I am really impressed with the Clear Day balanced interconnects.
The xhadow XLR are a real treat in a solid silver interconnect and the price that vonwaffen is charging is very reasonable for the quality of construction and parts.
I did a free audition of them to see how they would match up with his speaker cables.
Synergy.
Iknow this is used a lot in this hobby, but my system never played music so effortlessly before. |
I should add that the other IC I used were Cardas Golden Ref and Shunyata Aries, both good cables yet each had their own sonic strenghts and weaknesses with the Clear day speaker wire.
The Clear Day combo just clicked .
Maybe it's because the same solid core silver wire is used in both the speaker and interconnect, or it's because the xhadow XLR are really good. |
Hello,Ralph,I used Canare speaker wire and canare wire in balancd cables when I had my Atmasphere MP3 and S30 and stacked Quad 57.
The sound was good,I was happy, no reason to experiment.
Now I have other gear that needs balanced cables.
This time an Audio Aero Capitole cd direct into a pair of Red Dragon power amps into 15 inch Tannoys.
I was now running very thin 14 ft runs of solid core silver wire to my Tannoys,and I was using the very same run of Canare balanced IC.
Since I had excellent results using canare IC and Canare speaker wire I thought I would audition a run of IC from the same company as my speaker cables.
This time there was an improvement over the canare cables, so I bought the silver wired version.
I am at a loss to explain why there was a difference.
Is it because the wire is the same guage and material as the speaker?Synergy again?
Was the Clear Day solid silver not a good combination with the copper Canare?
Was it the difference in construction of the Xhadow XLR's on the clear day compared to the Neutrik's on the Canare?
I loved my time with the Quads and Atmasphere gear, one of my better systems.
I know it isnot the electronics that are masking cable differences.
A friend of mine has the servo powered Acoustat 4 speakers and an MP3(he liked mine so bought one and kept it).
He wired everything up with Cardas neutral ref. balanced.
Then he experimented with some nordost and eventually settled with Harmonic Tech magic two.He invited 5 of his audio friends to a cable shoot out.
The Cardas Neutral, Nordost ValHalla and Harmonic Tech magic two were auditoned,and we all got very sick of listening to the same Pat Barber track.
Several of us confirmed that the Harmonic balanced cables gave his system a more robust yet detailed sound.
The Nordost cost more but didn't work as well as the Harmonic but outperformed the Cardas.
Sorry Ralph,but that's 5 pair of ears that voted for the Harmonic cables, and we didn't know the price discrepencies.
No agendas other than what cable gave the best sound.
I should add that all cables were the same length and were factory terminated.
I don't think it was a case of mass dillusion.
|
I haven't played her since.
At that cable shootout, a Meridian G08 was the source into the Atmasphere MP3.
We all preferred the Harmonic.
The outcome of this was that my friend replaced a complete run of Cardas Neutral Ref with the Harmonic magic.
This is balanced xlr cables from his tone arm,from his Meridan,and balance xlr out to the servo amps(these were mod to accept balanced inputs when he got the MP3 pre amp).
It was a worthwhile expense.
His whole system has a more robust sound.
If his vinyl sound remained the same as with the Cardas, I would maybe agree with what you say, but it too benefitted from the wire upgrade.
Maybe the XLR's that Harmonic use are superior to what Cardas uses.
The Neutral Ref is not the top of the heap, whereas the Harmonic were at the time.
Perhaps not a fair comparison.
What I do find intersting is that the Atmasphere pre amp allowed the differences between cables to be heard.
I wouldn't want to own a pre amp or any electronics that did not.
Ralph I don't doubt your findings, but are they based on measurements alone?
Some of us hear dead people. |
Then I guess companies like Meridian had better get with the program.
Same goes with my Audio Aero Capitole that I run balanced out into the balanced in of my mono blocks.
I can distinguish cable differences, does that mean that the Audio Aero Capitole 24/192 or the Red Dragon or both are not up to industry standards when using their balanced connections?
I always thought that the concept of running balanced was to eliminate or lessen the effects of long runs of cables.
Regular rca interconnects can pick up noise and loose signal if they are longer than 20 feet.
I have great respect for Atmasphere and their products,but I'm having a hard time with the concept that a properly designed balanced system would eliminate the differences between xlr connected balanced cables.
Is Atmasphere the only company that can claim this?
Is everybody else wrong?
There are just so many variables in cable materials, construction and in the quality of XLR's and how they are terminated to the wires,that makes me wonder just how can these things differences be eliminated?
Perhaps a trip to the local Atmasphere dealer and some cable swapping would be a lesson learned one way or the other.
|
Ralph those records and most all the classic and jazz cut in the 50's and early 60's sound better than today, but I wouldn't say it was because of balanced cables.
I think the fact that the equipment was all tubes back then and you or all people know that tubes rule.
Also, the engineer probably just rode the volume control.
They didn't have all the noise gates and limiters and external electronic crap that they play around with today.
Those old recordings were about as true to real as you could get.
Now what amplification were they using back then?
It was probably push pull and transformer coupled workhorse amps of the Williamson variety, Macs at best.
Certainly nothing with the quality of parts or the technology of todays best amps your's included.
Yet, like you say very good sound and with 200 foot runs of generic cables.
So I guess it doesn't matter what cables or amps you use, as long as both are configured for a true balanced circuit?
I owned the S30, please don't tell me it sounds just the same as your top of the line mono blocks. |
Everyone is waitng for the Beatles catalogue to be given the same sonic makeover as some other artist's catalogues have.
If it is done on cd only and if it is given as much care as the Martins did with Love, then those would be far superior to the muck that has been released of Beatles material on cd.thus far.
It is very obvious to most of us why the first Beatles cd's sound so bad.
Most of the early cd's paled in comparison to the lp's back in cd's infancy.
Maybe you have forgotten or just weren't around then.
If the catalogue is also available on lp in 180 gram pressings at 45 rpm, I think that would open even the most jaded eyes about how great the original recordings of the Beatles were.
They recorded at Abbey Road the same studio that released some great classical recordings, they used the same gear and when they were hooked up with George Martin and his engineers, magic was made.
Maybe those more familiar with the later Beatles feel that the early stuff was primitive in comparison, it really wasn't.But most of it was mono and that was better than the hard vocal to the right, band to the left stereo treatment on the stereo versions.
Sgt Pepper was the pivotal lp, that unleashed everyone's imaginations and potential, those of the musicians and the recording engineers.
Sgt. Pepper with all it's sound effects was recorded on just 4 tracks, not 32, 48 or more that are available today.
I am not saying that the technology today sucks.
Proof of this is the Love disc.
It's just that to me, the problem isn't with the tech, it's with the people at the controls.
Have a listen to some of the remastered 180 gram, 45 rpm lp re-issues of the Blue note recordings from the 1960's if you want an example of how modern tech done correctly can improve upon the older tech that was also done correctly.
It's win, win, 2 + 2 equals four, simplicity.
If there was good sound to begin with you have half the battle won.
If the original recording(quality of recording, not musical content)was poor, then there really isn't too much you can do to improve it.
The old silk purse from a sow's ear concept. |
Some old recordings sound like shit,I will agree,
that all new recordings are superior I do not agree.
Most if not all the mags that I read, rave about the re-issued modern pressings of vintage jazz recorded on vintage gear.And I have to agree.
The sound off those old masters is the reason why the new re-issues sound so good.
However there have been instances where over stressed pressing plants have run into problems now that vinyl has made a comeback.
Some 200 gram pressings had serious problems, the old original pressings were better.
The reason why many of the old recordings sound so real is because of the minimal amount of dicking around with electronic toys.
All the gimmicks they use on modern recording sessions today weren't around way back when.
In fact most of the modern recordings are not done in real time .
Individual musicians "phone in" their parts and it is all pasted together with computer programs.
Not very many recordings are done live, off the floor anymore.
I will say that I agree that when done this way modern recordings can sound good.
But not many are and not many do.
Adding a touch of reverb and maybe tweaking the tone was about the only tools the old guys had to play with.
Keeping it simple,most often sounds the best.
As do the first takes of a live recording.
Listening to some of the old classic jazz lp's, cut live for the most part, still sound more like the real thing to me than most of the cd's I have bought in the last 20 years.
If everything you play thru your system sounds good,then there is something going on that is masking the differences.
|
Yes music was mostly dumbed down in quality and content over the years.
The more way you could alter the signal the better it must be was the way things went in most studios.
Remember the Aphex Aural Exciter?
It was suppossed to be the best thing you could process a recording with since sliced cheese.
But that's what it was ,sliced cheese.
It is long gone.
But a lot of other toys filled in the gap.
The old engineers had to rely on getting it right the first time, and so did the musicians.
It wasn't about fix it in the mix.
Not so today.
You mention the early Beatles recordings sounding lousy.
That's not the recording, it's the pressings.
Have you given a listen to the Beatles Love cd ?
Modern tech has really done a great job here.
Yet most of the stuff was recorded on 4 tracks and looped together.
But Sir Martin was a master, as this cd illustrates.
If it wasn't good on those old master tapes to begin with this cd would not sound as good as it does today.
There are many more examples from Rudy van Gelder that show how a good recording can stand the test of time.
As for most people listening to boom boxes, I believe they are now buying turntables and the very same vinyl records I am talking about. |
At least you and I agree that"old recordings remastered sound much cleaner than the same recordings on the same media(cd)"
The first releases of Beatles on cd were horible and made even poor lp pressings sound superior.
Keep in mind Beatles lps were pressed in the millions and even the North American lps were remixed from the original English pressings.
Again what you fail to grasp, is to differentiate between the final sound that you have heard and the original recording.
Quantity not quality was the rule of the day,get the product out to the masses.
None of the classic jazz lps ever had the problems associated with mass production.
They were pressed in small numbers.
When I listen to a used original vinyl lp of Louis Armstrong plays WC Handy, the instruments and his voice sound very real,more like the real thing in my room.
This doesn't happen on all lp's and mostly never with cd.
Again it was the simplicity of the recording techniques and the very limitations of the technology of those days that contribute to this illusion.
The better we got at recording the worse most of it sounds and less of the illusion.
"Ive never heard of remastered new recording"
That depends on what time frame you consider new.
They have remastered Van Morrison, Pink Floyd,Neil Young to name a few.
These are all artists that were new to me back a few decades ago, and they are newer than the Armstrong sessions.
I think everyone is in agreement that re-mastering is an improvement no matter from what era,but you have to have something that was good in the first place.
Most of the re-mastered sonic blockbusters, were considered good sounding recordings in their day even when they were mass produced.
But remember, the very best master tapes are used.
Remastering does not prove deficient technology before as you say Kijanki, it validates how good that technology really was.
It lets you hear it closer to the way it was recorded, before the signal got destroyed by over processing, and poor manufacturing practises.
|
Isn't it interesting that there will be new releases of the Beatles catalog.
They will be mostly using the UK mono mixes.
Have a listen Kijanki,and then tell me those masters were inferior.
The lps and cds that were available to the North American market were gross.
Kijanki, there were many things from the past that are as good or better than today.
Art Dudley from Stereophile is having a love affair with old turntables and 78 rpm records and there are some new/old cartridges based on 50's designs.
Old analog TV is not better than HDTV.
The Europeans were way ahead of North Americans, they have had it for years.
Now if you want to question why some people feel things from the past are better,ask yourself why you still measure the world in ounces, feet and inches and miles and the rest of the world does not?
You have a lot to learn, I understand where you are coming from.Perhaps you need to hear some good lps played on some good vinyl set ups.
You are obviously young and I am old, so you are at a disadvantage.
I was there as a musician when amps went from tubes to solid state,and back to tubes if you didn't notice.
Those old Vox amps are much sought after for the distortion (when you want it)and for the tone.As are old pre CBS Fender amps.
People today love the sound of SET,low powered tube amps, that are based on tube circuit designs from the 20's and 30's and that's before my time.
Technology is a wonderful thing, but it serves no use when it takes the life out of the music.
Maybe when you get a few more years into this hobby and experience some of the oldie goldies you'll see where I am coming from. |
I shouldn't have said that the Europeans had HDTV before North America.
What I meant to say was that the European television transmission technology was superior to ours.
The signal was clearer and cleaner in most of the modern Euro countries than what we ever had in North America prior to HDTV.
If you had travelled there you would know what I mean.
And I am old, 60 years old,and I have been in this hobby for almost 40 years, so there are a lot of things that aren't news to me, but I know there is much to be learned also.
I think there are better connectors than XLR,and in my experience the differences in quality of XLRs from Soundcraft to Neutrik to Xhadow is quite evident.
BNC would be better, and sraight soldered connections the best.
How do I know?
Because I direct solder most of the time.
The more connectors you get rid of the better.
By the way, they are re-releasing the original Beatles catalog from the original master mono English tapes.
When they come out have a listen and you'll know what I have been talking about.
I am not a vintage junkie, but some things just haven't really been surpassed.
The Quad 57 mid range,is still something that most modern day speaker designers are trying to emulate.
Some things you don't mess with, like Coca Cola. |
