New decade, end of the CD?

The idea of using over-rated power cables must have come from somewhere and I'm curious to know where and why (and not just because I'm an electronics engineer). I cannot think of a single advantage of using heavier cables, especially when the disadvantages are so pronounced - all the plugs and sockets are designed for 1.5mm or 2.5mm cable - this is like putting tyres made for a Range Rover Chelsea tractor on a Citroën C3. Lowly 1.5mm cable is rated at 14A with a max current of 20A ... that's in excess of 3000W continuous power handling.

^^ It's the simple principle of "bigger is better" - it appeals to common sense, not to technical knowledge. The only problem with common sense when it comes to electronics, physics, chemics etc. is that it can be very misleading, since sometimes the physical laws are counter-intuitive.

 

 

I have read enough details of your system to know that this is a truthful statement. However that is because of the quality of some (not all) of your hardware and some (not all) of the improvements you have made. Some of it is a complete waste of time and energy.

oliverstoned wrote: My system pushes walls, it's like being at the heart of sound.

"pushes walls"  I suggest you upgrade your walls.

oliverstoned wrote: It's an achievement when working with Cd source and tht's because of the power, vibration, cabling optimization to say the least.

No. it is to say something. Some of these changes are effective and there is sound logic and reasoning behind doing them, however, reading a lot of what you have written, and suggested to other people, that is not true for every modification or claim you make.

No one disputes Olivers system sounds great. The only dispute is why and whether the sound is "coloured".

 

Speaking from personal viewpoint I believe there is a limit to how much improvement can be made and how much is necessary. CD inject a small amount of HF, the extent of which is controlled by FCC and CE regulations - manufactures generally allow themselves a wide margin between what their equipment radiates and what the regulations permit. I find it incredible to believe that a top-end manufacturer would sell equipment that was detrimental to the sound of any system, especially when such "fixes" are so simple and inexpensive. It is far cheaper to fix the cause of problem at source than it is to try and cure the effects of that problem elsewhere. Now, you may have read that last sentence as total justifrication for all the effort you put into filtering and seperating your power cables, and you would be wrong. You have no means of measuring any of this aledged HF "polution" in your system, you have no means of positively isolating any "polution" in your system to any single cause and you have no means of determining that any one "fix" is the fix for the problem you think you have. Any fix you make that has a percieved improvement is purely subjective, influenced by your desire to want to hear an improvement. You have made this point yourself - blind testing is impossible because your ears get tired - the time difference between hearing your system without the modification and hearing it again with the modification means it is impossible for you to tell the difference between the two listens. This would be true if the improvement was perceptible - much of what you are claiming are imperceptable improvements (or none at all).