Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20239
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 06:06 |
^^^^^^^^
Mike,
I can see where your poiunt is coming from and I would still agree with you, as this running-in is a bit pushing things to far for a stereo application
BUT
In my line of research, we go through ageing of materials (in NDT but also in destructive testing) and search their propency to keep their original properties (including resistivity, magnetic, embrittlement , microfracture propagation etc...) but we only do this for steels (ferritic , austenitic, martensitic stainless steels) and I can garantee you that the ageing (or running in) is definitely very important for proper operations at their nominal properties. But we are doing this in the framework of extreme conditions (Furnaces and power plants) and only on Iron-derivatives
(Olivier is fully right speaking of weld and I passed my safety consultant thesis on weld, so I know a thing or two about it and the preheat and cooling down are extremely important )
However, if those principles are correct for steel, there is ansolutely no reason why this should not be the case as well for copper or most metals.
Why I say this solution of wire running-in being a bit pushed is that the wires operate at room temperatures and the heat generated from the operation of the stereo is rather negligeable (if the wires are not kept in bundles or coils in order to keep the stereo installation presentable. This attaching the cable is also stupid because it creates a capacitance effect which will ruin the good performance of the cable), and the cables are designed to generally work at 30% capacity of their full ability.
Where the real problem could happen and losses generated (and therefore heat generated) are at the connection points: the platted gold connectors are there to reduce the loss and thermal bridge effects.
|
let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 06:13 |
^ no problem with all of that, but I still think that even if there is a slight wear-in effect it would still not be audible. In order to show you where I'm coming from, here's the link: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
But I know that Olivier strongly disagrees, and let's not continue this further here ... there are enough 10+ page threads on the subject (audiophile vs. scientist) already.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - August 10 2006 at 06:17
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 08:27 |
In case of high end cables feat boxes like the ones pictured up, the need for running-in is obvious, because the boxes contain electronic circuits (kind of filters).
There are now (quite expensive) machines designed to run-in the cables quicker! (using a special signal).
If people are ready to pay 700€ for this kind of machine, that's not for the pleasure. It's because a new "big" cable doesn't work at all.
Actually, every component needs run in, the worst is probably speakers, which can need up to 300 hours to reach its full capacity.
One more time, these differences are big on a transparent system, unnoticeable on a standard/basic one.
Edited by oliverstoned - August 10 2006 at 08:45
|
|
Eetu Pellonpaa
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 17 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 4828
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 08:39 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
...but I still think that even if there is a slight wear-in effect it would still not be audible. |
This ofcourse is not a very important aspect in hard-core HiFism, I believe!
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 08:42 |
^ you mean whether it's audible or not? I agree ... as long as it looks impressive and has a tube, it must improve the sound!
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 08:43 |
oliverstoned wrote:
In case of high end cables feat boxes like the ones pictured up, the need for running-in is obvious, because the boxes contain electronic circuits (kind of filters).
There are now (quite expensive) machines designed to run-in the cables quicker! (using a special signal).
If people are ready to pay 700€ for this kind of machine, that's not for the pleasure. It's because a new "big" cable doesn't work at all.
Actually, every component needs run in, the worst is probably speakers, which can need up to 300 hours to reach its full capacity.
One more time, these differences are big on a transparent system, not on a basic one.
One more time, these differences are big on a transparent system, unnoticeable on a standard/basic one.
|
A transparent system ... I take it this is one where you can see the tubes without opening the case?
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 08:47 |
Hey! funny.
Or like these speakers
Edited by oliverstoned - August 10 2006 at 08:47
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 08:52 |
captainbeyond wrote:
Hey Everyone,
I'm guessing there have got to be more than a few gearheads out there in Prog Land. My questions are relatively straightforward:
1) How do you record from vinyl to CD?
Output from my HiFi to my SB Audigy Platinum using SPDif. My PC runs the free program Wavepad, with the non-free "Golden Records" add-on to remove pops and clicks.
The audio is recorded to raw *.WAV output, and I then use Wavepad to burn the CD directly - so no additional processing is done to the file except to convert it from WAV to CDA.
I use a reasonably high-quality CD-Burner, not a cheap one, and always use high-quality CD-Rs.
The sound quality is more than acceptable - although admittedly not perfect, as recording in 16-bit 44.1 khz mode always sounds muted compared to 24-bit 192khz mode - but then you can't always fit the music to a CD afterwards.
2) What set-up/equipment models do you use?
As above!
I won't use a "proper" Hi-Fi burner until they introduce a facility to remove pops and clicks, another to convert to audio formats other than straight CDA - and bring the price down in line with the PC equivalent units. I think the price of these units is disproportionately high given the "difference" in sound quality.
3) What do you think is the best "bang for your buck?"
As above! Wavepad is free, and you can pick up a soundcard with SPDif - or, at a push, RCA connectors - pretty cheaply.
Thanks ahead of time for your help.
Cheers,
AA
|
Edited by Certif1ed - August 10 2006 at 08:52
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20239
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 09:18 |
Question is to Mike and Mark:
Do your normal Cdr play almost anywhere and without any skipping or glitches (usually staring in the last third of the recorded album?
I have found that computer burned Cds screw up very often, mostly because of the multi-speed.
Just like multi-speed cassette recording , the quality was pisspoor
I suppose that your burning from vinyls can only be done in real time
|
let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 09:24 |
"Just like multi-speed cassette recording , the quality was pisspoor"
Absolutely!
Even music Cds are burned at high speed in factory, unfortunatly.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 09:24 |
I used to burn CDs quite a lot until two years ago ... I used cheap CD-Rs and a cheap computer burner, burned them at the highest available speed and did not have any problem with player compatibility - not even with the cd changer in the car.
BTW: I don't think that there is *any* audio quality difference between burners and cheap/expensive CD-Rs. The only difference that I can imagine is player compatibility and durability of the burned disks ... anything else if just a big marketing scam.
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 09:26 |
oliverstoned wrote:
"Just like multi-speed cassette recording , the quality was pisspoor"
Absolutely!
Even music Cds are burned at high speed in factory, unfortunatly.
|
Commercial music CDs are not burned at all - they are pressed.
|
|
|
Eetu Pellonpaa
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 17 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 4828
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 09:35 |
I must admit that I have encountered problems with some my CD-Rs only in my 4 years old Sony wallkman, but other players which I have used (even in car) have played them nicely without errors. But it think that these CD-Rs are more vulnerable to fysical damage than factory manufactured.
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20239
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 09:35 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Commercial music CDs are not burned at all - they are pressed.
|
I think Mike just scored a point here, Olivier
Mike, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the distintctive impression you listen to your music mainly on your computer! do you ever play your cd in a Hi-Fi stereo?
I mean the ones where the witdth of the components are 45 cm?
Sorry if I assume wrong....
|
let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 09:36 |
I'm not that sure. Maybe. I've heard about high speed duplication.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 10:10 |
Sean Trane wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Commercial music CDs are not burned at all - they are pressed.
|
I think Mike just scored a point here, Olivier
Mike, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the distintctive impression you listen to your music mainly on your computer! do you ever play your cd in a Hi-Fi stereo?
I mean the ones where the witdth of the components are 45 cm?
Sorry if I assume wrong.... |
No, you're quite right. I'm currently listening to music exclusively on the computer, using an Creative X-Fi soundcard and a Logitech 5.1 speaker system which sounds amazing when considering that it only cost me 80 EUR. I'm aware of its limitations, but it's not at all "lo-fi" ... compared to my Hi-Fi system (Harman Kardon HK620 + Elac cabinets) it sounds really good, and in some aspects it's even superior ... that's simply due to the amazing progress in the area of cabinet material and acoustic optimization. Actual Hi-Fi components may sound a whole lot better, but I do believe that an optimal sound quality is not all that important. I'd rather buy more albums than upgrade my gear!
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20239
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 10:31 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
No, you're quite right. I'm currently listening to music exclusively on the computer, using an Creative X-Fi soundcard and a Logitech 5.1 speaker system which sounds amazing when considering that it only cost me 80 EUR. I'm aware of its limitations, but it's not at all "lo-fi" ... compared to my Hi-Fi system (Harman Kardon HK620 + Elac cabinets) it sounds really good, and in some aspects it's even superior ... that's simply due to the amazing progress in the area of cabinet material and acoustic optimization.
Actual Hi-Fi components may sound a whole lot better, but I do believe that an optimal sound quality is not all that important. I'd rather buy more albums than upgrade my gear!
|
I agree a good Hi-fi is a heavy investment, but you should really try it!!!
I mean this investment is really once and will last 30 years or more. Most people wanting to change regularly is because tyhey get sick of looking at this old stuff. My Father's stereo dates from the mid-70's (except for the CD deck) and still sounds fabulous. And my Canadian Yamaha Hi-fi (bought in 77 with my student job's wage is still working fine at a friend's place and it has never gotten broken down or repaired (outside of lightbulbs and power surge fuses).
Once you tasted Hi-fi, you'll not want to come back to your previous ways.
How do you deal with vinyls, though? Like Cert?
Or you do not bother with vinyls?
Edited by Sean Trane - August 10 2006 at 10:31
|
let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 10:53 |
1. I do know audiophile systems ... I owned a Musical Fidelity amp + Magnat cabinets + expensive cables for about 5 years, then unfortunately the amp broke. So I know how a decent amp sounds (I also listened to better systems a lot, and I used to run a small home studio with professional equipment (Soundcraft mixer, Tannoy monitors, Alesis ADAT multitrack recorder etc.) for a couple of years back in the 90s). 2. I don't have any vinyls. I had a nice collection as a kid, but one day a water pipe leaked and destroyed the whole collection from one day to the other. I am planning though to get a vinyl player and then I'll buy some used vinyls, just for nostalgia.
|
|
|
captainbeyond
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 05 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 84
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 11:27 |
At risk of dragging the conversation down several notches, I feel a bit glazed-over. Please allow me to start over:
1) I have a simple stereo system (Onkyo components, Advent speakers, and an old Phillips turntable) in one room.
2) I have a computer and CD burner in another, non-adjacent room so the computer and stereo cannot be connected.
3) Is there a reliable and respectable quality way to record from the stereo system onto CD-r? Are there good stand-alone burners that could be connected to the stereo? Even if so, do I need special cables to make that connection, or are the nice cables merely for playback?
4) Am I missing some very obvious, important principles in this process?
Many thanks again, everyone.
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: August 10 2006 at 11:50 |
Considering your system -and if you don't plane to upgrade-, you can go for a computer-recording solution, follow Mike and others advices.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.