Robert: How much simpler would it have been if you had just said "Purity is measured by what percentage of impurities there are in the conductor. "Q" as i call it has to do with what type of impurities are involved. Not all impurities effect the performance of a cable in the same fashion. This is something that we pay attention to while other manufacturers seem to overlook this aspect of production".
This would have been a lot simpler, would have explained the point that you were trying to make while not giving any "proprietary secrets" away and would have actually made you look relatively intelligent with a short and educational response. Instead, you write another novel that still doesn't provide any specifics about your products whatsoever. Rather than provide any type of usable info, you spend your time to lambast me, who is simply asking for specifics about the products that you sell AFTER you brought them up in the first place. Figure it out for yourself why i get frustrated in situations like this. Is there any other business where you can call up / email / go to and ask them for technical assistance or spec's concerning their products and they tell you about the owner's background, the company, the goals of the company, etc... everything BUT what you asked for?
Albert said: "Does this mean that if I prefer my system with Purist Audio or Elrod rather than Goertz that all my equipment should be changed out rather than continue to listen to what is working? I have excellent gear, doubt it needs a band aid."
My answer to this is that one can use whatever they prefer to use. That doesn't mean that it is accurate, linear or low in distortion. It simply means that one has invested their money into products / a system that they like. As i've said before, buy what you like as you are the only one that will be listening to it on a regular basis. The only person that the system has to please is the owner. If the owner is happy with a specific sound and has specific sonic preferences, so be it. Who am i to tell them what they can / should enjoy? I simply post information to try and educate about what is technically correct. Whether or not someone wants to achieve "accurate musicality" is up to them.
Springbok asked the following questions:
1. Do you have to intellectually have a picture of what measurable specs you are listening to and what the physical characteristics of the components are before you can enjoy the music? (I think you've said an emphatic yes)
> Not at all. I can typically listen to a component and form an opinion of it rather quickly. Then again, when you are working with a collection of unknown variables, that opinion would be formed of the entire collection of parts used at that time, not of any given component / part being used. Having some background / point of reference as to what a component is technically capable of simply provides a more solid foundation as to what it may / may not be contributing to what you hear.
Having said that, i've heard many systems that i have enjoyed on certain recordings / types of music that i knew were not accurate at all. The problem with these systems was that their sonic imperfections are implanted on every recording, hence everything shares similar sonic traits. If you like that sound and can live with it long-term, so be it.
By using components that offer "accurate musicality", the results are both more consistent regardless of the source or type of music and are therefore more universally enjoyable. That is, unless one enjoys only a very specific type of presentation, to which i believe is their option.
This type of system building approach typically leads to constant upgrading though. That's because once they hear different aspects of reproduction that they like from other systems that their limited system lacks, they have to start all over again. Given that their system lacks any type of foundation to build upon other than the specific colourations that they initially enjoyed, they are in for a long and tedious up-hill battle. That is, if they are trying to attain greater neutrality and a more universal level of accurate and musical reproduction for a wide assortment of musical types and recordings.
2. When you say specs, do you mean running an oscilloscope so that you can measure dynamic range at each frequency?
> I don't have to measure anything. I'm more than willing to accept the test results / spec's of others so long as they were taken in a proper manner. As far as spec's go, there's no one or two spec's that will tell you everything that you need to know in order to interpret the sonic traits of that device. Even a large quantity of spec's may not give you enough info. The more spec's / test results that you have, the better of an idea one will have though. That's because these spec's, if properly derived and reported accurately, will tell you how uniform the operation of the device will be under various signal conditions and how well it should work with other components.
3. I accept that the appreciation of a stanza of music is an interaction between the brain and the ear, melding perceived sound, expectations, emotions, and past experiences to result in a net quantum of enjoyment/sadness/fulfillment/discord. None of us understand how that works, technically, exactly as none of us can explain physically or in terms of any measurable specs on any medical device, how anybody thinks. So it is with the appreciation of music, which is why there are so many thousands of differing posts on the same component, piece of music and composer. Are you saying that in your particular case you cannot or will not bypass the the "measuring/analytical/physicist" part of your brain to just listen to the music, because it is unacceptable to you intellectually to not understand why you are hearing something? If so, this is, IMHO, perfectly valid, but I think you are fairly unique in that respect. I personally dont give a rat's ass what makes the music sound good/exciting/bad/mediocre - its all in what I hear. Period.
I think many of us non Engineer-types are like that.
> As i stated above, i can listen to and enjoy music using anything from a transistor radio to a mega-dollar system. Whether or not i find either of them to produce "accurate musicality" and want to invest in either of them is another story. The reason that i have five different systems is that i know that we can't achieve "perfection" with any one given approach, so i've taken to building several different systems. Each offers their own specific perspective / transfer function while still seeking to approach "accurate musicality" i.e. "neutrality without sounding sterile".
4. I am ignorant of the known physics of sound conduction via interconnects. Is there a primer to read? Is there data on cables showing dynamic range, as there are on speakers, at different frequencies? What other data (forget about inductance, volts, amps, etc since there is no known (to me) sonic/auditory correlation)can you get on cables?
>I can't provide you with any "what's what guide to interconnects and signal propagation" type of manual. It is a complex issue that involves inductance, volts, amps, capacitance, input & output impedances, nominal impedances, etc... I wish it was simpler, but it isn't. As a side note, my comments about Goertz and the measured response / spec's pertained to their flat series of speaker cables, not their interconnects.
5A. Is it not unreasonable for you to expect a small (one-man) manufacturer to divulge his formula in a very competitive market-place, particularly against the big boys, who spend fortunes on marketing, when the bottom line is simply, to most of us, the result of the product? That is, how does it sound?
> I didn't ask for proprietary information, only basic electrical specs that a knowledgable manufacturer should know about their products. To be specific, i didn't ask for the specific molecular structure of the materials being used, where those materials are being purchased, if there were any proprietary chemical or electrical treatments being performed to the materials being used, etc... Given that someone can obtain a sample of these products through various means ( buy or borrow ) and reverse engineer it to obtain everything that i was asking about, the manufacturer wouldn't have been divulging ANY information that isn't already available to the public.
To take that a step further and answer another question that you asked elsewhere, once the figures were obtained, one could do computer simulations and / or perform deductive reasoning based on past experiences and arrive at what to expect out of the cable in terms of electrical performance and / or sonics.
B)The only, to me, reason to do so would be the physical reliability and longevity of the product; if it were made of a metal/conductor/insulator that has a half-life of a few months, then that would be a concern. This point is valid and rational, even to a non-measuring-dunce like me. That point should be addressed and guaranteed by any seller/manufacturer/inventor.
> I commented on this above. The only info that i have on these cables is that they are silver based and make use of a natural fiber ( cotton from what i understand ) dielectric. Given that silver corrodes when exposed to oxygen and cotton ( or other natural fibers ) do not offer any type of "seal" for the conductor, i pointed out that the sonic lifespan of this type of product may not be very consistent. This was not meant to single out Ridge Street products as being the only users of this type of design so much as to point out that this is something that others should be made aware of before investing their money into a product. On top of that, i also offered specifics as to what to expect out of such a design over a period of time and why i thought that there were better, more consistent ways to get around various issues surrounding DA.
C) Thanks for your attention. This is not a troll - I am interested in your answers.
> No problem. As i've mentioned before, i don't mind explaining my comments or why i say what i do. Just as i would like as much info as i can get about a product from a manufacturer to make an informed assessment of the suitability for use, the more background info that you have on the comments that i make, the more informed you are about the validity of the comments being made and how applicable they are to your situation or goals. After all, that is all that i'm doing i.e. sharing my own personal thoughts, observations, ideas, comments, etc... One can agree / disagree / question / correct / ignore the information provided as they see fit.
Transporter: I appreciate your concerns and share your sentiments. That is, when the manufacturer is willing to share and educate, not just pump up their business through exposure and familiarity in the forums.
Your example of Ray Kimber is spot on though, as Ray is both a very likable figure and a very knowledgable and helpful representative of a company. I was going to make a comment pertaining to what i said about "very few manufacturers willing to jump into the arena" with Ray being one of the few exceptions.
I respect Ray to a very great extent, for both his knowledge / experience / products AND his willingness to share / work with others in terms of education and development of technology. The fact that he donates a very large sum of money annually to schools in his area for band / music equipment speaks of his good heart, nobility and motives.
I'm not trying to put Ray on a pedestal or compare everyone to him, as not everyone has the time or financial resources that he may have available to make these things possible. At the same time though, it does demonstrate how a manufacturer can be helpful AND divulge specs / technical info and still maintain a great quantity of business success. This is outside of the respect that it helps build for them within the audiophile community.
Too bad others don't catch on to the example that Ray and a select group of business professionals have left for them. It's hard to "pick on" a manufacturer / representative / dealer that is both helpful and informative. Sean
>
