Empeg on a HiFi stereo system

So, I'm hoping somebody has a similar situation and can offer some advice.

I have a pretty nice stereo system (Rotel Preamp and Amp with Tannoy speakers), and when I hook my Empeg up to it, it sounds like crap. If I set the Empeg volume to 0db and turn off all the EQ, I get MAJOR distortion. Even on Tori Amos! I have to turn the volume down to approximately -30db, and then I have to turn all the EQs down to like -10. This of course requires me to turn the volume of the preamp much higher...but at least it's a somewhat cleaner sound.

Even the .WAV file I put on the empeg sounded completely horrible compared to the CD through the system. I admit, the CD is playing on my DVD player via digital coax, and the Empeg with it's RCA outs can't compete...but it shouldn't sound as horrible as it does. I really want to use my Empeg more at home, but the sound is just bad.

Any suggestions on settings that I should try? Or will it just sound horrible due to the high quality of everything else in the system?

horrible in what way? white noise, compression warbling, lost highs/lows?

Or will it just sound horrible due to the high quality of everything else in the system?

Shouldn't do. Sounds like something is wrong somewhere. You haven't accidentally plugged empeg into a phono-equalised input on the preamp, have you?

Peter

I have my empeg connected to my NAD component system and it sounds basically the same as the original CDs. I have my empeg set to 0db, with the default EQ settings.

I have experienced this before. let me dig up the old thread with suggestions...

EDIT: Here it is

A phono (turntable) level input would be my best guess as well as those levels are much lower than line. My empeg is also as clear as CD for well-ripped tracks. The home stereo does a nice job of showing up lower-bitrate tracks though, as it's a bit quieter in my living room than my Subaru.

-Zeke

You haven't accidentally plugged empeg into a phono-equalised input on the preamp, have you?

Heh...I guess this is a common problem? I didn't realize that the Phono input was any different than another input. It just happened to be the only input I had open.

What exactly is different between the phono input and an AUX input?

NO NO! Never plug anything but a phonograph into the phono input! It is far more sensitive and set up to receive low level (not line level) input signals. It usually offers a ground as well.

Different levels (much lower as it's meant to take the input from a grammophone pick-up) and, IIRC, some equalising is done on the input too... Might be more, that I've forgotten...

Edit: s/input/output/

/Michael

Heh...I guess this is a common problem?

Calling Mr Faqbris...

What exactly is different between the phono input and an AUX input?

Phono(-graph) inputs are designed to be driven directly from the very weak signals produced in a record player's cartridge. AUX, or line-level, inputs are designed for much stronger signals.

Peter

If I 'm not mistaking the phono input does some pre-amping of it's own. So it's possible to blow that channel (or your entire amp) if you connect anything other than a phono to it. At least that's what they've always told me. Could be wrong though...
But this I'm sure : connecting anything other than a phono to a phono input = BAD!

Yes, probably amplifying it up to normal line level so that further "in" there's no difference between signals (as well as equalising it... RIAA-curve/equalising rings a faint bell somewhere in the fog of my brain)

/Michael

Cool...Now I just have to figure out how to connect it up with everything else. I think I might be able to share a Video in with something that is only using the video connector, but has open audio connectors.

Maybe I just have too much audio/video equipment?

One never has too much A/V equipment, only too few inputs!

Calling Mr Faqbris...

Okay, okay, okay, I'll put it in there. Should have been put into the owner's manual, though.

Should have been put into the owner's manual, though.

I bet the special properties of the phono input are mentioned in the pre-amp's owner's manual...

Peter

Seeing as you probably solved your problem, let us know how it sounds on the Rotel/Tannoy setup.

I've had the opportunity to compare the Empeg against the Ah!Toejb 4000 (tube based CD player) via A/B tests and found it to be essentially on par quality wise. Without going into too much detail, the empeg is slightly over-analytical to the point of harshness, but makes it back up with its tremendously near blank noise floor. In comparison, the tubed CD player has a large noise floor, due to the tubes, but a sweeter high end. Midrange is actually about equivalent to each other. The tube amped CD player has a 5V out, and the empeg has a 1V out (in home mode). The tube guys I've talked to indicated that the tremendously higher noise floor would not be as apparant if the tube player was recalibrated to 1V in fairness. This does leave me wondering how much dynamic detail has been sacraficed by running the empeg in 1V mode. *shrug*

I also had the opportunity to run the empeg through the paces on a SET (single ended tube) amp hooked up to a set of ESD electrostatic speakers. In this configuration I was able to compare the empeg with a nice vinyl record player. If you guys ever have the opportunity to do this, DO NOT DO IT. The empeg sounds like utter garbage. You'll be bowled over by how weak and unrealistic the empeg sounds compared to a record. A vinyl record with pops and hisses but presence so real that you give up and turn the empeg off.

So without going into immense detail, I'd say the empeg is audiophile quality in the price range of $500-$1500 source equipment.

Calvin "musings"

I bet the special properties of the phono input are mentioned in the pre-amp's owner's manual...

Good point.

I was able to compare the empeg with a nice vinyl record player.

The cost of the vinyl player was...?
I'll bet that you have to pay a few dollars extra to get that sort of quality. My old direct drive turntable certainly wouldn't compete with the empeg.

When I was shopping for my system, I listened to a bunch of different configurations.

The best had to be the $100,000 or more system. The speakers alone were $80,000, each having their own amplifier. The speaker cables were $8,000 a piece. They were hand-woven and about 3-4 in. in diameter. There was a CD player with separate DAC. I listened to my Afro Celt Sound System CD on it and was blown away. Also listened to some Opera. The soundstage was pretty unbelieveable. I was then kicked out so another guy could listen to a Beatles vinyl on it. Audiophiles...

When it comes down to it, my $2500 system (not including Home Theater) sounds pretty damn good, though. Audio equipment follows the rule of diminishing returns...

One never has too much A/V equipment, only too few inputs!

I guess I'll probably have to agree with you on that. I actually wouldn't have had this problem if I could hook my current LP to my system. Unfortunately, it's kind of built into my older system (Pioneer rack system), so it has a weird power plug. I'll probably end up buying a used one to hook up. I enjoy my vinyl, but I don't have tons of it.

The speaker cables were $8,000 apiece. They were hand-woven and about 3-4 in. in diameter.

Can somebody explain to me how the composition and/or size of a speaker wire can possibly have an effect on the sound the speaker produces, assuming the wires in question are of sufficient size to carry the electrical load? Perhaps a six-foot diameter speaker in a football stadium would consume enough electricity to require something larger than standard $0.85 cents/foot speaker wiring... but I cannot believe that a normal home system would.

Has anybody ever done double-blind tests comparing speaker wires? I have to think that anybody who claims to be able to hear the difference in speaker wires is just fooling himself.

tanstaafl.

Can somebody explain to me how the composition and/or size of a speaker wire can possibly have an effect on the sound the speaker produces

I don't really get it either. I've only used crappy wire vs. Monster cable and can't tell the difference. I saw this guy's site and I'm gonna try to make some of my own (I have a bunch of RG-6 doing nothing).

I believe it's something to do with the Eddy currents that are set up in the wires distorting the waveform or something like that. I'm with you on whether anyone can actually hear the difference though.

I'd discuss that question with you, Doug, but I make it a point not to discuss religion.

I say you can tell the difference between cables but as with all hi-fi its diminishing returns and has to be kept in perspective.

I COULD tell the difference when the left speaker was wired with different cable to the right. I didn't buy enough cable to complete the job properly. Both 'Budget' cables, but sounded different. Not radically, but I could certainly tell and was much happier when it was nicely balanced with the same type of cable.

$8000 speaker cable? Oy vey!

This is the wonder of digital. Bits is bits. As long as the bits get from here to there, you don't care about the distortion. That's why I was perfectly happy buying the $10 generic optical digital interconnect vs. the $40 Monster optical interconnect. If it works, then it works.

At the point where you're willing to spend $8000 on cables, there are so many other things you can spend that same money on and get significantly better sonic bang for your buck. For $8000 you could do some serious treatment to your room: window drapes, rugs, or even ugly sound-absorbing foam. If you want to go nuts, you can replace your dry-wall with magic sound-absorbing wall construction.

I wouldn't think of going beyond generic heavy-gauge household 120V electrical wiring for speakers until I had already spent the big bucks on making my room sound good. And, since I'm not interested in rebuilding my house around my stereo (no, that's for the next house ), I don't see the point in buying esoteric high-end gear. The odd angles and other acoustically-lacking architectural features of my house will kill any benefit that I might have maybe observed from gourmet cabling...

Here's a rundown of the system that I listened to...although it looks like they swapped out the speakers.

http://www.stereodesign.com/tour/room1.htm

I had this problem too when I first hooked my Empeg up to my Meridian system. What it turned out to be was that the Empeg outputs 1v on the RCA outputs. When I configured the Meridian system to accept 1v inputs...it works great...although...if I BOOST any of the EQ bands then it does some nasty digital clipping somewhere in the chain... but I'm usually careful to only cut with the EQ, never boost. I used it for a New Years eve party and cranked music all night no problems once I was setup for 1v inputs.

For your system, you may need to get a small voltage matching in-line device to make the line voltage levels match up. Possibly your system at home is 4v, which seems more common. My meridian was set to 2.5v and it was still distorting VERY badly until I set it up for 1v inputs.

Ok, so I hooked up the empeg through a line-level input (CD, since I have a DVD/CD combo). Wow, all the distortion went away. In my defense, though, the manual mentions nothing of the phono input being amplified. But, Rotel is pretty barebones when it comes to their documentation.

Here's my thoughts on some listening tests:
I put the original WAV as well as a LAME VBR version on the player. I also put the CD into my DVD player. I started the empeg and the CD at the same time so that I could flip back and forth.

I have to be honest when I say the empeg doesn't compare. The empeg (playing the .WAV file) sounded way flat compared to the CD. Dynamic range was significantly better from the CD. Everything sounded crisper and cleaner. The VBR file sounded exactly like the .WAV file, and the compression was approximately 7:1.

But, I think it's somewhat unfair to compare the empeg which is using regular old RCA interconnects to my DVD player which is using digital coax and has a 96khz 24-bit D/A converter.

So, I stopped comparing the two and decided to listen to the empeg. Ignoring everything else, the empeg sounds great! I'd compare the quality to what the CD sounds like on my Pioneer system. No distortion or clipping. I think you really need to sit down and listen really carefully to hear any noticeable degradation of the sound. Since I don't normally do this, I'm perfectly happy with the sound of the empeg.

So, in conclusion, part of the problem of having a good stereo system is that you tend to notice the inferiority of other products. I in no way mean to say that the empeg is a shoddy product. Merely that I tend to notice things on my system, like which CDs were produced well, and which were done in a cheap studio. And, although I'm sure we all would love to have an empeg with optical out and whatnot, it's more than advanced since its main objective is to play a lossy compression scheme.

Hope none of this came across poorly. Just observations.

I agree with you about the Empeg sounding a bit "dead". I have been told that its by design for it to sound flat...but I think it sounds flatter than flat. I think it sounds kinda dead...and I haven't been able to make it more lively with any EQ'ing. I don't think it has anything to do with the MP3's. I think it simply has to do with the quality of the analog outputs on the Empeg. I also have a very high end home stereo system, so anything that isn't brilliant is immediately noticeable. I did A-B tests with my CD player playing the same track...and there was definitely a noticeable difference.

All that being said...my friends all think it sounds positively great when I play the Empeg through my home system (they aren't being exposed to the A-B test) and the fact is...that even though it sounds a little dead when comparing to digital optical connection from CD player...it still sounds perfectly fine for listening and I use it all the time with no complaints.

Some day I will be able to get an MP3 player with digital outs and then all will be even better. For now, the sheer convenience of pulling my Empeg into the house and playing my playlists for parties is unbelievably cool. I can live with the sound being a tad bit "dead".

You said exactly what I was trying to say. "Dead" about sums it up. But, as long as I don't do A-B tests, it sounds great.

As for MP3 players with digital out, I know the Turtle Beach Audiotron has Toslink out. I'm curious how good it sounds. And since almost everybody here has all the MP3s that are on their empeg on a PC somewhere, it's no big deal to point the Audiotron to the PC.

There's also the Stereo Link 1200, which doesn't have optical out, but supposedly has some high-quality equipment in it, as well as some nice reviews.

I'd be curious to test out both of these and see how they sound. Anybody here used one of them?

As for MP3 players with digital out

The HSX-109 has optical digital out. The Rio Reciever doesn't (shame), but it does have "some high-quality equipment in it".

Peter

The freaky thing is sometimes with a good system, the sound is SO good it sounds better than Live music! :-D ;*)

Calvin

The swapped in speakers (ESL) are the ones I auditioned the empeg in that made it sound so bad... :-D

Calvin

Except for optical cable, to an extent even a digital signal on a copper wire is susceptible to noise. If the signal is uni-directional noise in the signal will corrupt the output. If the toslink was bi-directional in the sense that when an error is detected it sends back a request for retransmission of the affected bits, then there would be little disruption and distortion but this is not the case AFAIK.

I've used 120V electrical wiring for speakers and for the most part it is fine. However, 120V electrical wiring is stranded and there are air gaps in the stranding that could create problems in the signal.

Calvin

Typically with longer distances, you want to go with XLR type interconnects. The XLR interconnects work like Ethernet cabling -- it takes a signal, and sends the signal plus an inverted copy of it down the line, and upon receipt of the signal it can filter out common noise.

For shorter distances and analog, the composition of a shielded versus unshielded wire makes a difference. The connectors make a difference -- is it locking versus non-locking? Is it made of a corrodable sustance? Is the cable susceptible to crimping or internal breakage? If it is bent will it fray internally? if it is made of a solid metallic substance, how susceptible is it to skin effects? higher currents tend to travel along the skin of a wire, the bigger the cross section the more likely the electrons will move to the skin of the wire. Different frequencies travel in different depths, and the composition (how pure is the substance?) of the internal parts of the wire can affect the arrival times of the frequencies. I think to an extent there is a difference of quality between a 10 cent wire and a $80 cable, the quality of the connectors, the quality of construction, the weave of the strands (prevents skin effects), and so on. As you approach the $8000 range, I think the law of diminishing results come into play.

Calvin

By your own admission you are comparing apples with pears. It would have been fairer to connect both the CD Player and the Empeg to the amp using RCA cables? I mean it's obvious that digital out is far superior to anologue, as long as the AMPS DAC is good. But then so is only ever plugging phono equipment into the phono stage of an amplifier.

Reminds me of my friend who somehow managed to mix up the speaker wires with the mains power wires into his expensive NAD amplifier. Guess what happened next?

Did it involve smoke? or big blue flash.

Speaking of which next time an AOL cd drops through your door micowave it for 3 seconds with silver side up. way cool probably not safe though.

Empeg sounds Dead

Okay i will admit it isn't the best sounding unit out there but it compares well with other car stereo units. I have heard about the best car unit around (alpine 9809) and the empeg through the same stereo and the alpine sounded way better but the cost more than an empeg and are only a cd player and a tuner.

But stick them in a big tin box with long lengths of interconnects and bolt lots of spinning vibrating machinery to the tin box.and i will be buggered if you could tell the difference. The empeg ain't about sound quality it is about a totally different way f listening to music and to that end it thrashes anything else out there.

You remember that bit at the beginning of Back to the Future, where Michael J Fox is mucking about with a huge amp that he whacks all the way up and hooks up a guitar? And then he strikes a string? Yeah, it was like that.

The freaky thing is sometimes with a good system, the sound is SO good it sounds better than Live music! :-D ;*)

Actually, it should almost always sound better than Live music. Take a studio-created song, with dozens of re-takes, a sound engineer to equalize and re-master it, and a quarter-million dollars worth of recording equipment, and compare it to some poor guy on stage in a room with terrible acoustics and people shuffling and talking in the audience, playing through $1200 worth of amplifiers and the house speakers.... which do you think is going to sound better?

Best example I can think of is to compare the three songs in common between "Exit Stage Left" and "Moving Pictures" by Rush. The "Live" performance is miserable by comparison.

tanstaafl.

Best example I can think of is to compare the three songs in common between "Exit Stage Left" and "Moving Pictures" by Rush. The "Live" performance is miserable by comparison.

Hmm that's kind of a poor example because Exit... Stage Left is a *horribly* produced and mastered album. I don't know if the original recording stunk as well, but something went horribly wrong in the process of getting the live recording onto a CD. There are much better live albums, including Rush's own "Different Stages."

On the other hand I *love* the versions of La Villa Strangiato and The Trees on ESL. Those weren't part of the comparison you made above, but despite the lack-luster production/recording quality, those songs make ESL worth owning.

Exit... Stage Left is a *horribly* produced and mastered album.

I agree with you so much on that point that ESL is the only Rush album I have that is not in my empeg. And keep in mind that Rush is virtually the only rock music I have. (Well, Tony made me get Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon") He keeps sending me snippets of music that he likes, and I keep sending him snippets of music that I like. I keep the ones he sends me in a playlist called "STSMTIDTIL" (Songs Tony Sent Me That I Don't Think I Like). He tells me he has a very similar playlist in his empeg, called "Classical".

On the other hand I *love* the versions of La Villa Strangiato and The Trees on ESL

I love "La Villa" so much that I don't care for the ESL performance of it. Even the difference between "Hemispheres" and the re-mastered "Hemispheres" performances of La Villa are such that I took the original version off my player and keep only the re-master. If you don't have the re-mastered "Hemispheres" you owe it to yourself to get it. After listening to it, the original is like listening to them play in a closed room across the hall.

tanstaafl.

It's ironic how awful ESL sounds, because my long-time Rush fan friends say that the Moving Pictures tour was the one where they sounded best in person.

As far as comparing live performances with studio performances, It's painful for me to do that when listening to Rush. They are such amazing technicians that I think they're forced to work too hard when playing live. Most of their live performances, despite being technically perfect, don't have the "fun" energy of other live performances I can think of. And this is coming from a die-hard fan who's never missed a concert since the Power Windows tour.

Most live recordings are genuinely fun to listen to if you're familiar with the artist. There's a certain exuberance that just doesn't happen in the studio. Peter Gabriel's "Secret World", Tori Amos' "To Venus and Back", even Pink Floyd's "Delicate Sound of Thunder" all have this quality. The technical details of a live recording may be sub-par, but there's always something about the performance itself that I like. Rush, on the other hand, always gives me the feeling that I'm listening to them work rather than listening to them have fun.

IIRC, RIAA equalization had to do with the fact that ancient crystal (or ceramic) piezzoelectric pickups had output proportional to needle deflection, while modern dynamic (coil in magnetic field) pickups generate (much weaker) signal proportional to needle's speed. I don't remember whether vinyl record production process compensates for former or later.

Any self-respecting audiophile has separate external phono preamp

Calvin, come on, we are talking few hundred kilobits per second, probably at TTL levels, over a coax! If the cable is very long, then capacitance could become a problem, much sooner than attenuation or noise. As long as the signal looks decent enough that clocks can be kept in sync and noise is a couple of dB below the signal, you will get exactly the same result as with the highest quality optical fiber (or some hypotetical error-correcting protocol).

As for $8.000 cables: whoever has read a single book on experimental perceptive psychology (or has any experience in conducting experiments or observations with a subjective component in them) understands that any test similar to comparison of high-end Hi-Fi gear is absolutely useless unless it is double-blind. Mere A/B is not enough. Hi-Fi magazine writers who harangue against objective testing are either morons or frauds.

What is often neglected is quality of source. Analog vinyl record production techniques had reached very high level in their last years. CDs are (still) often slapped together by less than competent audio-engineers and post-producers (because of deceiving ease with which 'anybody' can tweak a recording using even a $500 PC program). Introduce, for example, a bit too much of phase distortion, and sound image or 'presence' is gone. Even an abrupt piece of 'digital silence' before and after 'concert hall silence' between two movements can be enough to ruin the experience. None of this is inherent problem of CDs.

(It is bad that it is very difficult to conduct double-blind tests between vinyl and CD, as vinyl is always easy to tell by lower dynamic range, clicks and hiss )

BTW, I have read here that empeg sounds 'dead', but also 'over-analytical' and 'harsh'. To me that sounds contradictory, but that could be due to terminology. Care to elaborate?

I mean it's obvious that digital out is far superior to anologue, as long as the AMPS DAC is good.

Not that obvious. I mean, plasma torch is superior cutting tool to an ax, which in turn is superior to kitchen knife, but if we just have to open a letter, all three are overkill and the first two actually won't do the job.

Over the typical distance, in relatively noise-free environment and with firm relatively oxide-free cable contacts digital vs. RCA will only show difference in DACs. (Which, of course, means that you are right and we should test both over RCAs unless we *want* to compare amp DAC to the one in empeg,)

They're not contradictory terms.

Dead == That means it sounds very very flat across the whole range of frequencies.

Analytical/Harshness == An incredible amount of detail. Details in the music are represented so clearly, so precisely, that it (potentially) ruins the experience.

Vinyl recordings tend to be noisy, but there is something in the midrange that I can not duplicate that creates a sense of presence and warmth. When you hear a good vinyl recording on very good equipment, it sounds rich, not so much like you are there, but it sounds like music. You can crank up the volume on the empeg and not duplicate this. I tried using the EQ to warm the music up and can not duplicate this.

Some people of course, like an analytical sound. But it is less enjoyable to listen to.

The toslink cables don't have a clock signal. The receiving end makes intelligent guesses. ;-) Not a big deal really. -- The point I'm putting forth is it is possible to interfere with a digtal signal on a metal cable, while it is not easy to mess up the same signal on an optical medium.

As for the value of $8000 cables--like I said, there is a point of diminishing returns. Psychology aside, below the point of diminishing returns the quality, features and construction differences can be discerned.

Calvin

Some people of course, like an analytical sound. But it is less enjoyable to listen to.

Obviously, it is *more* enjoyable to listen to for those who like it

OK, I think I understand (the words), but I am not quite sure I can imagine 'too much detail' in totaly flat sound (that is, if it is genuine detail and not artifact of extreme nonlinearity). My reference when listening to a record is original unamplified sound in a good concert hall (where aplicable ) I will have to try and find something familiar that a respectfull house has published on both vinyl and CD from the same masters, and compare. (Note, please, that here my double-blind criterion does not apply: I just try to find out what I *like* more, not what is 'better' by any other definition.) Any suggestions?

The toslink cables don't have a clock signal. The receiving end makes intelligent guesses. ;-) Not a big deal really. -- The point I'm putting forth is it is possible to interfere with a digtal signal on a metal cable, while it is not easy to mess up the same signal on an optical medium.

I know it doesn't have a clock signal. I certainly hope that this 'intelligent guess' is PLL or something equivalent. I wanted to say that it takes 'very' deformed (or drowned in noise) signal to throw the PLL off the balance or confuse input buffers to DAC. Glass fibre (not to mention plastic) also introduces noise and deforms the signal (mostly owing to dispersion - the same effect responsible for chromatic abberation in lenses). Granted, it is not susceptible to EM noise, but I think that it takes at least an arc welder or Tesla coils in the same room for toslink coax to pick up enough noise to matter.

As for the value of $8000 cables--like I said, there is a point of diminishing returns. Psychology aside, below the point of diminishing returns the quality, features and construction differences can be discerned.

Construction differences, and especially price differences, can certainly be discerned, but that is irrelevant. I would suppose that we are introducing those monstrosity in order to *hear* the difference. If double blind test shows we *do not*, then we are at or bellow the point of *no* return, not diminishing returns.

I'm partial to the I2S format for digital, and XLR balanced lines for analog--even though XLR balanced lines should make no real difference for short distances. :-D


Consider the construction difference between a cheap steel RCA connector that eventually corrodes, and forms an improper connection that introduces noise to the line versus a gold locking connector that is on so tight it might as well be welded. Some differences in quality (such as via construction) result in changes to the sound over months or years. The truly anal clean the connectors every few months even on the gold contacts. Can a double blind test reveal such differences? You'd have to do one every few months for situations where the cable or the connection degrades.

Personally I think the point of diminishing returns is somewhere below $150. $8000 is just silly. :-Q

The peak to peak voltage for toslink coax is 500mV, so in order to disrupt the signal, all you need is something around half a volt of noise every once in a while.

Calvin

I'd have to agree. For me, the experience came when I first got into high-end hi-fi and was exposed to the "Cable Crusade." It's not a rational debate, it's a religous war. $8,000 for a cable? Not too bad - the Kimber Select Black Pearl gets up to about $18,000 or so for a long speaker cable.

I started with .50/ft 14-gauge stranded cable, and started borrowing/begging higher-end cables until I could not hear any difference between them, whereupon I decided I had reached the curve in price-performance, and just stopped. Some of the differences I thought would be obvious were non-existent, and some that I thought I'd never hear, I actually did. My total system is around $20k, and the cables were all less than $120 - and those were long speaker cables. Most were WAY less than that.

This sounds reasonable... I guess that most of the cable price are connectors and cost of carefull asembly and testing, anyway.

Agreed. I now understand what you meant by design etc. Distortions introduced by a good layer of oxides, sulphites and what not our smoggy atmoshpere (and electrochamical reactions) deposites on the surface of crappy connectors are, I suppose, easily measurable (and painfully easy to hear), so no sophisticated subjective testing is necessary...

$8,000 for a cable? Not too bad - the Kimber Select Black Pearl gets up to about $18,000 or so for a long speaker cable.

It may be a myth, but I'm sure I read somewhere about a guy who chiselled little channels into his concrete floor, running from his amp to his speakers, filled them with mercury, and used those as speaker "cables".

Peter

An no doubt he was insane before he did so, and even more so after he had his speaker wires in place for a while!

Maybe, but that's pretty silly: Mercury doesn't have a lot of really desirable conductive properties, IIRC.

Now, I could easily see someone doing that and then using the mercury to float their $18,000 speaker cables on for better isolation. THAT sounds more like an audio-maniac to me.

But don't listen to me, I have my cables suspended above the carpet to avoid interference from the earth's magnetic field.

Wouldn't you have to put the cables in 'orbit' to stop them being affected by the earths magnetic field ?

It seems that would be messy since mercury is a liquid at room temperature and stays that way.

Not to mention that mercury is rather poisonous...

Or maybe use gallium. Turn up the room temperature for liquid and turn it down for solid.

I'm sure I read somewhere about ... mercury

A Google Groups search for "mercury speaker cable" gives a worryingly nonzero number of hits...

Peter

I call bullshit! :-D

Calvin

liquid Mercury conducts. but not only messy but poisonous.

Calvin

Naah, better use (liquified) silver for that purpose then

For example - for about 14 years I had a big ghetto blaster I took to all parties. Just twin tape decks. I played 1st gen copies of my vinyl and it sounded great! Absoultely fantastic sound. The quality compared to the vinyl was obviously pretty poor in terms of dynamic range, detail etc, but the particular properties of the box made for a great sound.


More recently I have replaced my home stereo with a high end amplifier, Mission speakers and my trusty empeg. The sound quality is way smoother, clearer and punchier. I had been getting fed up with the old CD player anyway and this was a breath of fresh air. It makes party compilations much easier - no need to ever change media, and extra tracks can be inserted on request. Even my wife likes the new kit, and she's generally against my predilection for gadgets:) Only downside is no home dock, and it will take me time to build one.