As the title says. I know this is the amp section, but thought I'd have a bit more luck here! They're similiarly priced and I've not heard either. Im wondering if anybody has heard both these cables and what they prefer? (single run, not biwire) My equipment: Wharfedale Diamond 8.1s, Cambridge Audio 540a, from an e-mu 0404 soundcard.
Im after good imaging and detail and not an overbright sound.
I read one reviews saying the Chord is better than the QED, but that was the silver anniversary not the new XT (x-tube) version.
Yes, a lot of it. Mostly mp3 infact (only 16 real cds). But its debatable. A lot of my mp3 music is 128-192kbps, then last couple of years more so 192 and a lot of vbr and cbr at higher bite rates. All my music is formatted in mp3. Would this matter?
Not to be rude, but with your system, I don't really see much of a point to upgrading the wire. Your mp3's are going to be much more of a limiting factor, followed by your speakers. The QED or Chord might be better, but I doubt your system is going to be able to resolve what difference there might be with the flaws that it has.
I dont really have the money to replace my speakers. I quite like them, especially since I got them for so cheap at £70. Perhaps I'll buy both cables and decide if there is a difference for myself! Then I'll tell you which one is better :P Then obviously sell one on!
Infact I've just had a thought. If you say you dont think upgrading wire would benefit, then perhaps biwiring would? If I've somewhat maximised performance with single wire, then maybe biriwing will give different results.. If I wanted to biwire using the 540a, because it requires using the two different speakers outputs A and B, then I could easily biwire using 2 different brands of speaker cable right? Could be some fun experimenting!
Just as a general bit of advice, in audio it is generally wise to fix the weakest links first. Downloading lossless WMA files instead of 128kbps mp3s is a good way to start. You'll get a much much larger performance jump by doing that than what any cable will do for you currently. Saving that money you would spend on cable and putting it towards the next step up in speakers would be my next step. Until those bottlenecks are dealt with, spending £20 on speaker wire is going to be a complete waste IMO.
Ipod doesnt accept wma though! That be a heck of a lot of converting to do and hdd storage due to having 2 copies of the song (i think). Truth is, having the music on my computer as opposed to hundreds of costly cds and buying a good cd player is a lot more convenient. Theres no messing about with changing discs. MP3 format is the norm these days on computers, its something that has to be lived with i suppose. Tbh, Im not sure I really notice a difference with wma formats. I'd have to test it since I've used mp3s for the past 4 years! With mp3, the difference from 128kbps to 192kbps is HUGE. Im not convinced the format is so important due to modern compression techniques. As I said mp3 is such a standard these days, mp3 players actually being called mp3 players! Ive ordered some Silver Anniversary XT-when it comes I'll post back here to give my opinion! Using p2p networks for music is 95% mp3 format so I've found. Im not sure what the itunes store or sites like rhapsody offer in terms of file formats (and whether they're legit!? i.e. originally mp3 and just converted to wma) Any thought on for an ipod format, apple lossless? AAC, AIFF OR WAV. Aren't wav files massive?
What you want are lossless formats. Apple Lossless works fine too. As for the WMA thing, it is only their lossless format, not their 128kbps lossy format that will improve quality. As far as compression techniques, there is a reason why they differentiate between lossless and lossy...
Note: Lossless formats are much larger than lossy formats, but if you are looking for an audiophile grade system, that is the only way to go. If you choose to go with lossy formats, there isn't much wire can do for you.
If you are using a p2p network to get your music, you really won't get much in the way of detail and staging with your music.
If you are not convinced that format is important, try listening to some real high end equipment using uncompressed format with properly recorded music. There is a reason why it is called "compression". No matter how modern it is, there is ample loss. What do you think they do to a large file to make it smaller?
You are asking too much of the speaker wires. As Stephen pointed out, fix the weakest link, which is your source. No type of wire will give you an improvement only perception. Biwiring is not going to give you back the detail that is not there to begin with. But it seems that you have already formed your own theories and set on hearing an improvement with cables. So go for it, after all it is your money
I was afraid you'd say all that, especially with note 1. Note 2 I know about! Its a shame since I have a lot of mp3s in 128kbps which is a bit sucky. I would have to buy 30gb of music to get a better quality, not to mention the music I still want! Or find a company to download the music from which would be cheaper! Thats a lot of money which I definately dont have lmao. High biterate mp3s in cbr or vbr will have to suffice for now and be the only option realistically for portable media players i.e. mp3 players i.e. ipods!
"there isn't much wire can do for you." "much" being the key word. Something is better than nothing. I'll tell you if I notice a difference or not! You say my speakers are a weakness..you think? I shall be getting a Ruark Vita 50 (same as mja pro50) subwoofer in a few days to add some weight and more life to music.
The problem with my system is theres something in the treble that I dont like. And im not sure what, its a bit 'irritating'. This is noticeable with guitars and some vocals. Play red hot chili peppers, parallel universe at around 3 minutes onwards and you may see what I mean! It may be like you said, the diamond 8.1s are a weak link. I specifically got them because of the drivers and the size. I dont want bookshelfs any bigger than them and the kevlar drivers reveal a lot of detail. The silk dome tweeter isnt bright or in your face. They sometimes sound a bit nasally/congested/like they're trying to break free, possibly forced if you get me. It could actually be something to do with the fact that usually when listening Im sat only a few feet away. (dont suggest getting some monitors, tried that) I hate and love being an audiophile..a computer hifi setup audiophile that is!
Berny. One day I will listen to high end stuff. One day lol. Ive just read an article on lossless and lossy amongst a few other tests people have done. Ok, I take it back, maybe the format does matter! I suppose all I can say and do now is accept I've hit the barrier in terms of getting better sound quality. Hell my new setup is certainly better than my previous 2.1 creative pcworks setup! Downloading vbr albums from bit-torrent does have a noticable sound quality improvement about it. Not sure precisely what, more dynamic and balanced I think.
Be careful with that high end stuff...very engaging and once you notice nuances in the recording and how good it can sound, you may find yourself wanting more and your present gear is no longer adequate.
I doubt that your speakers are the weak link, the source is the problem. The Wharfedales are pretty good speakers and capable of reproducing what you feed them. That is the key...what you feed them.
I know exactly what you mean with the effect of compression on treble and sibilance. Once compressed, a silky smooth voice will be turned into a very harsh screech. Guitar chords seem to be hitting aluminum foil. Horrible stuff!
Borrow a nice uncompressed music format. Listen to it, then rip it and compress it to the smallest allowable bitrate. Check if you can hear the difference. I ask that you do the extremes so you emphasize the compression and what it really does to a digital recording. Listen and compare.
""much" being the key word. Something is better than nothing. I'll tell you if I notice a difference or not! "
Have at it. I would say no difference, but I'm not in the mood for arguing about magical cables today.
"You say my speakers are a weakness..you think?"
They're good for the money, dont get me wrong. If your source were good *and* you still needed more detail, I would say upgrade the speakers before upgrading wiring. Assuming wiring makes a difference, even those who claim it does won't claim it is on the order of magnitude of switching from low end to higher end wharfedales, or using a better source.
The word 'compression' is a misnomer. 'Compression' implies that all the information in the original file is compressed into an mp3 or aac file. Not so, hence the current vernacular of 'lossy compression' versus 'lossless compression'. What needs to be understood is that in the typical 128bit MP3 file, fully 4/5ths of the original signal is thrown away and only 1/3rd to 1/5th is kept (depending on content). This is why the 'compressed' MP3 file is so small in comparison to the fully fledged version. It's amazing that the result is understandable with that rate of loss.
Now in terms of 'lossy compression', you have various algorithms. MP3 is quite an old algorithm and therefore it took off, becoming the de facto standard for storing music files in the smallest size. Also, since solid state MP3 players were so small (typically 512MB), people used the smallest filesize that was still listenable - 128bit MP3! The rate and the algorithm were chosen because there wasn't really much of an alternative and so its adoption became widespread. People also wanted to share the files (illegally for the most part) so they simply latched onto the de facto standard. MP3 players were so-called because all they would play were MP3 files, nothing else.
The iPod changed all that. The iPod is really a format-free device. In other words, it's a disc with an operating system that can run any algorithm it likes. In order to beat the MP3 brigade they made it a very good device but they also developed Apples proprietary AAC algorithm. Since they'd had a few years to learn where MP3 got it wrong, the AAC algorithm is appreciably better than the MP3 for a given bitrate. In fact AAC is so good that for example, 128bit AAC is better than 192bit MP3! So now an iPod user had the ability to share files in the MP3 world and use AAC for treasured recordings they had actually bought.
Apple also developed Apple's Lossless algorithm. This took a full CD (typically 650MB) and compressed it without losing any of the information to abut 400MB. When an iPod is used in a decent system with lossless compression, it can sound quite a bit better than an entry level dedicated CD player. If used with AAC 192bit it sounds worse but still good. With 128bit MP3, it's an obviously digital 'compressed' signal but it's listenable.
Computer discs are really quite cheap now - 250GB can be had for around £100. That would hold - in lossless format (whether WMA or Apple) - around 500 full albums. In a high bitrate compressed format you're looking at thousands of albums. If you can obtain better quality versions of the music, and accepting that losing most of the signal with those MP3 files is your real weak point, you could improve your sounds far more effectively than by changing amp/speakers.
Another area many people don't consider ion this is the quality of the computer's sound card. They do sound different, just as CD players do. Good brand names to consider would be M-Audio who have sound cards from £50 to £hundreds and I recently found Lexicon (makers of high end DSP processors) make a multi-channel sound card for around £230.
If you invest in the source and the files, you will get better results. At the very least, check it out by obtaining lossless (or at least better) versions of some of the things you have already and playing them. Try more than one album, preferably from different labels since different albums are mastered to various degrees of quality (Red Hot Chilli Peppers albums are unfortunately not one of the better ones).
I am aware about the high end systems and fear how addicted I may become. For now as a student my system to me is amazing compared to my last and I wont be upgrading my speakers or amp anytime soon. Your description Berny on sibilance is a good way to put it. Thats what I was trying to get across, I know that it SHOULD sound better and wondering how. Thankfully, this topic and all your help has made it clearer to me.
I suppose the deed is done Stephen. The qed silver xt is on its way. It probably will be a waste of £15 :S
Source source source. I've overlooked it. I think when I thought of source I thought of soundcards, not the music itself! And one things for sure, I didnt know how much compression an mp3 undertook. The figures, Frank, you stated amaze me. My soundcard is pretty good I would say. I've had the e-mu 0404 for a year and a half now, its a bit leanient to the top end but it certainly brings out detail. You mentioned the m-audio, I nearly bought the 24/96 but went for the emu instead. I've just bought a subwoofer (ruark vita 50), so currently Im skint! I was under the impression Apple lossless was quite poor. Flac, and WMA which the ipod don't support are better. AAC is good though right, so I think what I'll do is actually perhaps buy some albums and find lossless real versions like you said. Buy an external hard-drive, use that for my music and format it in AAC for my ipod.
I feel upconverted in a sense. Infact going to used cd stores isnt such a bad idea! Probably easier to find a site that sells tracks for like 1p each though! Yes Berny, probably why JJ is using p2p.
Sorry to spoil your expectations of my expectations. But I hooked up some silver anniversary xt today. DEFINATELY a difference. The sound isnt so harsh which the gale was. Listening to music is much more enjoyable. Secondly detail is prounced more, through better separation and soundstage. Drums and high frequncies, infact really the whole audio spectrum is faster and more balanced. Instead of listening to my speakers, its more like listeing to the music as my speakers are more 'invisibile'. The sound is a bit bright but not in the harsh kind of way, there's now depth more depth. The detail is vastly better and guitars sound like part of the music, not squeely!
Just to put you right on one thing, WMA is actually an excellent format, as is Apple Lossless. WMA is more universal in the PC market, and it's arguably better than Apple Lossless in that application, so don't feel you have to use Apple Lossless or AAC (although DO feel you should use AAC if you want to use lossy compression).
I am having fun with my new toys, my new ruark vita 50 is now here and its quite amazing!
I have my 'dream system' now for my bedroom and for what I can afford. I think i've done a good job.
Cheers Frank, any cds I rip onto my hard drive at the moment will be in wma format and formatted in AAC for my ipod! Seems like the best solution! I dont have much hard drive space to be ripping cds in flac etc. I cant tell the difference between flac or a high biterate wma anyway so flac is pointless.
