivers.  Since I haven't seen this
posting, I'm not sure if it ever made it to the public access area.  If it
has, please disregard this, otherwise, please post any and all information
regarding integrated amps and tuners, or receivers in the $1500 to $2000
price range.  I've already looked at Onkyo, Denon, and Yamaha models, and the
Yamaha DSP- A1000 is rather impressive.  I require Dolby Pro-Logic and
S-Video inputs.

Thanks for the helpful info.

------------------------------
 
From: Andy Sheen <sheen@src.bae.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 12:37:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Low price interconnect & cable

shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline) said:

> Why is it that, when you challenge someone to the testability of hearing
> differences between cables, that you get all of these excuses about how the
> effects are subtle, and that the testing anxiety destroys the ability to
> listen properly, etc., etc. -- but the next moment you turn around the
> golden-eared cable connoisseurs have got a whole line-up of overblown
> adjectives to make the differences sound like night and day?

> Either:

> 1) The differences are there, but subtle, and would be difficult to test in
> order to distinguish from imagined differences

> ...or...

> 2) The differences are glaring, and it should be awfully easy to blind-test
> the claims made for certain cables.

> It doesn't seem to me that you can have it both ways.

I think this is an extreme view. For any two cable sets there is either
going to be a "glaring" difference or a "subtle" difference (or indeed,
none at all); but it'll depend on the two cable sets compared. Now, I am not a
golden eared cable connoisseur - my ear gets used to systems very quickly -
but I would claim to be able to hear a difference between *certain* sets of
cables; most of the cables I have tried sounded different to me, but some
did not. I also haven't tested a wide variety of cables since, until a few
years ago, I couldn't justify the expense of a hi-fi (rather than a low-fi)
let alone a new set of cables. I'm quite prepared to try some double blind
testing if you want, but finding someone who is interested enough to spend
time do it might prove to be a toughie - my wife certainly isn't!!

I know cabling makes a difference at higher frequencies <100k, I've seen
gross distortions myself on an oscilloscope so why not at a lower frequency
but at much reduced distortion levels. I also know that just because you
measure something it doesn't necessarily mean that it is exactly that since
your measuring instrument could be deficient or you could be looking at the
wrong thing. It is also perfectly possible (I'm out on a limb here, so no
flames please) that what you hear depends on other information in the
surroundings and not on single frequencies. This is certainly the case for
vision (Land and his colour constancy experiments form the 40's and 50's)
so why not for hearing ? People have claimed, and in length on this list,
that the human ear is a very fine measuring instrument (I've seen claims in
the thread about DAC's that people can hear differences in timing in the
picosecond range).

I have experience with both my close family and friends saying there was an
audible difference in cables - none of these are anything like audiophiles
and in many cases didn't even know what was being done to the system. The
same people have heard differences in power cables - something I was
extremely dubious about until I heard it.

If you don't believe there is a difference then thats up to you.  I am quite
happy to spend a few hours or so trying things out - it's a hobby for me.
The new cable isn't the best thing since sliced bread but I do find
it interesting that different cables can (in my view) affect the sound.

Why resort to specmanship. I don't (try not to) buy hi-fi on specs but on
what it sounds like. The same goes for cabling; if I can't hear a
difference I don't buy.

As to the adjectives, one mans slight is anothers massive; its all
relative.

> -Kerry

Happy listening.

Andy

------------------------------
 
From: rcm@col.hp.com (hpctdfc)
Subject: Re: Hafler?
Date: 10 Mar 1993 21:01:09 GMT

slinnero@NMSU.edu (Linnerooth, Steven T.) writes:
> Has anyone out there heard of Hafler audiophile products?  I saw
> one component in a store once, (in "hammered aluminum" finish)
> and judging from where it was, I think it was VERY expensive.
> How good is Hafler, and where is it made?

I own two Hafler amps (DH200) and a Hafler pre-amp (not the original
model, the next generation).  They are NOT expensive, and can be
had in kit form if you are electronically inclined.  I built all
three of my Hafler components from kits.  Dave Hafler sold the company
to some outfit out of Arizona, I think, and I don't know if they still
do kits anymore.  Stock, they sound pretty good, and are some of the
few amps on the market that are easily modifiable by their owner.  You
can install higher quality coupling capacitors, etc. if you want to,
to improve the sound somewhat.  A few companies also make upgrade kits
for the older Haflers (don't know about the new stuff).


------------------------------
                                        
        Info-High-Audio-Digest is published at irregular intervals from 
         CSD4.CSD.UWM.EDU and various redistribution sites across the 
        world. The contents of Info-High-Audio-Digest are copyright (C) 
          1993 by the individual authors and may be reproduced only by
       permission of the author of a specific article or by the moderator.
                                        
          To receive Info-High-Audio-Digest, send electronic mail to:
                                        
                   Info-High-Audio-Request@CSD4.CSD.UWM.EDU
                                        
         To submit an article for publication, send electronic mail to:
                                        
                      Info-High-Audio@CSD4.CSD.UWM.EDU
                                        
  The purpose of  Info-High-Audio-Digest is to provide a forum for those who 
  enjoy audio "on the fringe". Novice audiophiles are welcome to participate 
  by asking questions which may be answered by more experienced participants 
  in the field of high-end audio. Exchange of projects, ideas, recording and 
  performance reviews are also welcome.

  Info-High-Audio is available in the USENET newsgroup rec.audio.high-end.
                                        

End of Info-High-Audio Digest
*****************************
 